AN EVALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL ADOPTION BY NGÖBE …...the Ngöbe in Bocas del Toro and some cultural values. Finally, I describe the community of Chalite where I conducted my research

AN EVALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL ADOPTION BY NGÖBE FARMERS IN CHALITE, PANAMÁ

By:

Russell Slatton

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FORESTRY

MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

2004

ii

The thesis “An Evaluation of Agricultural Adoption by Ngöbe Farmers in Chalite,

Panamá “ is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FORESTRY.

School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science

Signatures:

Advisor:_______________________________________ Blair D. Orr Dean:________________________________________ Margaret R. Gale Date: _________________________________

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………... iv LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………….………....... vii PREFACE………………………………………………………………………...... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………... x CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION……………………………………………........ 1 CHAPTER 2 - Background........................................................................................ 4

Panamá at a Glance……………………………………………………….... 4 Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé and Bocas del Toro (Nö-Kribo)………………….. 15 Chalite…………………………………………………………………........ 25 CHAPTER 3 - TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LITERATURE REVIEW ………... 37

CHAPTER 4 - METHODOLOGY............................................................................ 48 Stage I………………………………………………………………………. 48 Stage II……………………………………………………………………... 51 CHAPTER 5 - CHALITE AND PATRONATO DE NUTRICIÓN 59 Local Farm Systems………………………………………………………... 59 The Patronato Farm ……………………………………………………....... 74 CHAPTER 6 - ADOPTION OF AGRICULTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN CHALITE......................................................................................... 99 Adoption of Individual Agricultural Technologies……….………………...... 99

Adoption Overview………..……………………………………………….. 121 CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: GO SMALL OR THEY WILL GO FISHING................................... 126 LITERATURE CITED…………………………………………………………….. 132

iv

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Map of Central America………………………………………….…… 5 FIGURE 2. General map of Panamá………….…………………………...……….. 11 FIGURE 3. Comarca regions map …………………………………………...…… 19 FIGURE 4. Political Map of the comarca …………. ………………………..……. 21 FIGURE 5 Guariviara Region, Panamá ……………………………………....…… 26 FIGURE 6. Sketch map of Chalite, Panamá ……………………………………….. 27 FIGURE 7. Little meris (women) wearing nagwas …………………………….….. 29 FIGURE 8. Teachers at the school………... ……………………………………….. 30 FIGURE 9. Our boat carrying supplies upriver ……………………..…………….. 31 FIGURE 10. A kept path to the river……... ………………………………………... 32 FIGURE 11. Rancho in the back of a house………………………………..……….. 34 FIGURE 12. Water tank of Chalite…….. ………………...………………………… 34 FIGURE 13. Slash and mulch system for corn ……………………………………... 36 FIGURE 14. Household of the farmer ………….……………………………….… 61 FIGURE 15. Farmer selling pifa ………………………………………………..….. 63 FIGURE 16. Farm with bananas and trees overhead ……………………………….. 66 FIGURE 17. Border between two farms …………………..………………………… 66 FIGURE 18. Woman using a shovel to dig up ñame (yam) ………………………… 67 FIGURE 19. Totuma palm on fire at edge of new area to plant rice ………………... 69 FIGURE 20. Woman winnowing rice …………………………………………..…... 70 FIGURE 21. Slash and burn hillside farming ……...……………………………….. 71 FIGURE 22. Rainfall and agricultural calendar of Bocas del Toro …………..…….. 72

v

FIGURE 23. Kate and I standing in the farm overlooking Chalite …………...…….. 77 FIGURE 24. Sketch map of the Patronato Farm program in Chalite ………..…….... 79 FIGURE 25. Men learning how to use an A-frame in Alto Guayabo ………..…….. 81 FIGURE 26. Experiment with canavalia intercropped with rice ………………..….. 82 FIGURE 27. Rhizobium nodules found on canavalia roots ………………..……….. 83 FIGURE 28. View of rice tank in the Patronato farm in Chalite ………………….. 84 FIGURE 29. Line of pineapple in a farm ………….………………………………... 84 FIGURE 30. Chicken coop in Dudori…………... ………………………………….. 86 FIGURE 31. Duck pond in the Patronato farm, Chalite ……………………...…….. 86 FIGURE 32. Fish pond ……………………………………….…………………….. 87 FIGURE 33. Fish harvest for one family……….. ………………………………….. 87 FIGURE 34. Pigs in the pen…………………….. ………………………………….. 88 FIGURE 35. Pipe from pig pen leading to fish tank ………………….…………….. 88 FIGURE 36. Teak plantation in Caño Sucio ………………….…………………….. 89 FIGURE 37. Area cleared to plant banana in the Patronato farm in Chalite ……….. 90 FIGURE 38. Patronato buying banana seed to plant in the farm ………………….... 90 FIGURE 39. Area on farm weeded for coffee trees ………….…………………….. 91 FIGURE 40. Manioc growing in lines with compost around stems ……………….. 92 FIGURE 41. Dachin (taro root) growing in the Patronato farm ……………………. 93 FIGURE 42. Raised garden beds to grow beans, cucumber, and tomatoes………… 93 FIGURE 43. Kate and Willy raising cucumber vines up off the ground …………... 94 FIGURE 44. Small tree nursery made at the school …………………………….….. 95 FIGURE 45. Drainage ditch at the Patronato farm ……………………………...….. 95

vi

FIGURE 46. Patronato province leader Irving Candadero and area ………………… 96 technical leader Alfredo Guerra visiting the farm FIGURE 47. Farm activities chart……………… ………………………………….. 98 FIGURE 48. A Ngöbe chicken hideaway ………………………………………….. 107 FIGURE 49. Pig pen made of bamboo for a pregnant pig ………………………..... 111 FIGURE 50. An overgrown coffee nursery grown for Patronato …………………. 115 FIGURE 51. Old bowl used as a seed starter ……………………………………….. 120

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Interview Questions- Household characteristics………………...………53 Table 2. Interview Questions - Farm Characteristics ………………..…...………54 Table 3. Interview Questions - Agricultural Technology Questions.………..… 55 Table 4. Example of SAS output data………………...………………………… 57 Table 5. Extension Agent Questions………………….……………...………… 57 Table 6. List of Crops grown on an average farm near the river………..……… 64 Table 7. List of agricultural technologies observed on the………………………. 80 Patronato farm in Chalite Table 8. Agricultural chemicals used in the Patronato farm program………..… 85 Table 9. Selected variables correlated with adoption of contours….…….….… 99 Table 10. Selected variables correlated with adoption of manures. ……...……… 101 Table 11. Selected variables correlated with adoption of pineapple management. 103 Table 12. Selected variables correlated with adoption of agricultural chemicals... 105 Table 13. Selected variables correlated with adoption of chicken coops…...…... 105 Table 14. Selected variables correlated with adoption of duck pens…………… 107 Table 15. Selected variables correlated with adoption of fishponds…………..… 109 Table 16. Selected variables correlated with adoption of pig pens...…………… 110 Table 17. Selected variables correlated with adoption of non-native tree species..112 Table 18. Selected variables correlated with adoption of banana management…. 113 Table 19. Selected variables correlated with adoption of coffee management…... 114 Table 20. Selected variables correlated with the adoption ………………………. 116 of manioc management Table 21. Selected variables correlated with adoption of taro root management.. 117

viii

Table 22. Selected variables correlated with adoption of gardens…….……….… 118 Table 23. Selected variables correlated with adoption of nurseries….…….……. 119 Table 24. Selected variables correlated with adoption of drainage……...……… 120 Table 25. Farmers adoption of agricultural technologies………………......….... 119 Table 26. Positive indicators of adoption………………......……....................… 123 Table 27. Negative indicators of adoption………………......……....................…124

ix

PREFACE

I remember climbing through the mountains in Mendicino County as a young

boy. I had my knife on my hip and a small bag with food in it. The knife was one of those

Rambo knives with a compass on the bottom end. You could unscrew the bottom to find

fishing lines and hooks. I would hike around fishing for small brook trout and after a long

day, walk home and sleep in my tent outside. I have always liked to be outside and

luckily, unlike my father and his father, I was not meant to be a Civil Engineer.

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I dedicate this paper to my grandfather, Donald Silveria, who passed away while I

was serving my Peace Corps service in Panama. He encouraged me as Kid Karaoke and I

will forever be in debt for his strength.

I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who have helped me on

my way. Blair Orr, my advisor, has been a source of uncanny wit, strength, and

knowledge. Without Blair reminding me that I could stay another semester, I would never

have finished. I thank the Peace Corps staff and fellow researcher Jason Cochran for his

encouragement. I especially thank the community of Chalite. Forever, I will be known in

Panamá as Chodi. I have learned much from them and can only hope my paper will help

in some small way. I wish to thank all my friends and family who have supported me and

wondered what exactly I was doing and I would like to tell my wife Kate Lincoln, I am

lucky to have a partner like you.

1

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

"I like it here, I want to live here all my life and be a farmer. I am free here and

can do what I want. People do not kill each other here, and I always have a home. My

family is here, and so no, I do not want to work in the city. I want to stay here, in Chalite

for all of my life". A moment in time as I sit on my small porch talking to a seventeen

year old boy. I have asked him about life here in Chalite. Does he like it? Does he want to

stay here? I tell him I find the life hard. Always backbreaking work and I do not

understand why people do not embrace ways that can help them. In fact, they would

rather go fishing than listen to a seminar about green manures and ways to improve their

farms. Perhaps he is right and I just do not understand the freedom they have.

I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Panama. I lived in the community of Chalite,

Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé, Ño-Kribo, Guariviara from October 21, 2002 until June 21, 2004.

My job was to work with a non-governmental organization called Paronato de Nutrición

to provide technical and organizational assistance to the farmers involved in the program

and village. The farmers I worked with live in poverty with little cash income and

subsistence agriculture is their main means of living.

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether farmers are adopting

agricultural technologies because of the Patronato farm program. From experience, I

believed the combination of current indigenous technologies combined with outside

agricultural technologies would cause more adoption. I researched variability in attributes

such as wealth, education, and experience to investigate adoption of agricultural

technologies.

2

In chapter two, I discuss Panama, the semiautonomous region of the indigenous

Ngöbe, and the community I worked and studied in, Chalite. I give a brief historical

background of Panama from a political and agricultural perspective. I explain what the

Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé is and how it was formed. I further discuss the basic farming of

the Ngöbe in Bocas del Toro and some cultural values. Finally, I describe the community

of Chalite where I conducted my research.

In chapter three, I give a brief discussion of agricultural technology adoption

literature. In the literature review, I raise relevant issues pertaining to agricultural

technology adoption and how other studies have investigated agricultural adoption and

some results of those studies. I introduce some of the reasons for the new agricultural

technologies and explain them. I proceed to introduce agricultural adoption studies

conducted in Panama.

Chapter four is a complete description of my methodology. I decided to study

adoption of agricultural technologies in a holistic framework, or farm systems research. I

introduce reasons why I used surveys, participant observation, meetings, and interviews

and how I carried them out. Each method is explained in detail and describes how the

data were gathered and will be presented.

Chapter five describes the average farmer and Patronato farm program in Chalite.

In the first section, I use results from the survey and observation to create a picture of the

average farmer and farm technologies. I then describe the Patronato farm program and

present a description of the national and regional program. Furthermore, I describe the

history of the farm program in Chalite and how the farmers worked on the farm. I then

introduce the eighteen agricultural technologies identified in the farm program.

3

Chapter six presents and discusses the adoption rates of the agricultural

technologies and reasons for adoption or non-adoption. Each agricultural technology

using selected Pearson correlation coefficients from a SAS analysis with perspectives

from farmers, interviews, meetings, and observations of the work done on the Patronato

farm. The chapter ends with a general overview of reasons why Ngöbe farmers are more

likely to adopt some technologies than others.

I conclude the study with an analysis of the findings in my study as compared to

the literature in agricultural adoption studies. An overview of the study is made and

recommendations follow.

4

CHAPTER 2 –BACKGROUND

PANAMÁ AT A GLANCE

From Spanish domination to the release of the Panamá Canal to

Panamánian authorities, Panamá, known as "Plenty of Fish" to the indigenous peoples,

has been the connecting region between North and South America (Black and Flores

1989) (Figure 1). As a former Spanish colony the majority of the population is Spanish

speaking with Caribbean influences and seven indigenous languages. According to the

2000 Panamánian Census, Panamá is populated with 3.1 million people and Panamá City

contains about one third of the population. It is a country slightly smaller than South

Carolina with a total area of 78,200 sq. km. (30,193 sq. mi.) (U.S. Department of State

2004).

History

The Spanish first landed in Panamá in the year 1501 from the Caribbean Sea.

The region was used as a major trade route since it lay as one of the shortest distances

between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. They found a fairly large population of

indigenous peoples, some of who wore earrings of beaten gold, signifying to the Spanish

there was a large supply of gold to be found. Vasquez Nuñez de Balboa, one of the first

Spanish mayors in the town of Antigua on the Caribbean coast, tried to understand and

cooperate with the indigenous peoples. He discovered the site of Panama City after

traveling through the mosquito ridden tropical forest and arrived at the Pacific

5

Figure 1: Map of Central America

ocean to declare all that he saw part of the Spanish Kingdom. Although he was famous

in Panamá his enemies were plenty. He was charged with treason in 1517 by the new

governor known as “Pedrarias the Cruel” and was executed the same year (Howarth

1966).

During the next 300 years, the Spanish used Panamá as a trade zone. Africans

were brought in by the French, Portuguese, English, and Dutch to be sold as slaves. It

was the only form of trade not taxed by the Spanish. After the successful example of the

political uprising in Colombia, the Panamanians began to stir, and voices of

independence were heard. In the province of Veraguas the people of a town called Los

6

Santos (City of Saints) raised their voices first to declare independence. The official date

of independence was November 28, 1821. Panamá became a part of Gran Colombia with

the other newly freed colonies Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (Black

and Flores 1989).

In the 1800s, the United States, England, and France considered constructing a

canal across Panamá. However, before the Canal was built a group of New York

investors formed the Panamá Railroad Company to build a railroad across the Isthmus. It

was completed in 1855, following the same path as the future Canal. In 1879 the French

obtained the rights to build the Canal across Panamá. The French company officially

began construction in 1880 and by 1889 the company was bankrupt. They had finished

two-fifths of the excavation and essential buildings but had to liquidate their assets. Much

of the workforce was sent back home to the Caribbean Islands; some stayed and worked

on the Canal with the United States (Avery 1915).

After the French had gone bankrupt, a key French official named Philippe Bunau-

Varilla convinced the Panamánian government to separate from Colombia. Because

Colombia was having political problems, the relations with Panamá had weakened. With

the support of President Roosevelt’s Navy, Panamá could separate from Colombia. This

allowed the United States to negotiate directly with the new government of Panamá and

not Colombia. However the hostile action towards Colombia would contradict the

Bidlack-Mallarino Treaty of 1848, which guaranteed protection for Colombian interests

by United States forces during times of duress. The treaty was ignored and the

Frenchman Bunau-Varilla acted as the Panamánian representative and signed the new

treaty with the United States. Secretary of State John Hay signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla

7

Treaty on November 13, 1903, separating Panamá from Colombia. The United States

Senate ratified the final treaty in 1904, granting land and water rights necessary to build

the Canal with eminent domain within the area of the future Canal. In 1914 the first ship

sailed through the Panamá Canal (Anguizola 1980)

After the construction of the Panamá Canal, additional treaties increased the

power the United States had within the Canal Zone and Panamá. In 1958 students

opposed the United States government occupation and in 1959 there were demonstrations

to raise a Panamánian flag in the Canal Zone. Raising the Panamánian flag within the

Canal Zone meant to the students that the United States respected Panama's sovereignty.

Rioting resulted again in 1964 when the flag was raised below the United States flag,

resulting in twenty deaths and three days of violence. Throughout these years the Canal

represented the occupation of Panamá by the United States government. Many poems and

essays were written about Panama's sovereignty and the United States occupation (Black

and Flores 1989).

In 1968 General Omar Torrijos, the National Guard Chief, took control of Panamá

in a coup by the National Guard to overthrow the populist Arnulfo Arias. Presidents were

"elected", but no one was mistaken as to who was in charge (Koster and Sanchez 1991).

After several years of negotiation with the United States, a new treaty was drawn up. In

1977 Torrijos signed an agreement with President Jimmy Carter to release full control of

the Canal to Panamá in 1999.

In the 1970s General Torrijos attempted to place schools in the indigenous areas

and help Panamá increase its agricultural production through a land distribution scheme

that would redistribute 500,000 hectares to poor people. By 1978 over 18,000 families

8

(about 12 percent of rural families in the 1970 census) had access to either individual

plots or collectively held land as a result of the redistribution. During the 1970s Torrijos

also attempted to promote collective farm programs where the farmers would all work

together on a collective farm to produce and sell. However, by 1980, most of the

collective groups had dissolved. Smallholder farmers accounted for 58.9 percent of the

farms that had an annual income below US$200 (Black and Flores 1989).

After the death of Omar Torrijos in 1981 from a plane crash, Manuel Noriega

gained control in 1984 as the new General Commander of the Panamanian government.

He had risen in the ranks under Torrijos as a trusted advisor and general. According to

Koster (1990) he helped control the western region of Chiriquí. He became known as a

tyrant to the United States government and was removed on Christmas 1989 (United

States Department of State 1989). After the removal, the Panamánian government

officially became a democratic state. In December of 1999, Panamá finally gained full

control of the Canal as promised in the treaty of 1977 (CIA 2003).

The rise of Panama as an independent state has been one of trial and strife. The

dominance of the Panama Canal as Panamas major resource has overshadowed other

important issues of development such as agricultural reform, smallholder farmers, and

indigenous peoples issues. The country of Panama has focused on the Canal and

indigenous groups such as the Ngöbe-Buglé have largely been ignored as they do not

directly affect the Canal's watershed area. Understanding Panama's culture of the Canal

is key to the understanding of people's attitudes and sense of history, aiding development

efforts.

9

Current Political State

The elected President of Panamá in the year 2004 is Martin Torrijos of the

Democratic Revolutionary Party (DRP). He is the son of General Omar Torrijos who was

the general commander of Panamá from 1968 to 1981. Martin took office on September

2, 2004, continuing the representative democracy. An executive and legislative branch is

elected every five years with a Judiciary appointed by the president and approved by the

legislature (U.S. Department of State 2004). The political party which wins the election

usually removes people from the government offices according to a person's political

affiliation, causing a break down in government services during the transition period

from June to September. In many cases it means that even an extension worker who has

worked for an agency for ten years, but is affiliated with the losing party, loses his job. In

terms of development, institutional memory is weakened and high turnover occurs every

five years.

The East-West country of Panamá is divided into nine provinces. They are

Darién, Panamá, Colón, Coclé, Los Santos, Herrera, Veraguas, Chiriquí, and Bocas del

Toro, where I lived (Figure 2). Each of these provinces has a governor and legislative

representatives for each district in the region. Within each district there are

corregimientos (municipal districts) which each have an elected representative within the

province. Three major indigenous areas or comarcas have limited political sovereignty

within the government of Panamá: the Ngöbe-Buglé (Western provinces), in which I

lived, Emberá-Wounaan (Eastern provinces), and the Kuna Yala (North Eastern

provinces). Other indigenous groups include the Teribe and Bri-Bri, which are both

located near the western border with Costa Rica (PNB 2002).

10

Economy

The United States dollar is the official currency of Panama. The estimated

average income is US $4,020 (World Bank 2002). The GNI (Gross Net Income) per

capita is high for Central America and does not demonstrate the financial difficulties in

many parts of the country where 40% of the population lives below the poverty line

(BBC 2004). For example the average person in Chalite, where I lived, earns $447 per

year. Panamá earns 77% of its GDP from the services sector, centered in Panamá City

and the Panamá Canal. The industrial sector earns 17.7% of the GDP. It consists

primarily of construction, petroleum refining, brewing, cement, other construction

materials and sugar milling, are the leading industries.

Eight percent of the GDP comes from agriculture (CIA 2003). Thirty-seven

percent of the population lives in rural areas, while the rest live in urban areas (ANAM

2004). In the last twenty years, the urban population has doubled from 917,000 to 1.7

million people who are searching for improved services such as health, water, and

employment. High population increases in the urban centers have caused a deficit of

200,000 houses and increased pressures on environmental services such as air quality,

water, and sanitation.

11

Figure 2: General Map of Panamá

12

Climate, Environment, and Agriculture

Panamá was formed by volcanic intrusions. Uplift created the central mountain

range called the Cordillera Central. The Cordillera central is actually made up of three

mountain rages from west to east; the Cordillera de Talamanca, Serranía de Tabasará, and

the Sierra de Veraguas. The highest point is the volcano Volcan Baru at 3475 meters

(11,468 feet). The Cordillera Central divides the country into two distinct climate

regions: the Caribbean and the Pacific. Climate on the Pacific region is tropical with a

pronounced rainy season from December through April. The Caribbean region of the

Isthmus is considered Humid Tropics with a year long wet season (Kluck 1985). Rainfall

on the Caribbean side is usually twice the Pacific side, ranging between one and three

meters (Hidrometeorologia 2004). Topography and rain creates nearly 500 rivers that run

from the existing watersheds. Temperature rarely deviates from a range of 24o C to 29oC.

Though the country lies outside the hurricane track, intensive rainfall still damages crops

and causes erosion (Kluck 1985).

Panama is the fourth most biologically diverse nation in Central and North

America. It has over 12,000 species of flora, 259 species of mammals, 957 species of

birds, 229 species of reptiles, and 179 species of amphibians. More than fifty new species

of mammals and birds have been discovered in the past six years. However deforestation

is affecting Panamas forest cover. From 1947 to 2000, the total forest coverage in

Panama has fallen from 70% to 45% at 3,364,591 hectares, a loss of 1,880,409 hectares.

Much of the loss is due to the expansion of shifting agriculture in the more remote areas

such as Bocas del Toro. Usually the farmers come from the higher density regions such

as Veraguas that have been extensively deforested and land is converted for pastures

13

(ANAM 2004, Fischer 2000). After the land is degraded and ceases to produce, it is

usually sold to cattle ranchers (Fischer 2000). Reforested areas are usually monoculture

plantations of teak (Tectona grandis) and Caribbean pine (Pinus caribe). Large

landholders own most of the plantations and receive 100% exoneration on taxes for

imported equipment and future revenue to reforest land (Asamblea Legislative 1992).

There are 2,454,120 hectares of land under the protection of national parks, forest

reserves, and other forms (ANAM 2004).

Approximately 21% of the population works in agriculture growing bananas, rice,

corn, coffee, sugarcane, vegetables, and livestock (WRI 2004). Because of the high

rainfall, the soils are susceptible to nutrient loss. ANAM (2004) reports 45% of the soils

are classified as category VII and 19.4% category VIII (eroded and degraded). Only 2.4%

are considered arable. According to FAOSTAT (2002) in the year 2000, Panama had

655,000 hectares of arable and permanent croplands out of a total landmass of 7,443,000

hectares. Of the 655,000 hectares, 500,000 hectares were arable while 35,000 hectares

were irrigated. Bananas accounted for 46% of the total agricultural export value. Cattle

accounted for 5.1% and cigar cheroots 11.7%. Other exports include sugar, cantaloupe,

coffee, and vegetables. Of the 387.1 million dollars of agricultural imports, 12.3% were

food preparation, 8% were maize, and 5.7% were soybean cake. Other agricultural

imports were wheat, cereals, cheese, and rice. The deficit between the agricultural exports

and imports was 64.4 million dollars.

Subsistence agriculture occupies 1,834,000 hectares of land. Most subsistence

farming is a slash and burn system where the farmer prepares a piece of land by cutting

unwanted trees, shrubs, and grasses with a machete and axe. After cutting the farmer lets

14

the cut vegetation dry and then burns the dry vegetation. Crops are then planted after the

burning of the material (ANAM 2004). Burning is a fast way of releasing nutrients from

the burnt organic matter, laying ash on top of the soil so the crops can easily access the

nutrients available (USAID 1974). However, with population pressure and shortage of

arable land, farmers are moving to new land every two years instead of the twelve to

twenty years required to replenish the soil.

Eight percent of the farmers are considered large landholders owning more than

200 hectares. They control 37% of the cultivated land. Even with mechanization and

chemical fertilizers they still burn their fields. Forty-seven percent of the farmers work

less than one hectare of land and control one-half percent of agricultural lands under

production (Fischer 2000). After the farmer has finished farming land, they often will

rent the land to a cattle owner. In 2004 there were about one million acres dedicated to

pasture (ANAM 2004).

Of the indigenous cultures of Panama, the Ngöbe-Bugle now has the largest

population at 180,000 (PNB 2002. As their population increases and more pressure is put

on their lands, outside organizations are attempting to help the Ngöbe-Buglé sustainably

develop. With the different agencies interacting with Ngöbe-Buglé, a movement to

understand their culture has arisen. Many development agencies come with a

preconceived understanding of the Ngöbe-Buglé people, and act accordingly. The

agencies come and go, yet rarely does one agency know what the others have done or are

doing. The Ngöbe-Buglé reach to find the right future, which includes knowing the right

past.

15

COMARCA NGÖBE-BUGLÉ AND BOCAS DEL TORO (NÖ-KRIBO)

The Ngöbe-Buglé were known as the Guaymí until the 1980s. The word Guaymí

was a mistranslation by the Spanish when they heard the Buglé, or Muri, call the Ngöbe

NGWANMY. It was misunderstood by the Spanish and pronounced Guaymí (PNB

2000). I will use the phrase Ngöbe-Buglé in place of the older word Guaymí. The

Spanish thought the Ngöbe and Buglé were the same people. However they are two

distinct groups (Young 1971). The name Guaymí is currently used as their sub-family

name under the language group macro-Chibcha. Ngöbe and Buglé are two distinct groups

of Guaymí (SIL International 2004). Ngöbe and Buglé were oral languages.

History

Before the Spanish arrived little was known about the lifestyle and organization of

the Ngöbe-Buglé. Some pottery has been found in the Chiriquí and Bocas del Toro

provinces, but there is not much information about who made it (Cook 1982).

Christopher Columbus first visited the Ngöbe-Buglé people in 1502 on the Caribbean

side of Panamá near Almirante (Young 1971). The Spanish frequently attempted to

govern the indigenous peoples in the remote areas such as Bocas del Toro. In the

narrations of the expedition of Espinosa, frequent contact was made with the people of

the Caribbean coast, but due to the acephalous nature of the people, the Spanish colonists

could not exercise much control (Bort and Young 1985). However, in 1578 Capitan

Pavón took possession of the Valley of the Ngöbe-Buglé, an area extending from

16

Almirante to Cricamola (Martinelli 1993). During the 17th and 18th century further

expansion into the Guaymí areas resulted in deaths from disease and some of the

indigenous population moved to the mountains. During the 18th century the Spanish

placed a local system of governors in the Ngöbe-Buglé area. It was an attempt to create

hierarchal leadership instead of the kinship based political structure the people were using

(Bort and Young 1985).

Information about life of the Ngöbe-Buglé before the 20th century is limited. The

information available tends to point towards a system still used in many parts of Ngöbe-

Buglé society today. People lived in dispersed hamlets, which formed without a central

community structure (Fray Adrian Ufelder 1682 as cited in Young 1971 and Martinelli

1993). Fray Blas José Franko (1882) observed that the Ngöbe- Buglé had a chief with a

lieutenant during times of war. However, during times of peace the "Chief" was hardly

distinguishable from the other people. They were essentially men who had respect within

their family (Martinelli 1993). Young (1971) states that Johnson (1948a) also observed a

chief (cacique), elected by elders in the Ngöbe-Buglé culture. Bort and Young (1985)

state the unorganized character of the people has made it difficult for outside forces to

influence them. However, in the 1950s and 1960s, with the arrival of schools, people

started to settle around the schools.

The Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé

In 1925, the Kuna of San Blas rebelled against the Panamánian Government and

demanded autonomous rights as a separate nation. In 1930, they were the first

Panamanian indigenous group to be recognized as a semiautonomous political state. The

17

San Blas Kuna have a recognized governing body and rules. They are also part of the

political structure of Panamá with representation in the legislature because of the

rebellion of 1925. In response to fears of more rebellion, the reservations of Cricamola,

Kusapin, and Bluefield were opened up to the Ngöbe-Bugle by the Panamanian

government in 1934 (PNB 2002). The Kuna Congress, a central group of caciques

(chiefs), was then created in 1945 (Vakis and Lindert 2000). The Kuna system was

looked on as an alternative government model to centralize the Ngöbe-Buglé leadership.

This was contrary to the acephalous character of the Ngöbe-Buglé (Bort and Young

1985).

Signs of change arose in 1961 with the rise of a new religion called Mama Chi.

The originator of the new religion was a young girl named Mama Chi who claimed to

have seen God. In this vision God told her to bring all Ngöbe-Buglé into the religion

within five years or there would be horrible consequences. The Ngöbe were not supposed

tell any outsiders about the religion. The religion attempted a complete withdrawal of

Ngöbe-Buglé society from outside influence and prohibited certain traditional customs

(Young 1978). One such custom included the Balseria, which was thought to be a harvest

festival that signified a plentiful year (Young 1971, Gordon 1982) or a marriage festival

where men would drink chicha fuerte (corn beer) and attempt to hit one another's legs

with large poles. Despite discouraging participation with outside agencies, the Mama-Chi

movement increased organization and participation of the younger generation in the

political process (Young 1971, 1978).

The Mama-Chi movement encouraged people to register births within their local

areas because the head of the corregimientos were also Ngöbe. It also opposed spousal

18

abuse. Young opportunists within the Mama Chi movement spurred political activity

within the Ngöbe-Buglé community when, during the late 1960s, there were increased

territorial pressures by outside agencies to open up a copper mine and build a

hydroelectric dam. They organized and showed caution against these projects because

they could lose control of their territory. Many of the Ngöbe-Buglé did not see the

projects in a positive light and felt the projects would have no effect or a negative effect

(Bort and Helms1983). The projects were eventually dropped due to cost restraints and

the Mama-Chi movements’ power only lasted until the early 1970s (Young 1978, 1979).

However, the Ngöbe-Buglé political movement was more organized and many were

calling for a comarca (Figure 3) similar to that of the Kuna.

In 1968 the Panamánian government in each province of Veraguas, Chiriquí, and

Bocas del Toro gave formal recognition of the Ngöbe-Buglé Caciques. In 1969 Lopez

organized the first national congress of the Ngöbe-Buglé and Wounnan. According to

Bort and Young (1985), the caciques were chosen without a general consensus of the

Ngöbe-Buglé. In essence, the Panamanian government had chosen the leaders. The Kuna-

based comarca, or semi-autonomous region that had been set-aside for the Ngöbe-Buglé

was finally approved and established in March 7, 1997 through Law 10 (Assemblea

Legislative 1997). Since the 1950s, the population has increased by 143,695 (PNB 2002).

In 2000, the population of the Ngöbe-Buglé was 169,130 (Panamá Census 2000) with

106,583 Ngöbe and Buglé persons living within the comarca boundaries.

19

Figure 3: Comarca Regions Map

20

The Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé is contained within the three provinces of Veraguas,

Chiriquí, and Bocas del Toro. The area chosen as the comarca was based on indigenous

populations and locations. They tend to live in the more remote areas, which is why the

comarca in the Chiriquí and Veraguas provinces does not reach to the Pacific Ocean.

The area decided upon has an area of 694,406 hectares. Currently it is being demarcated.

One also notices the Comarca does not have any major cities and little road access. The

Comarca is now separated into seven different districts of Besiko, Mirono, Nole Duima,

Müna, Ñürüm, Kankintú, and Kusapin in the three regions of Nidrín (Veraguas), Kodrí

(Chiriquí), and Ño-Kribo (Bocas del Toro) (Figure 4) (PNB 2002). A Cacique General

(General Chief) is elected for the Comarca. Each region elects a Cacique Regional

(Regional Chief), and each district elects a Cacique Local (District Chief).

These three positions are part of the Carta Organica, the governing document of

the general assembly. The second article of the Carta Organica states the Comarca is a

communal system; people cannot title their land (República de Panamá 1999). The

Cacique Locals name the Jefe inmediato (local boss) and the Vocero (voice), is named by

each individual community. The Caciques are supposed to work with the governor of the

Comarca, who is a Panamánian authority in the legislature (Assemblea Legislativa1997).

However because the Ngöbe-Bugle have been a kinship-based society, there is still some

confusion with the election of the traditional leaders and the powers they have within the

Comarca (Young 1979).

21

Figure 4: Political Regions of the Comarca

22

Although the Ngöbe-Buglé were and still remain largely a kinship based culture,

groups such as the Mami-Chi created leaders who in turn integrated themselves into

Latino culture. These leaders wanted to obtain power for themselves and in order to

achieve this they needed a hierarchal structure that can be governed. However, now

within the construct of the comarca, a traditional system for the Kuna but not for the

Ngöbe-Buglé, problems arise between factions of the Caciques and provincial governors.

This results in confusion, as average people do not know who is in charge. In 2002, an

election was held for the new Caciques, but not until 2004 did the Panamanian

government recognize the new traditional chieftains. Thus, during that interim period,

again the people of the comarca were neglected. The program I researched, Patronato de

Nutricion, works directly with Ngöbe farmers, and is affected by the political past of the

comarca.

Economy

The main economy of the Ngöbe-Buglé was and is subsistence agriculture

(Cabarrus 1979 as cited in Bourgis 1988). Before the Mama-Chi movement, when the

Ngöbe harvested more than their household needs, they would hold ritual activities such

as a wedding or harvest festival (Young 1979). They had little experience with time

constraints, cash, and living in a defined community area (Johnson 1948). During the

1950s many of the Ngöbe took their cayucos (dug out boats) and rowed to Almirante and

Changinola to work for the United Fruit Company, a subsidiary of the Chriquí Land

Company (Gordon 1982). Others went to Costa Rica and worked in the coffee

plantations. They worked as wage laborers who worked hard and earned little.

23

The institutionalized atmosphere changed some of the views of the Ngöbe in

terms of economy. Some people leave their towns to work in coffee farms from

September through December as low wage laborers. Road access to Bocas del Toro was

limited before 1984 and the main mode of transportation was by boat. This made it

difficult for development to occur in the Bocas region before the 1980s. After the road

from David to Chiriquí Grande was built in 1984 access was greater to the Bocas del

Toro area and Ngöbe were able to travel more quickly to work in the coffee plantations in

Costa Rica and Chiriquí (Bort and Young 1985). The roads opened up more activities

such as construction work. The road from Chiriquí Grande to the Inter-American

Highway was not built until 1997, opening the route all the way from David to

Changinola.

Development Agencies

Some confusion exists within the Panamanian institutions such as MIDA

(Ministry of Agriculture), ANAM (National Authority of the Environment), MINSA

(Ministry of Health), and MEDUC (Ministry of Education) about which agency has the

authority to work within the comarca. At this time the agencies are creating separate

institutions that only work within the Comarca. For example instead of just calling the

institution MIDA, it is called MIDA Comarcal. “The Project Ngöbe-Buglé” formerly

funded by FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), GTZ

(German Technical Cooperation), and JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) is

now funded by the World Bank to work in the comarca for sustainable agricultural

practices and indigenous arts marketing (PNB 2002). The Meso-America Biological

24

Corridor Project works with coastal communities to conserve biodiversity by

implementing different agricultural programs, such as enhanced cacao production

(ANAM 2001). A variety of other development programs exist in the comarca to help the

indigenous people of the Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé.

Ngöbe Agriculture Systems in Bocas del Toro

Bocas del Toro received over three meters of rain in 2003 (Hidrometeorología

2004). No real pronounced dry season exists within the Bocas del Toro province except

for a small period in September. In the past the region probably had large deposits of ash

deposited by volcanic actions but have by now been eroded (Gordon 1982). Soils in the

comarca range in classes of III, V, VI, VII, and VIII (PNB 2002). Unlike many other

parts of Panama, Bocas del Toro has more class III through V arable land but high

rainfall damages many crops. The classes VI through VIII are not considered arable. It is

a well-suited environment for the staple diet of banana and plantain.

The Ngöbe use a slash and burn agriculture system as well as a slash and mulch

in Bocas del Toro (Gordon 1982). The farms were usually left for a seven-year fallow

period along with a selective clearing of a new area to plant (Young 1971, Tollefson

1989). The main crops were yams (Dioscorea spp.), peach palm (Bactris gasipaeas

Kunth), corn (Zea mays), taro root (Xanthosoma violaceum), cacao (Theobroma cacao),

and coffee (Coffea arabica ) along with small game and fish. They utilize a variety of

forest tree and plant species that supplement their diet. The introduced species of

plantains (Musa paradisiaca) and bananas (Musa sapientum) became the staple food

source along with animal stock of cows, pigs, chickens, ducks and turkeys (Gordon 1982,

25

Young 1971, PNB 2002). Rice (Oryz sativa), another species introduced by Europeans, is

an important part of the Ngöbe diet. Cash crops are cacao, rice, peach palm, and coffee.

Cow pastures were increased in the 1960s as ranchers from Chiriquí came to work at the

Bocas Fruit Company. This increased more during the banana blight of the 1970s when

the Chiriquí Land Company invested in cattle. Smallholder farmers began to clear land

for their own cattle when they saw the company investing in the cattle. ANAM (2004)

stated an annual loss of 10000 (ha) of forested land due to the increase in pasture land,

banana plantations, and slash and burn agriculture.

Population pressures have increased more rapidly in Bocas del Toro in the last

twenty years because of the new roads. People have come from other parts of Panama to

take advantage of open land. The use of machetes, rifles, lights, and snorkeling

equipment and population pressures have depleted populations of wild game and fish

(Young 1971, Gordon 1982). Many of the Ngöbe people leave their farms to work in

plantations and have less time to work in their own farms. Much of the comarca in Bocas

del Toro is only accessible by foot or by boat, making transportation of goods difficult as

well as extension work. Agriculture remains the main source of food and funds for the

Ngöbe in the province of Bocas del Toro as well as the people of Chalite.

CHALITE

Chalite is located at N 8o52’0” W 82o2’0” in the province of Bocas del Toro,

Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé, district of Kankintu, in Guariviara county in zone Kö-jutare

(Wayhoo 2004, PNB 2001). The Guariviara region (Figure 5) has 5,368 people with a

26

density of 6.9 people per km2 in twenty-two small communities (ANAM 2002). The

Panamánian National census estimated 216 people live in Chalite (Panama Census 2000).

To reach Chalite one leaves from Chiriquí Grande out into the Chiriquí Bay and

then south up the Guariviara River, usually traveling in a small fifteen to eighteen foot

boat powered by a fifteen horsepower motor. The trip usually takes four hours when the

river is high. When the river is low and the boat must be pushed, it takes longer.

Figure 5: Guariviara Region

Map produced by Russell Slatton with data from Contalaria general de La republica de Panama, seccion de Cartografia, permssion obtained. Russell Slatton

27

Figure 6: Sketch map of Chalite

Map produced by Russell Slatton with data from Contalaria general de La republica de Panama, seccion de Cartografia, permssion obtained. Russell Slatton

28

Chalite lies between a small mountain to the south called Cerro Chalite (Figure 6) and

swampland to the north. It lies at an elevation of twenty meters (Wayhoo 2004) above sea

level. To the south one can see the high rising Cordillera (central mountain range of

Panamá) dividing the Isthmus.

While the official language of Panamá is Spanish, all of the people in Chalite

speak the indigenous language Ngäbere with a mixture of Spanish words. Most of the

older generation only speaks Ngäbere, making it difficult to communicate with the

younger people who do not like to speak Ngäbere. For example, an old grandmother told

me the young have no respect for the old because they have a hard time understanding the

young people when they talk in Spanish to them. The young people tend to ignore them,

especially if they were going to be sent to do something like collect wood. There were

many times while I was in my house and I heard “blite ngäbere” or “speak my language”,

not Spanish. The grandmother next door was speaking to the children, screaming and

playing all around her, talking only in Spanish.

History

The people of Chalite recite the story of a French gentleman with the name of

Chalite, who first formed the town in the 1950s. He moved where the central part of town

is and started to farm while taking up a wife. Many of the people moved to Chalite in the

1970s after retiring from the Bocas Fruit Company so they could have their farms and

pastures without the highly populated, deforested, area of the Cricamola River region.

People in Chalite are more traditional as compared to people in other towns near city

centers, although most of the time they do not wear the traditional Nagwa (Figure 7)

29

unless it is for a formal occasion. They also make Krä, bags woven of Kiga (Aechmea

magdalenae) and drink cacao during the full moon to keep away bad spirits.

Figure 7: Little meris (women) wearing nagwas

Education

In the 1950s and 1960s, some of the Ngöbe would send their children to the Afro-

Antillean families on Bocas Island to attend school (Young 1978). The children would

work for their room and board. Now many of the communities have a small school to

provide basic education. The Ministry of Education (MINSA) constructed a concrete

school in 1998 (Figure 8) and children are able to attend kindergarten through sixth

grade, but must to go to Changinola, Kusapin, Kankintu, or Chiriquí Grande if they wish

to receive any higher education. This proves difficult, because at the moment the nearest

30

of those secondary schools are four to eight hours away by boat. Some children are able

to attend by living with relatives in those areas. Primary school is free in Panamá, and the

Guariviara region has been a focus of the government. However the uniforms, paper,

pencils, and pens are not free, and tend to be prohibitively expensive. The teachers are

Latinos who come from other places in Panamá. This sometimes leads to communication

problems with language and cultural barriers. According to the Panama Census 2000,

one-third of the community had less than a third grade education.

Figure 8 : Teachers at the school

Transportation

Transportation to and from Chalite is by boat on the river Guariviara (Figure 9).

The nearest city is Chiriquí Grande, which provides bus service to and from Changinola

and David. Many people take the boat for a cost of four dollars to arrive in Chiriquí

31

Grande and then four dollars more to come back to Chalite. All transportation of goods

such as cattle, pifa, rice, and anything else is by boat or horse. The cost to transport

something is usually one dollar per sack, or one dollar per extra hundred pounds. Many

times people will pool their cash crops such as cacao (chocolate), to enable cheaper cost

of transport. It will weigh more but ends up costing less because there are fewer people

traveling. This varies with the level of trust between cooperating parties.

Figure 9 : Boat carrying supplies upriver

A large network of trails (Figure 10) exists in the Gauriviara area, connecting the

towns, farms, and pastures. These trails have developed over the years by people walking

32

and riding horses. The trails cross logs, rivers, banana fields, towns, and other various

landscapes to reach a destination. For example the nearest medical facility and phone

is about a two hour walk away with two log crossings, three stream crossings, and nine

barb wired fences to cross.

Figure 10: Kept path to the river

33

Infrastructure

Thirty-three inhabited houses are located in Chalite. Missionaries built sixteen of

the houses in 1992. The houses were all built of wood planks, concrete floors, and zinc

roofs, all paid for by the church. Houses not built by missionaries are usually built on

stilts with a wood floor and palm thatch roof. The houses are on stilts to avoid the mud,

rain, and dangerous critters. Wooden poles were set up with copper wire between the

houses that run to a diesel generator. Electricity was only available to the missionary-

built houses. However, the generator was damaged in the year 2000. A couple of years

after the missionaries built the houses many of the people built a rancho (palm thatch

covered building) in the back of the concrete floor house for a place to cook, pass the

time, and sleep (Figure 11). In the past people used vines to tie the palm thatch and wood

together but now there is cheap nylon twine and nails. The more affluent can obtain zinc

for their roofs.

A collection dam is located above the community in the stream and is surrounded

by forested lands The stream supplies running potable water. The funding for

construction of the dam and water tank came from a government organization (FES). The

people of the town have agreed not to cut down trees around the stream to protect it, but

the agreement is slowly eroding. Some have planted banana on the same hillside. PVC

tubes run from the dam to a storage tank (Figure 12) that lies on a hill above the

community. One tube runs from the tank to houses that have tubing running to them.

However, currently the dam is damaged and they run a 2.5” pipe directly from the stream

to the storage tank. People still get diarrhea and vomiting when they use other water

sources that contain viruses, amoebas, or parasites.

34

Figure 11: Rancho in the back of a house

Figure 12: Water tank of Chalite

35

Chalite has no health facility, phone, roads, or bridges. Most of the area is open

pastureland, secondary forest, and cultivated land (ANAM 2001). There is a large road

cut, which is not paved and is highly eroded leading from Cañazas #3 to the town of

Guabal near the rivers Daira and Guariviara. It is supposed to extend all the way eastward

to the large Ngöbe city of Kankintú, thereby opening up the heart of the area to

commerce and trade. The walk on the road is eight hours from Chalite to Cañazas.

Organizations

Four main organizations exist in Chalite. Padres de La Familia (Parents of the

Students) is a group formed by the school and teachers of the parents to help cook, pay

for food, and gather wood. The artesanias (crafts group), is formed of women who meet

to make chakaras (the traditional bags), discuss health issues and market goods. Proyecto

Ngöbe-Buglé, a project that was in the area in 1996 promoting sustainable agriculture

technologies and now has started again. Patronato de Nutricíon, a private Panamánian

NGO that creates communal farms attempting to feed people and promote sustainable

methods of farming. They send an extension worker once every two weeks to deliver

tools and supplies to the farm group. Other small groups include a sports club and water

committee.

Farming

The majority of farming in Chalite is a slash and burn system with some slash and

mulch (Figure 13). They grow rice, corn, plantains, bananas, peach palm, manioc, yams,

cacao, coffee, and a variety of herbaceous and tree species. Farming is conducted in the

36

three distinct areas of the swamp, river area, and hillsides. Swamps provide growing

areas for rice. Flooding of the river deposits sandy soils and nutrients to grow most of the

other crops. Hillsides are used more and more for crops. Decreased land access may be a

contributing factor. Cash crops are cacao and peach palm. Access to markets,

accessibility to land, and other factors limit the success of farmers in Chalite. Programs

such as Patronato de Nutricíon have attempted to provide improved sustainable farming

methods. They have tried to increase production and improve health through a program

developed to improve crop quality and production in a sustainable manner. Through the

farm program, the farmers should learn new agricultural technologies to improve their

own farms.

Figure 13: Slash and mulch system for corn

37

CHAPTER 3 – AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LITERATURE REVIEW

Patronato de Nutricíon is an NGO based in Panama endeavors to creates

“sustainable” farms in small rural communities. One of the goals of Patronato de

Nutricíon is to train the farmers in improved agricultural technologies, so in turn the

agricultural technology is transferred into the farmers farms. New agricultural

technologies are developed in order to raise the standard of living for families and

conserve the environment (Patronato de Nutricíon 2004 (c)). In the following chapter, I

will discuss the idea of agricultural technology adoption, the need for more sustainable

agricultural activities, a brief review of agricultural technologies, the study of agricultural

technology adoption, and examples from Panama. This literature review provides the

reader with a brief overview of agricultural technology adoption studies, why they are

important, and the basis for my study.

Agricultural Adoption

The study of technology transfer is referred to as adoption and diffusion (Feder

1985). Most agricultural adoption studies utilize discrete data in the form of yes or no to

utilize as statistical data. Continuous data is the extent of the adoption and how the

technology is spreading and changing, known as diffusion (Neil and Lee 1999, Mele and

Zakaria 2002). People will either adopt the new technology or not, and programs such as

Patronato de Nutricíon, that I worked with, attempt to help them adopt these new

technologies. One of the long term goals of these programs is to leave the farmers with

the ability to improve their farms after the development program ends (Bunch 1999).

38

Farmer’s Needs

The current form of agriculture for smallholder farmers in many developing

nations is the slash and burn or swidden-fallow system of farming. This involves clearing

a piece of land, burning the brush, and then planting a crop. The ash from the burn

provides readily available nutrients (Prinz 1986). Erosion is limited to the small areas that

are cleared for the crops. Farmers leave trees standing in the cleared areas for firewood,

building materials, or because it is too difficult to remove them (Ruf and Schroth 2004).

The fallow period allows the land to recuperate, and return the land to productive levels,

over a period of ten to twenty-five years, depending upon the specific area (Place and

Dewees 1999). With increases in population and land use, farmers are not able to leave a

field fallow for a long enough period of time to recuperate (Carrasco 1993, Godoy 2000,

Harwood 1996).

Harwood (1996) and Raintree (1986) state that slash and burn farming is a

starting point for evolving new pathways of agriculture, but warn not to focus on one

single aspect. With natural resources becoming scarcer, poor land management accounts

for much of the environmental damage (Neil and Lee 1999). Natural resources are seen

as expendable by many (Allen et al. 1991) and activities such as clearing land for cattle

and growing monocultures in areas like Central America are increasing (Harwood 1996).

With pressure to protect the environment, produce more goods to sell, and food to eat,

agricultural technologies are being developed by researchers, development agencies, and

farmers to help smallholder farmers and sustainably manage land resources (Place and

39

Dewees 1999).

Agricultural Technology Options

With limited resources available, new sustainable agricultural technologies are

needed for smallholder farmer (Wiggins 2000). Although mineral fertilizers, HYVs (high

yield varieties of seed), and mechanization are introduced, a low rate of adoption occurs

because of the prohibitive costs (Prinz 1986). Many of these technologies mine the

nutrients without replenishing them (Wit 1987). For example, tilling the soil creates

better soil structure, however it is also found to reduce organic content in soil (Prinz

1986). Fischer and Vasseur (2000) identified eight different systems of farm and off farm

improvements. These included alley cropping, trees in farms, gardens, live barriers, live

fencing, shade trees, taungya and windbreaks. Although the breadth of agricultural

technologies and literature is too large to cover here, some examples are given from the

literature of more sustainable agricultural technologies.

Woody and herbaceous legumes provide a source of organic material and, through

fixation of nitrogen (Nichols et al. 2001). Nitrogen fixation provides a useable form of

nitrogen for trees and surrounding plants. Farm systems that use perennial crops like

banana, cacao, and coffee can use nitrogen-fixing trees such as Leucaina leucocephala,

Glircidia sepium, and Acacia mangium (Prinz 1986, Nichols et al. 2001) for shade and

nutrients (Place and Dewees 1999). Other “green manures” Phaseolus vulgaris, velvet

bean or mucuna (Mucuna pruriens), and jack bean (Canavalia spp.) are used for food,

cover crops to shade out the weeds, organic humus, and nitrogen fixation (Nichols et al.

2001). For the last twenty-five years mucuna use in Honduras increased corn production

40

considerably by shading out the weeds and providing a no till system. The farmer cuts

the mucuna and plants the corn directly into the decaying organic matter, thereby saving

labor (Buckles 1999). A study by Nwonwu and Obiaga 1988 (as cited in Nichols et al.

2001) shows the cost of labor per hectare is lower when a cover crop is used.

Agroforestry, or tree integration, is used in farms to grow wood and create shade.

Laurel (Cordia alliodura) is a common species used for shade in mixed cacao groves in

Panama (Neri 1999). Ruf and Schroder (2004) established that shading reduces stress on

cacao trees. Agroforstry technologies work long term as compared to fertilizers that work

well in the short term to increase production but do not work as well in the long term

because access and costs prevent further use. A study in Brazil found in the 1970s people

kept their shade trees although the Brazilian government was promoting herbicides,

fertilizers, and shade removal. Reasons included wood for construction, firewood, and

farmers did not think the chemicals would help.

Soil conservation usually involves planting on the contour with live or dead

barriers. The object is to retain topsoil and prevent erosion, especially on steep slopes

(Prinz 1986). Creating contours requires low inputs of materials but high inputs of labor

(Bunch 1999). Terracing is another technology used to prevent soil erosion on steep

slopes. However, terracing is highly labor intensive and time consuming, therefore less

desirable to farmers (Shiferaw and Holden 1998).

Many agricultural technologies have been developed to help smallholder farmers.

However, Neil and Lee (1999) caution against using only one technology due to

problems with monocultures and outside factors such as natural disasters and world

markets. Traditional agriculture provides a basis of traditional knowledge that can

41

incorporate appropriate sustainable agricultural technologies (Braimoh 2002). However,

Bunch (1995) cautions against thinking traditional agriculture is the only answer to

helping smallholder farmers, otherwise the farmers current problems would be solved

(Bunch 2000 as cited in Smith 2000). If there is too much concentration solely on the

agricultural technology, the human aspect is neglected (Allen et al. 1991).

Adoption Study

Increased interest by researchers and political bodies because of the promise of

economic growth (Pattanayak et al. 2003) has increased research into the process of

introduction, adaptation, and adoption (Cromwell 1992). The need for adoption studies

stems from interest by donor agencies and consultants who make assumptions about

farmers' needs without addressing their local situation (Bannister and Nair 2003).

Inevitably, this means bad decisions are made from the top down without knowing what

is actually happening, especially at the farm level. If a development program does not

address farmers' needs, the program will be rejected by the farmers (Amacher et al.

1993).

Past researchers investigated green revolution technologies such as HYV

fertilizers, mechanization, irrigation, and high value crops (Neil and Lee 1999). However,

studies now are focusing more on traditional agricultural methods (Peng 1996). Little is

known about how smallholder farmers in developing nations manage and value their trees

and farms (Cromwell 1992). Many farmers are perceived by extension workers as

resistant to their adoption when new agricultural technologies are introduced. Frustrated

extension agents in Bhutan say it is because of cultural barriers and a lack of interest

42

(Roder 2004). Veersteg (1998) asserts that researchers should focus on the needs of the

farmer, help them experiment, and act as a liaison with funding agencies. This involves

the farmer in the research process, not just the recipient (Allen et al. 1991).

Adoption research often focuses on a single technology and biological factors

instead of the whole farm system (Allen et al. 1991). However, social and economic

processes are necessary to study the adoption of farm technologies requiring a

multidisciplinary approach (Budowski 1993 as cited in Fischer and Vasseur 2002,

Rauniyar 1996, Cromwell 1992). Researchers need to further local development and risk

sharing to advance adoption and understanding by understanding the local situatio of the

farmer (Cromwell 1992). Some recent farm studies attempt to explain how the farmer,

farm, and land characteristics are correlated with the adoption of agricultural

technologies. Just because the agricultural technology works well in a research farm does

not mean it will work well within the farming system of a smallholder farmer. Farming

systems research or whole farm research includes socio-economic data and outside

factors which gives a more complete picture of the farmers and their farms (Pattanayak

2003).

Adoption Study Results and Findings

Many times a community is introduced to a new agricultural technology through a

development program and will be excited about using it. However, after time, most

people lose interest and few if any use it (Versteeg et al. 1998). Roder (2004) found that

people adopt a new technology primarily for immediate economic benefit, which usually

43

requires good access to markets and quality results from the new agricultural technology.

If markets are available then people can take advantage of higher yields.

In a study by Fischer and Vasseur (2002) farmers identified problems with

agricultural extension. The extension agents used too much technical language, were not

humble, and many times did not show up when they said they would. Monitoring and

follow up was not sufficient. Another study showed that villagers were more interested in

the personality traits of the extension agent than the technologies the extension agent

promoted (Amacher 1993).

In some programs, commercial fertilizers and herbicides are used before a more

sustainable agricultural technology because of the immediate gains. (Ruf and Schroder

2004). However, even with a technology like herbicides, sometimes people will not adopt

because they use the herbicide incorrectly, and then abandon the technology because of

the poor results (Godoy et al. 2000). Mucuna, a green manure, though successful in

Honduras, is now experiencing problems because of weeds and mismanagement. Farmers

let the mucuna self-seed, which was effective before, because the mucuna set enough

seed to grow over the weeds. However, with the emergence of a new fast growing weed

means mucuna now requires the farmers to collect seed, and then seed their land. They do

not want to use the new planting method because it requires more work (Neil and Lee

1999).

Cacao once considered a highly viable cash crop, but after prices plummeted in

the 1980s and witches broom disease (Crinipellis perniciosa) killed off many trees,

people shied away from it. Programs now promote cacao farms grown under forest

canopies as a way to conserve forests and make money without using fertilizers and

44

herbicides (Ruf and Schroth 2004). Brazilians who did not cut down the shade trees are

now looked on by Brazilian agencies as an example of effective traditional technology

(Johns 1999). Even if an agricultural technology works well, sometimes farmers will not

use it because they are afraid that people will steal the product. For example, fishponds

are particularly susceptible to theft (Bannister and Nair 2003).

Local knowledge of the area is important. People will not replant in land that

does not produce (Amacher et al. 1993). Therefore, people will not attempt a sustainable

agricultural technology if they believe the land will not produce (Cochran 2004).

Educating people in a development program about the immediate local area is correlated

with adoption of new agricultural technologies (Amacher 1993, Godoy 2000). Previous

knowledge, from extension work has also been cited as a reason for adoption (Bannister

and Nair 2003, Amend 2002). Bunch (1999) claims that adoption happens when the

technology is simple and little input is needed. The diffusion of mucuna in Honduras

through family networks is an example of a simple agricultural technology with some

extension work on a local level (Buckles 1999).

Huizer (1970) argues people many times will not change because they feel that

the outside forces are beyond their control. Why change when one feels that things will

not really change? Factors out of control of the farmers include weather, topography, and

large markets (Bunch 1995). Risk is a limiting factor because if the new agricultural

technology does not work, things have not changed, they have gotten worse. The

perception that technology will not really help stems from a lack of leadership,

organization, credit, income, land, and illiteracy (Apantaku et al. 2000, Feder 1985).

45

Agricultural Adoption Studies in Panama

From the 1950s through the 1970s the Panamanian government promoted large-

scale farming and cattle production (Current and Scherr 1995 as cited in Fischer and

Vasseur 2002). A 1962 agrarian law stated that in order to own land the owner must use

two thirds of the land for some sort of production such as pasture or farmland (Simmons

et al. 2002). During the 1960s much of the fertile flat land was taken by large farms,

causing smallholder farmers to move to less fertile land (Johnson 1991 as cited in Fischer

and Vasseur 2002). After the 1970s, most agroforestry programs were focused on wood

production for farmers. Since the 1980s, there have been many agricultural development

programs such as FIDA (Rural Development for the Guaymis), and Proyecto Ngöbe-

Buglé. However, there is little published material regarding agricultural adoption studies

in Panama (Fischer and Vasseur 2000, Gomez 1995).

Neri (1999) researched adoption rates of the native tree laurel (Cordia alliordura)

in three Ngöbe communities. The study was conducted in Bocas del Toro as part of

cooperation between ANAM and CATIE (Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion

y Enseñanza). The two-year study gave three Ngöbe communities seedlings of laurel to

plant as shade trees for their cacao trees and lumber. Adoption rates were relatively high,

45%, because laurel was already grown and desired by the farmers in the towns..

However, Neri (1999) noted that after the program ended the extension agents did not

visit all the farms and only asked the farmers if they planted the tree. He believes that

because it was already a tree species the farmers used and was the trees were highly

desirable, they were an appropriate agricultural technology that would be adopted.

46

Fischer and Vasseur (2002, 2000) researched agricultural technology adoption in

the southern provinces of Panama, the Azuero, and Chiriquí. They studied adoption of

alternative technologies such as rice ponds, green manures, hillside planting, contour

lines, and agroforestry. Five development agencies were promoting these technologies.

They used informal surveys and interviews with farmers and extension workers to find

out if farmers were adopting any of the technologies. They found that most farmers

continued to use subsistence farming. Constraints to adoption included the amount of

land, extension workers, and the top down structures of the agencies. The average amount

of land owned by an individual farmer was less than seven hectares. More intensive

agricultural technologies like alley cropping with green manures were promoted to more

fully use the land. Farmers complained that extension workers used too much technical

jargon in their talks and showed them little respect. Extension workers said the agencies

were giving too many things away and promoting paternalism. Fischer and Vasseur

(2000,2002) suggested that long-term projects are needed as well as low cost

demonstration farms to reduce the risk to the farmers.

Cochran (2004) conducted research specifically in the area of The Azuero. He

looked as to whether farmers were adopting sustainable agriculture technologies through

farmer-to-farmer extension and the NGO IDEAS (Impact on Development,

Empowerment and Action). He found that less than 25% were first generation farmers,

and most were specifically trained by the NGO. Some farmers who adopted new

agricultural technologies stated they did so because they hoped for higher yields and were

pressured to try something different because of their own low yields. Farmers who used

the slash and burn method said that it was easier, part of their tradition, and slash and

47

burn produced higher yields. Cochran noted that the program had only been there for five

years, which could account for the poor adoption levels of the new agricultural

technologies.

Adoption studies usually only research the reasons why people do not adopt as

compared to why they do adopt (Bannister and Nair 2003). The question then is, “how

does one go about conducting research that will be beneficial to the community and the

researcher?” As a Peace Corps volunteer in the town of Chalite, my job was to work with

the NGO Patronato de Nutricíon and try and help people increase farm production.

During this time I was also researching what I would study and noted there was little

published material with respect to Bocas del Toro and Panama. My experiences with the

agency Patronato de Nutricion and current literature started my process of research. One

of the problems I had seen with development of Bocas del Toro were that agencies were

attempting to use agricultural technologies from the Azuero. Bocas del Toro has a

different climate and different people. As the literature has stated this is a constraint to

adoption and I wanted to find out more through my research. Through my observations,

meetings, and talking with people in Chalite, I found that I had started the process of

farming systems research. I decided to continue on this path and study the Ngöbes’

adoption of new agricultural technologies and the effects of the Patronato de Nutricíon

farm program.

48

CHAPTER 4 – METHODOLOGY

From May 2002 to July 2004 I was an Agriculture Volunteer in Panamá. I spent

my first three months from May 2002 to June 2002 in the training community of Caimito

learning the Spanish language and small-scale agriculture technologies that we were

going to promote. After arriving in the Community of Chalite October 21st I began the

process of working as a volunteer and starting my research. I based my methods on the

farming systems research method (DeWalt 1985, Doorman 1991, Godoy 2000, Martin

and Sherington 1997,Tripp 1985). My methods chapter is divided into two sections. The

first section describes participant observation, on-farm visits, and group meetings with

the farmers. Through the aforementioned methods I was better able to understand the

community and Ngöbe culture allowing me to conduct a semi-structured interviews of

nineteen farmers in the community and semi-structured interviews with extension

workers from Patronato de Nutricíon (Doorman 1991,Godoy 2000).

STAGE I

For the first ten months of my time in Chalite I was in the exploratory stage of my

research (Yin 2003). I was finding out what was important to people in Chalite. I learned

out how they live, eat, play, farm and interact as a society. I improved my Spanish and

Ngöbe while creating lasting relationships members of the community. In the first stage I

used social science research methods such as participant observation, farm visits, and

many informal talks with farmers about their needs and problems. During this stage I was

49

learning as much as I could about agricultural extension technologies and ways that I

could help them improve their farms. To better accomplish this I started the first stages of

farm systems research by learning about the local area and culture (Doorman 1991).

Participant Observation

From October 2002 to June 2004, I lived and worked in the town of Chalite. I

participated in community activities almost every day. I kept an in-depth daily journal of

what I saw, heard, and thought. I used participant observation to better understand the

community as a whole (Nichols 2000, Crane 1992). For example, I helped the Mama-

Tata church members in the community carry penca (palm thatch) from over an hour

away. We carried the penca across two small mountains. Afterwards we ate food and

drank coffee together. I was an observer and a participant in daily activities. I talked to

people about why they had to go so far to get penca. I personally experienced the

difficulty in obtaining the resource, penca. I had a better understanding of the labor

involved procuring the penca and the importance of the product. Many people prefer zinc

for their roofs because of the durability and development agencies will distribute zinc.

However, penca is preferred for the cooking space because it is cooler. In the nighttime,

when I went home, I wrote in my journal daily what was learned and observed in

activities like this.

Farm Visits

Farming was the focus of my time and research in Chalite. While working with

the Patronato farm twice a week I also visited and worked on many other farms. At times

50

I would work with the farmers on their farms to try and help improve them, or at other

times I would walk with them around the farms and discuss their technologies, problems,

and successes. I observed and worked with ten different farmers multiple times during

my time in Chalite (Nichols 2000). I asked specific questions about a crop such as “How

often do you harvest this yam”. After the day was done, I wrote what I had seen and what

the farmer had told me. Daily journal entries allowed me to develop a general picture of

the farmer and the farms, especially within the context of Ngöbe culture (Crane 1992).

I worked with the NGO Patronato de Nutricíon twice a week, on Mondays and

Saturdays. I would work with the men and women to accomplish the tasks set out by the

leaders of the farm or the Patronato extension agent. During this time, I developed my

particular question about whether the Patronato program was helping people adopt

agricultural technologies that were promoted on the Patronato Farm. Through continued

participation, I began to identify other key related questions to further my developing

study.

Group Meetings

I was involved with over fifteen informal meetings with the socio (the Patronato

farm group) and extension agents. Group meetings are a way to listen to farmers talking

about issues they think are important (Nichols 2000). During these meetings we would

draw farm maps, farm cycles, and discuss problems ranging from money to insect

problems (Selener et al. 1999). Meetings were also a way to plan farm activities and

watch the interaction between the Patronato extension agent and the farmers. This is

where I became aware of the language barrier between the farmers and extension agents.

51

During and after the meeting I would write notes and information to record what I had

seen and heard. I would also share with the farmers what I had written and heard. The

meetings were an essential part of the next stage of the study, in which I conducted semi-

structured interviews. The meetings made it apparent that the extension agents did not

really know what the farmers’ farms were like. The conditions on the Patronato farm,

based on my observations, were different than those of the farmers.

STAGE I

I continued participant observation methods and working with people in the

community. I talked with key informants almost daily (Nichols 2000). As my qualitative

data was growing I wanted to be able to discuss my results from a quantitative and

qualitative view, or as a whole farm system (Godoy 2000). In order to do this and help

answer my question of whether farmers were using technologies that they had learned

from Patronato, I developed a semi-structured survey and interviews with the extension

agents. After I developed the questions, I received permission from the Comarca Ngöbe-

Buglé and Institutional Review Board at Michigan Technological University to conduct

the study.

Semi-Structured Surveys

I conducted semi-structured interviews with nineteen head of households out of

an available sample of fifty households. Households were selected by throwing a die. If

the die landed on a one or two landed from the thrown die, I would attempt to interview

the head of the household (Nichols 2000). Questions for the interview were tested with

52

other Ngöbe people who were not going to be interviewed. Other volunteers also helped

to refine the survey. Before I started an interview I would talk to the respondent and

explain their rights and obtain permission to do the survey.

I had lived in Chalite a year and a half and working and living with the people and

was accepted enough to get truthful statements. If they were untruthful with me I would

comment that I had seen something different and we would discuss it. I tried to make it

clear that I would not be sharing their information with others in the community and

explain why I was doing the interview. Although my sample size was small, my

acceptance and their trust created more accurate data. All interviews were conducted in

Spanish and Ngöbe with the identified head of household. If I needed help I would ask a

child to help me.

Cochran (2004), Doorman (1991), Godoy (2000), and Kitchen (2000) cite semi-

structured interviews as a valuable way to obtain data to answer the research question.

Cochran (2004) divided the interviews into three parts as I did: socio-economic data,

farm systems, and technology adoption questions. Available households for the

interviews were families who sent their children to the school in Chalite. I chose this

method because it assured the farmers would have some interaction with the Patronato

farm program.

The first and second parts of the interview (Table 1 and Table 2), were based on

observations and other studies (Godoy 2000). The questions attempt to find out the

condition of the people and their daily activities. Factors I included to analyze

agricultural technology adoption were based on wealth, land, markets, and other factors

found to affect adoption (Amacher 1993, Pattanayak 2003). These questions incorporated

53

a year and a half of my observations and attempted gain more knowledge about Ngöbe

farmers.

Table 1: Interview Questions -Household characteristics 1 Sex 15 Do you hunt 2 Age 15a What do you hunt 3 Years of Education 15b With what do you hunt

3a Where 15c How many times do you hunt in a week

4 How many people live in the house 15d Where do you prefer to hunt

5 How many houses do you live in /own 16 Do you fish

6 How many people in the house are below the age of 12 16a

How many times do you fish in a week

7 Are there people in the house that do not speak Spanish 17 Do you cook with wood

7a How many 17a How many times a month do you get wood

8 You have lived in this house how many years 17b Approximately how much

9 Where were you born 17c How long does it take 10 When did you come here 18 Do you cook with gas

11 How many 5 gal. tanks do you have 18a How often do you run out

12 Do you work for money 19 Who runs the house

12a Work (how much per year) 20 Are you part of a group or organization in the community

12b Where 20a List them 12c How often How often 21 Part of a group or organization 12d Pay rate 21a List them 13 Sell things (how much) 22 Do you have debts 13a What 22a To whom 13b Price per unit 22b How much

13c Where 23 Can you get credit 14 Pension 23a From Who 14a How much per month

54

Table 2: Interview Questions - Farm characteristics 24 Do you have a farm or farms 24a How many different areas 24b For each separate area how many hectares 24c Where is it 24d How long to walk from your house 24e What do you grow there 24f What do you harvest that you did not plant 25 For how many years have you worked as a farmer 26 Who taught you 27 How do you know good soil from bad 28 Do you have tools 29 Do you prepare your farm before planting 30 Do you cut then burn 31 How long do you use a piece of land 32 How long do you leave it lay fallow 33 Do you own your farm(s) 33a How do you measure it 33b How do you mark it, boundaries etc. 33c If you have a problem between two owners what do you do 35 Do you have animals at your farm(s) 36 Do you sell things that come from your farm(s)?

55

The third part (Table 3) was based on adoption of eighteen technologies that I identified

as being promoted on the Patronato de Nutricíon farm.

Table 3: Interview Questions - Agricultural technology questions: Note – Each technology question asks how they have knowledge, if they use it, and why or why not as in question 37.

37 Knowledge of contours y/n (0-1) 37a If yes how 37b Use contours 37c If no why 37d If yes why 38 Knowledge of green manures and organics 39 Knowledge of rice tanks 40 Knowledge of pineapple in lines 41 Knowledge of agricultural chemicals 42 Knowledge of chicken pens 43 Knowledge of ducks pens 44 Knowledge of fish ponds 45 Knowledge of pigs pens 46 Knowledge of grafted fruit trees 47 Knowledge of non-native tree species 48 Knowledge of management of banana and plantains 49 Knowledge of coffee stand management 50 Knowledge of manioc management 51 Knowledge of taro root management 52 Knowledge of gardens and vegetables 53 Knowledge of seed beds and small nurseries 54 Knowledge of irrigation 55 Do you sell rice 56 Do you sell plantains 57 Do you sell manioc 58 Do you sell taro root 59 Do you sell pigs 60 Do you sell chickens 61 Do you sell fish 62 Do you sell wood 63 Do you sell fruit 64 Do you sell coffee 65 Do you sell ducks 66 Do you sell pineapple

56

Data Analysis

After the interview data was collected, it was entered into an Excel format.

Questions that produced yes or no answers were entered as one and zero. Questions that

asked for a list or reasons for a yes or no statement were categorized and then applied to

each farmer to see if they had mentioned that particular response. For example if

someone said that they learned about a technology from MIDA, I included MIDA as a

category for each respondent and marked yes or no if they responded with the same

response of MIDA. In this manner I was able to produce an Excel spreadsheet with all

yes or no answers. The ones and zeros were input and used in a Pearson correlation

analysis of 209 different variables of the nineteen respondents.

Pearson correlation allows the researcher to find pairs of variables that may show

a positive or negative interaction between each other (Doorman 1991). For example, most

studies show that income has a high correlation with adoption of new agricultural

technologies (Kitchen and Tate 2000, Pattanayak 2003). Using SAS (Larose and Jin

1998) I produced more than 21,000 different relationships between variables (Kitchen

2000). Variables were searched for significance levels (r value) of 90% and 99% (Table

4). A value between -1 and 1 is given (P value) for the Pearson correlation coefficient.

The closer the value to -1 or 1, the more the variable is considered a significant factor of

agricultural technology adoption. I compared the correlation coefficients to journal notes

and interview responses for consistency and clustering to combine qualitative and

quantitative analysis of agricultural technology adoption of Ngöbe farmers in Chalite.

57

Table 4: Example of SAS output with correlation and significance

Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 19 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 Res Sex1 Age2 YrsScl3 hous4 less125 House6_ Res 1.00000 -0.22525 -0.05829 -0.03409 0.09134 0.14602 -0.24801 Res 0.3538 0.8126 0.8898 0.7100 0.5508 0.3059 Sex1 -0.22525 1.00000 -0.12483 -0.01847 -0.39224 -0.29692 -0.20204 Sex1 0.3538 0.6106 0.9402 0.0967 0.2170 0.4068

Semi-structured interviews with extension workers

I conducted semi-formal interviews with four extension workers from Patronato

de Nutricíon (Nichols 2000). Questions for these interviews were based on

misunderstandings I had noted between the extension workers and the farmers. The goal

was to have a better understanding of the Patronato program and extension agents. The

answers from the extension agents were compared with personal observations, farmers'

responses, and literature to create data consistency (Godoy 2000).

Table 5: Extension worker questions

1. What training does Patronato provide you? 2. What is the structure of Patronato? 3. What resources do they provide? 4. Describe the process to start a Patronato farm project? 5. Who designs the farms? 6. Are there technologies that must be used on the farms? 7. How do you think the farms work? 8. How do you think they can be improved? 9. Describe your work? 10. How do you cooperate with other institutions such as MIDA, Comarca,

ANAM, MEDUC, etc.

58

Method of Analysis

With the preceding methods, I combined current literature, quantitative and

qualitative data in the form of interviews, participant observation and farm visits. In the

following chapters, I will combine the data gathered to create a robust picture of the

Ngöbe farm system and the Patronato farm program in Chalite. Agricultural technology

adoption is based on many factors such as wealth, extension work, access to markets, and

cultural indicators (DeWalt 1985). Results and discussion will be a conversation with the

data collected to provide possible reasons for adoption and non-adoption of the eighteen

technologies used on the Patronato farm with respect to the Ngöbe people of Chalite.

59

CHAPTER 5 –CHALITE AND PATRONATO DE NUTRICIÓN The results of this study are presented in two chapters. The first section of this

chapter will demonstrate the farm system and life of the average Ngöbe farmer using

descriptive statistics from the interviews, information from participant observation, and

farm visits. The second section will describe the farm program managed by the NGO

Patronato de Nutrición. The next chapter will address the adoption of agricultural

technologies by farmers in Chalite while considering the average Ngöbe farmer and the

Patronato de Nutrición farm program. Reasons for adoption and non-adoption are

discussed based on Pearson coefficient correlations from the interviews and participant

observation.

LOCAL FARM SYSTEMS

According to Beets’ (1990) classifications of farm systems, the Ngöbe are

subsistence farmers. They grow their food to maintain their diet and usually have little to

sell afterwards.

During the discussion of farm systems in Chalite, the term “average farmer” will

be used when describing descriptive statistics from the interviews and general

observations. Values such as number of homes and age are averages derived from the

interviews I conducted. The average farmer in Chalite is also a representation of my

observations, data obtained from the interviews, and literature of Ngöbe culture.

60

The average farmer has three distinct parcels of land that he farms with a total of

7.47 hectares. The areas are generally near the river, on a hill, and in the swamp. Except

for land in the swamp the farmer grows a variety of different crops on each piece of land.

Household Characteristics

The average farmer is thirty-seven years old with a fourth grade education. The

age of interviewed farmers ranged between 18 to 60 years old. Education ranged from

zero to a seventh grade education. An average of nine people lives in the house, four of

whom are small children. The people who usually live at the house are the wife, mother

of the farmer, a brother or sister, and the farmer’s children. The average farmer owns two

houses: one is his farmhouse and the other is the house where he sleeps. Most farmers in

Chalite sleep in houses constructed by missionaries in 1992. The houses were made with

concrete floors and a zinc roofs. However, the farmers built a raised room (Figure 14) in

the back made of wood and a palm thatch roof, which is cooler. The back house is where

his family cooks and visits with other people in the community. Other farmers, who do

not live in the central square of Chalite, live in raised houses with palm thatch roofs, but

still construct a separate cooking area. Food is cooked in cast iron pots over an open

flame with collected wood.

61

Figure 14: Household of the farmer

In Chalite, the farmer’s household usually has running water he uses to bathe,

wash clothes, cook, and brush teeth. Women generally cook and wash the clothes,

however the young men will wash their own clothes, and the men will help cook. When

there is no water the women and teenagers will wash clothes in the stream above the

community by slapping the clothes against the rocks. The household will also gather

water to cook with from the stream in plastic buckets and old cooking oil containers, and

bathe in the river. Most people prefer to bathe in the river since they feel it makes them

cleaner. For example people in the town prefer to use the river as a full service latrine in

which they can bathe and get rid of the waste.

During the rainy months of November, December, and June there are many cases

of malaria in Chalite. The four hour boat ride makes it difficult for people to send a

62

message to health workers in Chiriqui Grande that people are sick. The distance also

makes it difficult for the health workers to arrive. The workers distribute pills to treat the

malaria, although they make the people feel tired and have strange dreams. This is

significant to the people because the greeting ñantore (hello) literally means “I did not

dream last night”. Not dreaming is many times safer to people than to dream because they

must interpret the dream, and the dream could predict bad things.

Obtaining meat in the diet is important to the Ngöbe person in Chalite. The

average farmer goes fishing and crayfish collecting every other day. However, one person

in the interviews expressed he did not go fishing because his sons came back with fish for

him. To fish people use a spear made from the bark of peach palm and the stem from a

palm leaf for a fishing pole. The best time is to go at night when the big crayfish are out.

Men will go out together at night with their snorkels, masks, and flashlights to find the

crayfish.

Hunting is another important activity to most farmers. Male children learn to hunt

at an early age. It is common to see a seven year old with a slingshot and pebbles

shooting at the birds eating crops. Many times young men shoot blue heron and egrets

along the rivers. This skill is utilized later in life by the farmer to obtain meat by hunting

once or twice a month with his dog, some friends, and a .22 rifle. Occasionally, if the rifle

is not working, he will borrow one or use a bow and arrow. People prefer to hunt in the

swamps where small deer, peccary, and other game are found. Many men will go up in

the mountains for two or three days to hunt. A farmer’s other sources of meat are free

range chickens, turkeys, ducks, and pigs. He feeds the domestic animals banana peels,

pifa skins, and rice husks to supplement their diet of insects, fruit, and grass.

63

Approximately seventy-five percent of the men go to work in the coffee harvest in

Chiriquí or Costa Rica. This is most of their yearly income of $447 United States dollars.

If a farmer has an abundance of animals, he may sell them to supplement his low income.

Other sources of income include pifa (Figure 15), sold for one dollar a bunch to people

from Chiriquí, cacao to the cooperative of Bocas del Toro for $0.65 a pound, and rice in

Chiriqui Grande for $0.20 a pound. However, travel cost is a significant constraint to

obtaining income. A farmer will have to pay eight dollars for travel to and from Chiriqui

Grande, the nearest major trade area. The farmer must also pay transportation fee of one

dollar per 100 pound sack of goods.

Figure 15: Farmers selling pifa

The average farmer has lived in the community for eighteen years and worked as

a farmer for sixteen years. The two year difference exists because many men do not

64

consider themselves real farmers until they manage a piece of land, which they obtain

from their family or from their wife’s family. At the age of twenty-two they go to work

for the Bocas del Toro fruit company as a wage laborer weeding banana plantations and

applying chemicals, or become a farmer. When a man decides to farm, he will generally

farm three distinct areas: near the river, the swamp, and hillsides.

Farm 1 – Near the River

All farmers interviewed had a parcel of land near the river where they planted and

harvested bananas, plantains, trees, yams, and other crops (Table 6). Parcels near the river

are on average three hectares. The land is relatively close to the house, requiring on

average an eleven-minute walk. However, some farmers must walk as long as an hour to

reach their farms.

The soil near the river is relatively good due to the occasional flooding. The

farmer identifies good soil as cool and dark, and inferior soil as red and hot. Farmers

responded that soils with high red clay content and exposed directly to the sun did not

work as well. However, planting near the river area is also a hazard because frequent

floods can wash away crops and trees. A negative factor of planting near the river is that

Table 6: List of crops grown in an average farm near the river: note- crops listed are in order of number of times listed during interviews.

1. Banana and Plantains 8. Coconut palm 2. Trees – Wood Species 9. Yams 3. Trees –Fruit Species 10. Vegetables 4. Peach palm (pifa) 11. Corn 5. Taro root (dachin) 12. Sugar cane 6. Cacao 13. Coffee 7. Manioc 14. Pineapple

65

trees are removed for crops, causing erosion along the stream bank during flooding.

Bananas, trees, yams, pifa, and other crops are farmed in a swidden fallow method.

To prepare a new area to farm in the parcel, the farmer will slash out an area of

land about one half hectare in size. He will leave an overstory of large trees and saplings

such as laurel. He prefers to leave trees for wood. He will burn the vegetation after it

dries or let the vegetation mulch. Approximately half of the farmers mulch, especially

when growing corn. After preparation of the land, the farmer will plant seeds obtained

from another farmer or his own crops. He plants crops such as banana at a spacing of

approximately a meter and a half, a practice he learned working for the banana company.

After a year the farm has three vertical layers (Figure 16): an overstory of trees for wood,

an understory of perennials such as cacao, coffee, bananas, and understory crops such as

taro root and yams. Most work is done by the farmer and his family. However, when

there is too much work, the farmer will hold a junta. Other people will help prepare the

farmer’s land or harvest, and he will provide food and drink.

Land tenure in the comarca is not well defined because of Law 21, which states

the land is communal and not private property (Asamblea Legislativa 1997). It does

provide provisions of usufruct rights to the communal land. However, land use rights are

not well defined and if someone left for two or three years they could find that their land

had been taken by another farmer. Many of the farmers use a live fencing system to

delineate their parcels. Although some people who own cattle use barbed wire for

fencing, most people use pifa and other plants such as pita (Aechmea magdalenae)

(Lincoln 2004). Pifa is a tall spiny palm tree, which produces a fruit rich in beta-carotene

66

and protein (Mora-Urpí 1997), and serves to delineate the land (Figure 17) so that other

people will know which farmers parcel it is. The farmer plants pifa, hibiscus, pita, and

Figure 16 : Farm with bananas and trees overhead

Figure 17: Border between two farms

67

other plants in a row demarcating the farm. Many times, while walking with a farmer to

his farm, I would ask whose farm we were passing by. He would always know whose

land it was because of the live borders and where the farmer’s parcels lay.

The average Ngöbe farmer owns four tools of which the most important is the

machete. Other tools include axes, coas, shovels (Figure 18), and hammers. Most, if not

all, preparation, weeding, planting, and harvesting is done with the aid of the machete.

Many men consider work with a machete real work. If a farmer decides to utilize a

different tool, some say he is lazy. For example I went with a farmer and observed how

he harvested pifa. During the harvests of pifa in October and July a farmer will usually

knock down the palm fruit with a tall piece of bamboo that has a machete attached to the

end. The farmer I went with instead, used two triangles made of wood, a plastic tube,

and rope to climb the spiny trunk of the palm. After harvesting the pifa he repeatedly told

me how hard the work was, that it was real work. Other community members

communicated to me he was lazy because he did not work the land like them.

Figure 18: Woman using a shovel to dig up ñame (yam)

68

The average farmer does not grow many vegetables near the river because floods

usually wash them away. However, he does grow some cilantro for soup, and collects

spinach-like greens called ka la lu. The greens are new shoots from vines, ferns, and trees

found on and around farm parcels. People do not actively plant these foods and they are

falling out of favor with the younger people. A botanico, a man who knows the plants,

said that before the people could buy sugar and coffee from the stores, greens were more

important than they are today. He said the younger generation is not learning from their

parents as he did.

Farming near the river provides a fertile source of land for people to grow the

crops that they depend upon to eat such as bananas, taro, yams, and pifa. Everyday the

farmer is weeding and harvesting these crops. The plants used most for consumption are

root crops (taro, yams, manioc), bananas, and palms. Vegetative propagation is the main

means of planting for these crops. Many times when a farmer is harvesting he is also

planting at the same time.

The swamp

The average swamp parcel is one hectare. The sole crop grown in the swamp is

rice. The lowland variety seed comes in red and white colors. To utilize the swamp a

farmer finds an area that he did not use the year before. He cuts all the existing vegetation

down from May until June except for a large palm they called totuma. The totuma palm

is important because it provides most of the burned vegetation. In order to use a swamp

area the farmer looks to see if totuma covers the whole canopy The farmer then waits

until it is somewhat dry, usually June, and sets the swamp area on fire including the

69

totuma (Figure 19). After the burn the farmer will wait until July when the rains come.

Then he broadcasts the seed by hand, usually fifty to one hundred pounds per hectare.

In September and October, rice is harvested by hand. When I went to harvest the

rice with one farmer and his family, we walked an hour to the farm through the swamps,

making sure not to fall into the deep parts. We pinched off the rice infloresence by hand,

and others scraped off the seed into a bowl. We worked from eight in the morning until

six in the evening. With seven people, we collected five three-quarter full sacks of

unprocessed rice. In the following days, the rice we collected was pounded by women

and children in a wooden container and then separated from the husks by winnowing

(Figure 20).

An area will lay fallow for an average of three years, before it is used again,

although farmers responded seven years are required for the totuma to grow back and

completely cover the area. If the farmer lets the totuma grow, he will have a better

harvest. According to most farmers, one hectare of swamp can produce around twenty

sacks of rice, or 1500 pounds. The average household can eat more than 30 pounds per

week.

Figure 19 : Totuma palm on fire at edge of new area to plant rice

70

Figure 20: Woman winnowing rice

Farm three- on the hillside

Cropping on hillsides is increasing, as less land is available near the rivers. The

average farmer will walk about twenty to thirty minutes to arrive at his 3.5 hectare parcel.

Not all farmers have a hillside area, however more are looking to these areas as a source

of land for farming. The area is considerably harder to reach, however the hillside area is

the preferred place to live because it is “mas fresca” (cooler), and one does not have to

bother with the neighbors and their complaints about your chickens and pigs running

around ruining their crops. Farmers use hillsides because the first harvest yields well.

This is probably because of the top layer of organic material in the understory. Most

farmers use slash and burn (Figure 21) and some use slash and mulch. The farming

structure is essentially the same as that of the river area, however monoculture systems

are more prevalent for rice, banana, and corn.

71

Figure 21: Slash and burn hillside farming

The three areas where people plant their crops: the river, swamps, and hillsides,

are the means by which the people of Chalite live. The average farmer works between

these three farms to produce what he needs to eat, wood to build and cook, and

sometimes to sell what he produces. In Figure 22 a yearly farm calendar to harvest and

prepare land is presented.

72

Figure 22: Rainfall and agricultural calendar of Bocas del Toro

73

In order to understand why the farmers adopt or do not adopt agricultural

technologies I have used data to describe the average farmer and his farm. In the

following section, I will present the Patronato de Nutricion farm program to illustrate

differences. Time management, crop management, and organizational structure are

presented to show the differences between the less structured Ngöbe system and the more

structured Patronato de Nutrición program. When Patronato de Nutrición came to solicit

the people of Chalite to join the farm group, they assured the farmers the program would

help to improve their production and way of farming, thereby increasing their ability to

produce more food and generate a cash income. To answer my question " Do farmers in

Chalite adopt Agricultural technologies because of the Patronato de Nutrición farm

program?" an understanding of the farmers' perspective and the program perspective must

be presented to better analyze the statistical data presented in the next chapter.

74

THE PATRONATO FARM Patronato de Nutrición Patronato de Nutrición is a Panamanian NGO started in 1990. The primary

program focus is the alleviation of hunger in poor areas. The secondary focus is the

transfer of agricultural technologies to those poor areas. The program buys or borrows a

piece of land near the town, organizes a group of “interested” farmers and provides a

10,000 dollar budget for tools, seeds, fertilizers, animals, and feed, along with other

materials. Patronato has a committee in each province which works with MEDUC,

IDIAP, MIDA, and other institutions (Patronato 2004 (c)). According to Joseph

Homsany, the president of Patronato de Nutrición, as of March 2004 there were 309

farms, of which not one has failed. He plans to have more than 1,000 Patronato farms in

the future.The privately funded organization depends on telethon fundraisers and private

contributions along with technical support from government organizations such as

MIDA.

The Patronato de Nutrición administration has a hierarchal structure. The

president, who obtains funding, has provincial office managers and area technical

advisors. Within each province, there is a provincial technical leader and under him is the

main extension agent. Each farm is supposed to receive a visit from the extension agent

every two weeks, a visit from the regional leader every month, and a visit from the area

technical advisor every three months. The extension agent brings the supplies and

provides agricultural expertise.

To start a farm program in a community the extension agent finds out from a

community leader if they would be interested in the program. When the leader is

75

interested, the extension agent holds a meeting in the community to explain what the

program is and how it works. Farmers who come to the meeting are supposed to create a

cooperating group of fifteen families and look for a piece of land they can use. The group

has to find a willing party to loan the land for the farm area because the comarca states

that one cannot own land. Patronato requires the land have water access from a stream in

order to provide water for the animals, fishponds, and rice ponds.

After the initial meeting, the extension agent conducts a survey of the families

involved with the program (Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (b)). For children under the age

of five in the families involved in the farm group, Patronato asks for their date of birth,

age, weight, and height. They use a chart to evaluate the nutrition of the children in the

program (Patronato de Nutricíon 2004 (a)). The extension agent sends this information to

the head office in Panama City, where they decide how much crema (cream of corn) they

will give each family for the first year of the program. A survey of the households is

conducted to find out their socio-economic status and diets.

Results of the surveys are not usually given to the town members because they are

sent to Panama City and tend to stay there. For one year, I attempted to obtain results for

Chalite but never received them. After the surveys, the extension agent holds another

meeting to discuss the perfil (list of materials the program can deliver) (Patronato de

Nutrición 2004 (d &e)). The socios (farm group) is supposed to decide what projects they

want on the farm and select the appropriate materials for them. When the provincial

manager approves the perfil, the Patronato farm program begins to bring supplies to the

community.

76

In interviews with Patronato extension agents I found all are educated with a

technical degree or higher. However, Patronato did not offer further training. No specific

set of technologies is implemented on the farms except for the rice fertilization system.

Pig excrement flows into a fishpond with tilapia (Tilapia spp.) and water is channeled

into the rice ponds to fertilize them. Extension agents explained that a major constraint to

a farm group’s success was lack of organization by the farmers. When I asked questions

about initial designs for the farms and how the farms were designed, they responded there

really were no design rules.

Patronato develops three farm systems. The first is to provide an alternative food

source for the community. Patrontao estimates one hectare can support two families

(Patronato 2004 (c)). Eighty percent of the three to five hectare farm is for the farmers’

consumption and the other twenty percent is for Patronato and the farmers to sell. The

second type of farm, five to seven hectares, is fifty percent production for the farmer,

forty percent for the farmers to sell, and ten percent for Patronato to sell. The third farm

is mechanized at seven hectares or more. Patronato takes the ten percent of the harvest to

help support the program. Chalites Patronato farm program is the first farm type.

Patronato and Bocas del Toro

The region of Bocas del Toro has the same administrative leader as Chiriquí. The

head office for Bocas del Toro is in David, the provincial capital of Chiriquí. This

requires the regional leader for Bocas del Toro to travel from Chiriquí to Bocas del Toro,

a two and one-half hour trip across the central mountain range. Bocas del Toro has two

extension agents who are expected to bring supplies and expertise to the communities

77

that have a Patronato farm. As of March 2004 the extension agent for the area of the

Guariviara, which includes Chalite, had eleven farms he had to visit and three more

Patronato was developing. Most of these sites are reachable only by boat. In order to visit

all the farms twice a month he had to visit as many as two a day, if they were close

enough.

The Patronato Farm in Chalite When I arrived in Chalite on October 21, 2002 the Patronato farm (Figure 23) had

been implemented for six months. One man in Chalite requested the program after the

town had originally said no to the project. He told me that he wanted the town to learn to

improve their farming. I worked with the farm group until June of 2004. The function of

the Patronato farm program is to provide food to the area. The farm area in Chalite was

borrowed from a member of the community for ten years. After that time the group will

continue work on the land or the owner will take it back. No money was provided by

Patronato to pay for the land. The farm group consisted of a president, vice-president,

secretary, treasurer, and a speaker for the group.

Figure 23: Kate and I standing in the farm overlooking Chalite

78

During my time in Chalite, four different extension agents and three different

provincial leaders worked with the Patronato farm. This caused some confusion with the

farmers. During a typical visit the extension agent inspected the farm and then held a

meeting. In most of the meetings, we talked about problems. Even if the land was not

being used for anything, the extension agents would state that the farm did not look clean,

which meant it was not weeded well. The farmers would say other people were not

showing up on the specific work days of Saturday and Monday and blame the problems

of the farm on people who were not present. The attitude of “it is not my responsibility”

was furthered by the inconsistent support by the extension agents.

Each new extension agent was not informed about what the other extension agents

had accomplished in the Chalite farm. Many times the new extension agent would tell the

farmers something completely opposite of what other extension agents had suggested.

For example, one extension agent approved the use of mucuna, a cover crop and green

manure, to cover an area in the farm and provide nitrogen. However, the area technical

advisor came from Veraguas and told the farmers’ mucuna was giving nitrogen to the

weeds. During group meetings the extension agents would try to empower the farmers

and declare the farm was completely in their control. However, if the farm did not look

limpia (weeded), the extension agents would convey to the farmers the program would

end. The main here is that communication between the extension agents was not

coordinated well.

The farm area (Figure 24) has 2.5 hectares and is fenced off with material

provided by Patronato. All materials such as tools, building materials, and feed for the

animals are part of the budget. Many materials are bought in Chiriquí, however Patronato

79

Figure 24 : Sketch map of the Patronato farm program in Chalite

Taro

Sketch Map of the Patronato Farm Program in Chalite

80

also buys seed from the farmers to use on the farm. In one instance, the farmers collected

a total of 1000 banana seed from their own farm to plant at the Patronato farm. Ten

different families collected 100 seeds each at ten cents a seed. The farmers were

extracting money from their own program. Although the farm group has a bank account

with funds from products they have sold, in order for an individual farmer to get money

from the total amount that has been saved they must "borrow the money" from the farm

program.

Twelve to fifteen families are involved with the farm depending on the time of

year. During the coffee harvest from September until December there are fewer people in

the community because they are working outside of Chalite. For the first year the farm

received cream of corn for the participating families. The farm had many of the same

crops and animals that the farmers had in their farms, but the Patronato farm program

tried to manage the system in a smaller area and more intensively than the average

farmer’s farm. During my work with the farm group, I identified eighteen different

extension technologies (Table 7) applied at least once on the farm.

Table 7 : List of Agricultural Technologies Observed on the Patronato Farm in Chalite 1.Contours 7. Duck Pens 13. Coffee 2. Manures 8. Fish Tanks 14. Cassava

3. Rice Ponds 9. Pig Pens 15. Taro 4. Pineapple 10. Tree Grafting 16.Gardening 5. Chemicals 11. Non native trees 17. Nursery 6. Chicken Coops 12. Banana 18. Drainage

81

The farmers did not receive adequate training in many of these technologies

because the extension agent did not have time to train them. In fact, many times they

were just told to do it, or depend on Jose Gonzalez, who had received training. In the

next section, I will give a short description of the technologies used on the farm.

Agricultural Technologies Used on the Chalite Patronato Farm

Contours:

Contours are used on hillsides to prevent erosion. Contour lines are lines

of equal elevation. Patronato extension workers stated they had used contours to

plant the bananas and pineapples. One can use material such as logs, rocks, and

soil along the contour which is measured with an A-frame level (Figure 25). Live

material such as vetiver (Vetiviera zizanoides) and trees can also be planted along

the contour.

Figure 25: Men learning how to use an A-frame in Alto Guayabal

82

Green Manures and Organic Fertilizers:

Green manures (Figure 26) are plants that provide nitrogen to the soil

through fixation by Rhizobium spp. They create nodules that are attached to the

roots (Figure 27). Green manure organic material can also provide nitrogen

through decomposition, and when used in compost or as mulch it provides

nitrogen to the soil. The farm group experimented with canavalia, mucuna, and

red beans. Other examples include Glircidia sepium, Leucaina leucophalia, and

Acacia mangium.

Figure 26: Experiment with canavalia intercropped with rice

83

Figure 27: Rhizobium nodules found on canavalia roots

Rice Ponds:

The farm had five tanks totaling 815m2. Rice ponds (Figure 28) are

excavated areas with mud barriers on all sides. Although Bocas del Toro has high

rainfall, in order to control the water depth in the pond, an irrigation system was

used. PCV piping was utilized to control the inflow and outflow. The rice is

planted in rows from spacing of 50cm x 50 cm to 25cm to 25cm, depending on

the extension agent’s experience. The ponds require fertilization five times during

the rice cycle or three times with organic fertilizers. Pig excrement is used as a

fertilizer. The excrement is washed into the fishponds, the fish eat the solids, and

the water from the fishponds flows into the rice ponds. Rice ponds are supposed

to provide two to three harvests per year and about seven hundred kilograms per

250 meters squared. Total harvest during one and half years came to seven

hundred kilograms, or seven full sacks, divided among fifteen households.

84

Figure 28: View of rice tank in the Patronato farm in Chalite

Pineapple Management:

Management requires pineapple to be planted in lines (Figure 29) at a half-

meter spacing for ease of weeding and fertilizer application. Pineapple reproduces

by fruiting at the stem. If planted and cared for a plant can produce in nine to

twelve months. Pineapple was located on the hill area of the farm.

Figure 29 : Line of pineapple in a farm

85

Agricultural Chemicals:

All agricultural chemicals (Table 8) were hand dispersed or with a $50

hand pump backpack sprayer. Safety gear was not provided and because

instructions were in Spanish farmers were sometimes confused about correct

application. In one such instance my garden was sprayed with herbicide instead of

the insecticide. Patronato provided the chemicals because there were constant

problems with fungi and insects killing the rice and fruit trees.

Table 8 : Agricultural chemicals used in the Patronato farm program Chemical Fertilizers Herbecides Fungacides Insecticides 12-24-12 Glifosato Vitabox Mirex Arribo Urea 46% Parakut Dithane Furadan Paraquath Antracol Malthion Benlate Ridomil Hormitox

Chicken Coops and Duck Pens:

Chicken coops (Figure 30) are way to raise chickens faster for meat and

eggs. The chicken excrement can be used for fertilizer. The farm had two coops

which were empty when we left. The duck pen (Figure 31) was the same concept

as the chickens except the ducks were only for consumption. However, for both

technologies the farm group was supposed to breed the ducks and chickens to

sustain production. However, all the ducks and chickens were eaten. Much of the

time the chickens and ducks were sick due to missed feedings and lack of water

and the farmers thought Patronato would bring more.

86

Figure 30: Chicken coop in Dudori

Figure 31: Duck pond in the Patronato farm, Chalite

87

Fish Ponds:

There were two 125m2 ponds with red tilapia (Tilapia spp.) (Figure 32).

Water washed from the pig pens, flowed into the fish ponds. The fish ate the

solids left in the excrement. Two harvests (Figure 33) occurred over two years at

four pounds of fish for each family, a small harvest. Many in the group

complained that people would steal fish from the ponds.

Figure 32: Fish pond

Figure 33: Fish harvest for one family

88

Pig Pens:

Although farmers in the community had free range pigs, Patronato uses

pig pens (Figure 34) to grow them faster and bigger with feed. The pigs' manure

was used to feed the fish (Figure 35). The farm group was supposed to breed the

pigs to sell for meat and to sell piglets. Meat sells for $0.30 per pound and a piglet

for $30.00. However, the farmers would slaughter the pigs for meat before they

bred them. During my time in Chalite Patronato brought them more pigs.

Figure 34: Pigs in the pen

Figure 35: Pipe from pig pen leading to fish tank

89

Grafted Fruit Trees:

Grafted varieties of orange and lemon trees were brought by Patronato to increase

the production of the fruit trees.

Non-native trees:

Non-native species of trees like teak (Figure 36) were introduced for wood

production.

Figure 36: Teak plantation in Caño Sucio

Banana and Plantain management:

On the farm there was emphasis on keeping the farm clean, meaning clean of

weeds (Figure 37). They made sure that dead and dying banana leaves were cut off.

Planting in rows was important as well as fertilization and removing banana plants

that were infected with a rootworm. Seed (Figure 38) was transplanted from the

farms of the farmers.

90

Figure 37: Area cleared to plant banana on the Patronato farm in Chalite

Figure 38: Patronato buying banana seed to plant in the farm

91

Coffee Stand Management:

The Patronato farm had a small area of coffee of a highland variety from Boquete,

a variety that requires cooler weather. The main activity related to coffee

management was weeding it (Figure 39). The coffee trees were planted in a spacing

of 1.5m x 1.5m with some shade trees left. To harvest coffee one waits until the fruit

is a bright red. The fruit is then removed by hand and then soaked in water to remove

the skin and pulp. Afterwards it is dried and roasted to make coffee.

Figure 39: Area on farm weeded for coffee trees

Manioc management:

Manioc is grown to produce a large tuber. The farm has manioc planted on the

hillsides and planted in rows (Figure 40). Maintenance includes weeding and

maintaining just two stems. The crop is easily planted by cutting a stem about four

92

inches long and placing it in the soil at a 45 degree angle with the bud facing up. Over

twelve different varieties of manioc were named during my time in Chalite.

Figure 40: Manioc growing in lines with compost around the stems

Taro root management:

Taro root is one of the main foods of the Ngöbe. It was planted in rows (Figure

41) and weeded often. Small and dead leaves were removed during weeding to allow

improved development of the tuber. However, after the first harvest there was a

noticeable decrease in production. The chemical fertilizer was not working as well,

and the second crop was not growing nearly as well. However, some of the farmers

believed it was the fault of each other, and not the soil.

93

Figure 41: Dachin (taro root) growing in the Patronato farm

Home gardens and vegetables:

Garden activities included on the farm were a small area with five raised beds

(Figure 42) of green beans, cucumber (Figure 43), and tomatoes. The seeds came

with a fertilizer coating and the were sprayed with fertilizers and insecticides.

Figure 42: Raised garden beds to grow beans, cucumber, and tomatoes

94

Figure 43: Kate and Willy raising cucumber vines up off the ground

Seedbeds and nurseries:

Trees are planted in a nursery and transplanted to another place. Planting soil and

bags or containers are prepared to plant the seeds (Figure 44). Patronato says that a

nursery was used to grow the seedlings for the fruit and wood species. I was not able

to verify it. However, some farmers remembered receiving the seedlings.

95

Figure 44: Small tree nursery made at the school

Irrigation:

Given the annual rainfall, drainage ditches (Figure 45) were used on the farm to

create areas of land that were not completely flooded.

Figure 45: Drainage ditch at the Patronato farm

96

Working with the Agricultural Technologies

The agricultural technologies described were used on the Patronato farm during

the duration of my study and work. With the help of the Patronato extension agents

(Figure 46) the farmers were either told to do the activity or the farmers expressed a

desire to do the activity. Many times the extension agent would explain that the farm

looked sucia (dirty). This term meant the farm did not look neat, orderly, or weeded. Out

of the forty-nine workdays that I participated in, thirty-two involved weeding of which

most lasted three hours or less. Therefore, not much time was left to do many other

activities. Much time was spent weeding, working in the rice ponds, and bananas. In

Figure 47, I show what percentage of the total days a particular activity was performed.

For example 12% of the days (six), I observed chemical utilization on the farm.

Figure 46 : Patronato province leader Irving Candadero and area technical leader

Alfredo Guerra visiting the farm

97

Patronato Farm Activities

65%

14%

4%

4%

37%

18%

12%

8%

2%

4%

6%

0%

2%

24%

6%

8%

8%

6%

2%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Weeding

Meetings

Contours

Manures

Rice Ponds

Pineapple

Agricultural Chemicals

Chicken Coops

Duck Pens

Fish Tanks

Pig Pens

Tree Grafting

Non native trees

Banana

Coffee

Cassava

Taro Root

Gardening

Nursery

Drainage Activities

Activity Percentage (Data from 49 Farm Days)

Figure 47: Farm activities chart - note: each percentage represents number of days out

of 49 that the activity was performed

98

Patronato identified Chalite as a community requiring assistance. I have described

the farming system of Chalite and the farming system of the Patronato farm program.

Farmers in their own farms generally have to clear an area, burn it, and then throw the

seed or put the seed in the ground. There is little daily intensive management of the crops.

When it is time to harvest something, the farmer goes and harvests it. When the farmer

thinks the weeds are damaging the plants, he cuts them down. Essentially the farmer

sustains himself and his family with food the land provides, and income obtained from

work or selling farm products.

The Patronato de Nutrición farm program has come to the community and tried to

provide a place where the farmers involved can grow more food more effectively.

Farmers have complained that there is less land available to them than their fathers had,

and so they are starting to realize that farms must be managed effectively and sustainably.

The farm program attempts to give the farmer the tools and agricultural technologies that

the farmer can use in his own farm. However, are these technologies adopted, why or

why not? In the next chapter, I utilized Pearson coefficient results, descriptive results of

the average farmer, and results from the Patronato de Nutrición program to discuss

adoption rates and possible reasons why or why not farmers adopt the agricultural

technologies observed on the Patronato farm.

99

CHAPTER 6 - ADOPTION OF AGRICULTUAL TECHNOLOGIES

PROMOTED ON THE PATRONATO FARM

Why do farmers adopt a technology? In this chapter, correlation of selected

variables and each agricultural technology is presented to show why farmers adopt or do

not adopt a particular technology. A short discussion of farmers’ reasons for adoption and

the Patronato program follows the correlation results. The final section of the chapter

presents an overview of the results and analysis of all the technologies and describes a

general set of reasons for adoption and the relationship to Patronato de Nutrición.

ADOPTION OF INDIVIDUAL AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES

Contours

Thirty-seven percent of the farmers had knowledge of contours and 16%

responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 9 shows correlations

between selected variables and contour adoption.

Table 9: Selected variables correlated with adoption of contours: note-variable corresponds to the interview question and the variable definition is the meaning.

Variable Variable definitions Pearson Correlation

Coefficient P 37d1 Adopt contours experiment 1.000 <0.001q37 Knowledge of contours 0.567 0.011 Fish16a Number days fishing -0.544 0.016 tlcnt28 Number of tools 0.503 0.028 Amt22b Amount borrowed 0.494 0.032 37a1 Knowledge of contours from Patronato 0.397 0.093

100

Farmers did learn about contours from Patronato, however the people who

actually adopted had more resources, especially tools. People who adopted also had

more debt, the sign of a risk taker. A project in 1990 by Banco Desarolla Agropecuaria

(BDA) offered loans of 5000 dollars to grow a hybrid type of cacao. One farmer said he

paid it off, the other said he did not have to, because the trees had died. However, these

farmers were willing to take the risk associated with this new technology because they

believed they could obtain a higher income from it and did not really have to pay it back.

Farmers who fished more and had farmed for a greater period were less likely to

adopt contours. For example, there were times when people did not show up to a meeting

because they had gone fishing and stayed out until it was dark. Some farmers I talked to

did not think their lives were so bad, except that they would like to have more income.

They enjoyed the freedom to go fishing and hunting when they wanted, especially when

compared to working outside the community for companies such as the Bocas Fruit

Company. When a farmer worked for a company, he had to work a specific set of hours

and days, not like the life in Chalite.

Another factor influencing adoption was Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé (PNB). PNB had

come six years before and conducted agroforestry extension work and seminars with the

farmers. Extension agents could usually speak Ngäbere and would stay in the community

for more than a day or two. However, most of the farmers who adopted contours had

also attended a one month PNB seminar to learn about the different technologies such as

contours. One constraint voiced in private talks, was the great labor involved in making

contours. In the farmers’ own farms they slashed, burned, planted, and harvested. In the

101

farm program we only worked with contours four percent of the time, therefore the

farmers had not yet identified the need to add more labor by making contours in their

own farms.

Manures

Seventy-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of manures and 21%

responded they used green and organic manure technologies on their own farms. Table

10 shows correlations between selected variables and manure adoption.

Table 10: Selected variables correlated with adoption of manures


Coefficient P 38d1 Adopt manures to experiment 1.000 <0.001 38d4 Adopt manures better 0.664 0.002 38a2 Knowledge of manures from PNB 0.606 0.006 yrsScl3 Years in school 0.440 0.059 tlcnt28 Number of tools 0.416 0.076

Work with manures on the Patronato farm was done four percent of the time.

Except for our involvement, there was little education or hands on practice to use green

manures. Green manures such as mucuna could work well in the humid climate.

However, miscommunication between the extension agents has thwarted the effort. In

spite of the communication problems, some farmers have adopted the technology. They

adopted it because of the similarity to the slash and mulch system they sometimes used

for corn. This leads to the correlation between experimentation and adoption. The slash

and mulch system is already comparable to a slash and mulch with a green manure. In

102

the slash and mulch system farmers told me they let the weeds grow up to a certain height

before they cut them down to provide the mulch base. They are able to do the same with

a crop like mucuna. However, a constraint I heard while working on the farm many

times was that green manures were not edible.

Extension work by PNB was another reason people knew about the technology

and decided to use it. A farmer told me during the interview that although PNB had not

left a constructed building, they had left useable knowledge. A constraint to adoption

identified by Fischer (2002), stated programs need to be continuous and long term.

Patronato is, in effect, continuing the examples PNB started, although not necessarily

focusing on what PNB did well or badly. In order for people to adopt green manures,

they must see an effective example working. Other manures are difficult to manage

because of weather, chickens, and cows. For example, in a green manure experiment

outside of the Patronato farm, plants were eaten by pigs, insects, stepped on by cows, and

scratched up by chickens. A farmer will not use a technology if he sees it fail.

Rice Ponds

The system of rice ponds is supposed to provide more rice per hectare. Although

we worked with the rice tanks on the farm 37% of the days, not one of the farmers

adopted the technology. Reasons given by the farmers was it did not work, it required

too much labor, produced low yields, and was too easy for the birds to eat the seed. I also

observed the constant struggle to get the spacing right, use fertilizers, and use the pig to

fish to duck system effectively. Many farmers bluntly stated that rice ponds were a waste

103

of their time and the only reason they did it was to get the meat from the free ducks,

chickens, pigs, and fish that Patronato provided.

In many of the farm group meetings, the farm group voted to stop working in the

rice ponds. However, one man continually pressured them to continue. The rice ponds

are the pride of Patronato and this is what they show visitors. Rice ponds could work if

people did not already have alternative sources of food they feel works better, such as

their own rice system. Farmers told me during the survey they could harvest twenty

sacks of rice from a hectare of swamp as compared to seven sacks in two years from the

farm program. Rice tanks are a labor intensive, highly managed system that does not fit

in well with the lifestyle of the Ngöbe people. One can broadcast the rice seed into the

prepared swamp and wait for the harvest.

Pineapple Management

Ninety percent of the farmers had knowledge of pineapple management and 53%


between selected variables and pineapple adoption.

Table 11: Selected variables correlated with adoption of pineapple management


Coefficient P 40d2 Adopt pineapple, it is easier 0.490 0.033 wkmon12 Work for money -0.490 0.033 20a1 Part of Patronato 0.490 0.033 pina66 Sell pineapple -0.418 0.075 40d4 Adopt pineapple, it is better 0.411 0.081 cacao67 Sell cacao -0.411 0.081

104

Pineapple management requires very little extra work besides weeding. Farmers

stated it was easier to weed the pineapple when planted in rows. It can sell for as much

as $0.50 per fruit, is easy to plant, and maintain, so many people adopted it. Farmers can

take 50 pineapple fruits to Chiriqui Garnde and sell them at an average of $0.35,

generating a gross profit of $17.50. After the boat trip and cost of transport, they can

make a net profit of $8.00 dollars. This is not much profit, but it is easily obtained.

Farmers who labor for income, are less likely to adopt pineapple management. They will

grow it but with little management and only for personal consumption. Farmers who sell

other products at higher values, such as cacao for $0.65 to $0.85 per pound, are less likely

to adopt pineapple management because they can earn $65 for one sack of unprocessed

cacao bean.

During work on the Patronato farm, we worked on pineapple plants 18% of the

time. Most of the time was spent weeding. Pineapple is valued in the community

because it is sweet and sweet foods are a luxury too many people. They carry little

candies with them at all times. Pineapple propagation is a simple process: it is planted

from seed in the under-story with medium shade and left to grow.

Agricultural Chemicals

Sixty-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of agricultural chemicals and 5%


between selected variables and agricultural chemical adoption.

105

Table 12: Selected variables correlated with adoption of agricultural chemicals


Coefficient P 41d4 Adopt chemicals works better 1.000 <0.001 tlcnt28 Number tools 0.765 0.001 Fish16 Go fishing -0.687 0.001 21a3 Other person part of women’s group 0.505 0.028

Many of the farmers had worked for the Bocas fruit company and coffee harvests

in Chiriquí. During their work, some of the farmers encountered chemical use. Most

farmers told me they would use chemicals if they could afford them, however this was

not possible. They were constrained by their low incomes and travel distance to buy the

chemicals. Only one farmer had the resources to obtain and use the chemicals. The

chemicals were used on the Patronato farm for 12% of the workdays. However, no

training was given. Some people were afraid of the chemicals, because if they used the

wrong ones they could kill their crops.

Chicken Coops

All of the farmers had knowledge of chicken coops and 16% responded they used

the technology on their own farms. Table 13 shows correlations between selected

variables and chicken coop adoption.

106

Table 13: Selected variables correlated with adoption of chicken coops

Variable Variable definitions

Pearson Correlation Coefficient P

42d4 Adopt chicken coops better 1.000 <0.001 38a10 Knowledge of manures from BDA 0.604 0.006 20a2 Part pf pto 0.567 0.011 Fish16 Go fishing -0.544 0.016 42c2 Do not adopt chicken coops no materials -0.508 0.027 Amt22b Amount borrowed 0.494 0.032

The majority of farmers did not adopt the type of chicken coops used in the

Patronato farm. They did not have the materials to make the chicken coops. The coops

require a dry area, medicine for the chickens, chicken wire, and wood. The chickens

needed to be watered and fed at least twice a day. Most people own free-range chickens

that feed themselves. During the survey people said they thought their chickens were

stronger against disease and needed little management. Some farmers have their own

method of protecting the chickens at night. They make a raised platform easily

constructed from sticks or a small little coop made from the bark of a palm tree (Figure

48).

The farm group constantly struggled with who was in charge of feeding and

watering the chickens’ each day. The Patronato extension agents believed the group

could sell eggs for $0.10 each or $1.00 a dozen to other communities. It is hard to sell

food to people in Chalite because many believe if you have extra food you should share it

with your fellow villagers. The farmers ate all the Patronato chickens because most of

the people in the farm program would not transport the eggs and so the chickens had no

value.

107

Figure 48: A Ngöbe chicken hideaway

Duck Pens

Ninety-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of duck pens and 17%


between selected variables and duck pen adoption.

108

Table 14: Selected variables correlated with adoption of duck pens


Coefficient P 20a2 Part pf pto 0.676 0.002 43a2 Knowledge of duck pens PNB 0.664 0.002 43d4 Adopt duck pens better 0.664 0.002 21a2 Other person part of pto 0.456 0.050 Fish16 Go fishing -0.456 0.050 Amt22b Amount borrowed 0.417 0.075 borrw23 Ability to borrow 0.394 0.095

Duck pens are similar to the chicken coops. Farmers who did adopt duck pens had

prior knowledge of the technology through the PNB program and the Patronato program.

People who could afford the supplies built a similar area for the ducklings but not for the

ducks. Many of the farmers felt the ducks they owned were superior because they were

not as susceptible to disease. Farmers also expressed it was too hard to keep ducks in a

penned area and predators could more easily enter the pen and eat the ducks. The ducks

in the Patronato farm were to be bred together to have more ducks, but due to inadequate

training and supervision of the farm group, the ducks were eaten.

Fishponds

Ninety-five percent of the farmers had knowledge of fishponds and 11%


between selected variables and fishpond adoption.

109

Table 15: Selected variables correlated with adoption of fish ponds


Coefficient P ha24a1 Total hectares farm land 0.551 0.014 w2tm24 2 weighted time to farms -0.485 0.035 debts22 Have debts -0.402 0.088

Fishponds are a high risk investment because of the labor to dig the ponds and

management to feed the fish. Time is a constraint as shown by the negative correlation

with distance to the farms. Some farmers felt it was a good idea because there are fewer

fish in the river, however people would steal fish from the ponds and the people who did

have the ponds were near the river, and the ponds were eventually washed away. Farmers

said they would use the system if tools were available to make the ponds and they had

help, but also said they would have to share the fish from their pond with all the people

who had helped.

Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé helped to construct two fishponds in the Patronato farm

area before Patronato arrived. After a harvest, obtaining new fish can be difficult because

all fish must be male in a tank or crossbreeding occurs and they will not grow as fast.

This involves sexing the fish when they are young. The Ngöbe farmers were in no

position to do this on their own inititive and sexing usually occurs in a MIDA fish farm

six hours away. Harvests were low, and the fish did not grow large due to confusion

about feeding periods. Many farmers felt it was a waste of their energy, although they

admitted there were fewer fish in the rivers than when their fathers were young.

110

Pig Pens

Ninety-five percent of the farmers had knowledge of pig pens and 26.3%


between selected variables and pigpen adoption.

Table 16: Selected variables correlated with adoption of pig pens


Coefficient P 45d4 Adopt pigpens better 0.864 <0.001 45d2 Adopt pigpens easier 0.574 0.010 Amt22b Amount borrowed 0.511 0.026 45c2 Do not adopt pigpens no materials -0.510 0.026 Fish16 Go fishing -0.394 0.095 ms24a Number different farm areas 0.391 0.098

People recognized that the Patronato pigs grew faster and were easier to take care

of in pens. A constraint was the materials needed to make the pens exactly like

Patronato's. A statement I heard many times while working with people would was “ no

estoy acostumbrado Chodi”, they were not used to doing it a new way. If they did try a

new agricultural technology, many in the community believed that if was not done

exactly as the extension agent had introduced it, the technology would not work for them.

However, some people had created their own systems. People kept their pigs tied below

the house so they could eat the manioc, banana, and pifa husks leftover after cooking.

They would bring the pigs to the farm so they could root around while they were

working. One complaint of people with free-range pigs was they destroyed other farmers’

crops. The negative consequences of free-range pigs, the desire for meat, and lack of

materials to make a pen with concrete, enabled some people to go halfway and make a

111

pen of their own design (Figure 49). Their response was it was easier to take care of a pig

when it had piglets.

Figure 49: Pigpen made of bamboo for a pregnant pig

Tree Grafting

Only twenty-eight percent of the people knew what grafting was, and none of

farmers interviewed adopted this technology. None of the workdays in the Patronato farm

involved tree grafting training. However, all of the farmers already had orange trees they

harvested. During the two years I stayed there most of the grafted trees brought in by

Patronato had been killed by leaf cutter ants (Atta cephalotes), black aphids, and fungus.

The fruit trees in the farms of the farmers were not as sweet, and did not produce as

much, however they did produce every year.

112

Non-native tree use

Forty-two percent of the farmers had knowledge of non-native trees and 26.3%


between selected variables and non-native tree adoption.

Table 17: Selected variables correlated with adoption of non-native tree species



q47 Knowledge of non native trees 0.701 0.001 47d6 Adopt non-native trees have 0.574 0.010 own33 Own your farm -0.574 0.010 Fish16a Number days fishing -0.513 0.025 Hunt15 Do you hunt -0.457 0.049 47a7 Knowledge of non native trees Jose G. 0.397 0.093 ms24a Number Different farm areas 0.391 0.098

One of the farmers was a promoter of the use of some non-native trees in the

farms. He would give out seedlings to people from his own small nursery. This farmer

grew up outside of the community of Chalite. He had experienced different foods and

forms of farming on the island of Bocas del Toro and was one of the children sent by

their parents to be educated away from home. With this knowledge, he constantly

struggled to help farmers in his area to try different technologies even when they did not

want to. Although the adoption rate was low for the non-native trees, almost everyone

had the native laurel and native trees in their farms. The main reason for adoption of non-

113

native tree species were that PNB had given them seedlings and helped them plant in

their farms. After the trees were established, they required little management.

Banana Management

Seventy-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of banana management and

63% responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 18 shows

correlations between selected variables and banana management adoption.

Table 18: Selected variables correlated with adoption of banana management



q48 Knowledge of banana management 0.676 0.002 20a2 Part of teacher parent group 0.583 0.009 48d4 Adopt banana better 0.583 0.009 Communal Use communal rice area -0.567 0.011 48c1 Do not adopt banana too much work -0.450 0.054 20a1 Part of Patronato 0.420 0.074 organ20 Farmer part of an organization 0.409 0.083

Many of the farmers had worked for Bocas Fruit Company with banana

management in the banana plantations. They transferred the knowledge from outside the

community to their farms and Patronato reinforced it. If a farmer was part of Patronato

they were more likely to adopt management methods. The knowledge was already there

before Patronato had arrived, and they reinforced the ideas through the banana

management on the Patronato farm. The farmers who did not adopt banana management

114

methods thought their current methods were fine because the bananas were producing

well without much labor.

Coffee Management

Sixty-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of coffee management and 39%


between selected variables and coffee management.

Table 19: Selected variables correlated with adoption of coffee management



49d5 Adopt coffee sells 0.449 0.054 debts22 Have debts -0.454 0.052 49c2 Do not adopt coffee no materials -0.456 0.050 crn32a Slash and burn for corn -0.460 0.048 q49 Knowledge of Coffee management 0.519 0.023 49d6 Adopt coffee have 0.567 0.011 49d4 Adopt coffee better 0.676 0.002

A large part of the adoption of coffee management is the promise of more income.

People who already had coffee were more likely to adopt management strategies to

improve coffee stands in their farms. A reason why other farmers did not adopt the

strategies was that they did not have the materials. Materials included black bags to plant

the seedlings and building materials to cover the seedlings. Patronato had used an

upland type of coffee from the area of Boquete, which is famous for the volcanic soils

and ability to grow shade-grown coffee. However, this variety did not work well in the

farm. Patronato contracted a farmer to grow a lowland variety in his farm (Figure 50).

They provided him with the black bags. Patronato established a sale price of $0.15 per

115

seedling. However, he received no payment during my time in Chalite because the farm

program had run out of funds in Chalite. All the farmers expressed a desire to have

coffee, however they had not yet seen financial benefits. Most coffee was for personal

consumption.

Figure 50: An overgrown coffee nursery grown for Patronato

Manioc Management

Eight-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of manioc management and 74%


between selected variables and manioc management adoption.

116

Table 20: Selected variables correlated with adoption of manioc management



q50 Knowledge of manioc management 0.725 0.001 50d4 Adopt manioc better 0.567 0.011 YrsScl3 Years in school 0.403 0.087 communal Communal rice area -0.397 0.093

The correlations show that education and prior knowledge were indicators for the

adoption of manioc management. Patronato was constantly trying to plant the manioc on

the hillside in rocky soils. The farmers did not plant manioc often on hillsides, but did

make sure the manioc they grew was in lines for ease of weeding and only had two stems

promoting larger tuber growth. The negative correlation between the use of a communal

rice area and manioc adoption could mean if they spent time working on another

resource, they would spend less time managing the manioc. The plant grows well in

degraded soils and propagates easily. However, people have observed the management

technologies increase the size of the root, and thus increase food production.

Taro Root Management

Thirty-two percent of the farmers had knowledge of taro root management and


correlations between selected variables and taro management adoption.

117

Table 21: Selected variables correlated with adoption of taro root management


Coefficient P 51d6 Adopt taro have 0.792 <0.001 q51 Knowledge of 0.637 0.003 51d4 Adopt taro better 0.604 0.006 Fish16 Go fishing -0.544 0.016 Amt22b Amount borrowed 0.494 0.032 wkmon12 Work for money -0.485 0.036

Adoption of taro root management is another example of prior knowledge of the

technology from other sources. Taro root is one of the main food crops of the Ngöbe and

grows year round. In the Patronato farm, the farmers did learn how to pick plants, which

would produce better. They would also weed the taro periodically and remove the smaller

plants around the main plant to allow better development of the root. The Ngöbe farmers

had reason to adopt this technology because it was one of their main food sources and

similar to their normal farming habits.

Gardens

Sixty-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of the technology and 21%

responded they used gardening technologies on their own farms. Table 22 shows

correlations between selected variables and garden adoption.

118

Table 22: Selected variables correlated with adoption of gardens


Coefficient P 52d1 Adopt gardening experiment 0.725 <0.001 House4 Number of houses 0.625 0.004 52d4 Adopt gardening better 0.574 0.010 20a2 Part of pto 0.535 0.018 20a1 Part of Patronato 0.406 0.085 q52 Knowledge of vegetable gardens 0.406 0.085 q53 Knowledge of seed beds and nurseries 0.406 0.085 Yrsschools3 Years of school 0.398 0.092

Prior knowledge contributed significantly to the adoption of gardening by the

farmers. However, many of the farmers I interviewed said they had tried and failed with

gardens. The river washed away the gardens during hard rains and insects had destroyed

the plants. The main crop most farmers had a desire to grow was cilantro. They use it to

spice their soups. However, none of the programs that came to Chalite, including Peace

Corps, tried to improve cilantro plants.

Nurseries and Seedbeds

Sixty-eight percent of the farmers had knowledge of nurseries and seedbeds and


correlations between selected variables and nursery and seedbed adoption.

119

Table 23: Selected variables correlated with adoption of nurseries


Coefficient P 52c1 Do not adopt gardening too much work 0.604 0.006 yrhs8 Number Years in house 0.548 0.015 tools28 Have tools -0.544 0.016 House6 Number Houses have 0.533 0.019 sb30 Slash and burn the farm -0.485 0.036 ckwd17c Time to look for firewood -0.419 0.075 52a5 Knowledge of gardening Peace Corps 0.397 0.093 53a1 Knowledge of nurseries Patronato 0.397 0.093

The actual idea of a small nursery is not new to the Ngöbe farmers. Many farmers

take seedlings from around a large tree and transplant them. The Patronato farm program

grew and transplanted trees on the farm before I arrived. However, after the planting on

the Patronato farm, there was virtually no work with nursery technologies. Some of the

farmers told me they wanted to start a project, but they did not have the materials or the

tools. They felt they needed all the black bags and tools to create a seedbed or nursery.

Some farmers who did adopt the technology used their own method. They would find an

area they knew was fertile, and cover it with a simple bamboo structure. The seeds would

grow, and then they would transplant the seedlings. For pifa, people would use old

cooking pots with holes in them, put some black sandy soil in the pot, and then plant the

pifa seeds (Figure 51). After a month or two, the seedlings were ready to transplant.

120

Figure 51: Old bowl used as a seed starter

Drainage

Seventy-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of drainage and 42 %


between selected variables and drainage adoption.

Table 24: Selected variables correlated with adoption of drainage



Fish16a Go fishing -0.502 0.037q54 Knowledge of drainage 0.482 0.037tools28 Have tools -0.456 0.05054a9 Knowledge of drainage Bocas fruit company 0.440 0.05954c2 Do not adopt drainage no materials -0.440 0.059organ21 Some else part of an organization 0.440 0.059yrsfm25 Years farming -0.415 0.078time24 Time to farm -0.397 0.093

Farmers who adopted making drainage ditches most likely learned from the work

they did with the Bocas Fruit Company. Farmers remarked that in order to plant crops,

121

the soil could not be saturated with water all of the time. Farmers who did not adopt

drainage stated they did not need to or did not have the tools to do so. Prior knowledge of

drainage and experiences with the Patronato contributed to the adoption of this

technology.

OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN CHALITE

The adoption of agricultural technologies by farmers (Table 25) is

attributed to prior knowledge, access to wealth, and immediate direct benefits to the

farmer. The four most widely adopted technologies correlate to the diet of the Ngöbe

farmer. The farmers system is one of slash, burn, and harvest while the Patronato system

attempted to manage the resource in a single piece of land. Although Patronato has

contributed to the adoption of technologies, they were indirectly affecting the adoption

Table 25: Farmers Adoption of agricultural technologies Activity n = Adopt % Adopt yes Rice ponds 19 0% 0 Tree grafting 18 0% 0 Agricultural Chemicals 19 5% 1 Fish ponds 19 11% 2 Contours 19 16% 3 Chicken Coops 19 16% 3 Duck pens 18 17% 3 Manures 19 21% 4 Taro root (otoi and dachin) 19 21% 4 Vegetable gardening 19 21% 4 Pig pens 19 26% 5 Non native trees 19 26% 5 Coffee management 19 37% 7 Nursery and seed beds 19 37% 7 Drainage 19 42% 8 Pineapple in rows 19 53% 10 Banana and plantain management 19 63% 12 Manioc 19 74% 14

122

by using some familiar technologies. Other organizations such as Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé

had promoted these familiar technologies before Patronato arrived in Chalite. Therefore,

the Patronato system to some extent works only because other institutions have promoted

the same technologies. Programs should research what other programs have done in the

area before they start their own program, and then focus the program with the farmers on

an individual community basis.

Farmers who have worked outside of the community bring those experiences

back to their community. For example, farmers have worked for the Bocas Fruit

Company and in Chiriquí harvesting coffee. They bring back the experiences and use

what they think is appropriate. Tools and management technologies are used if the

farmers have seen the technologies before. Therefore, farmers are more likely to adopt

familiar technologies and have the ability to manipulate the technology. Obvious

agricultural benefits should be demonstrated to the farmers.

Technologies not adopted tend to be highly managed and labor intensive.

Inappropriate varieties of crops are promoted as in the example of rice and fruit trees

brought in by Patronato. They also require materials the farmers felt they could not

obtain. If the farmer felt there were better options that would give him faster results and

more money he was less likely to adopt the agricultural technology.

The fishing phenomenon is another critical factor. Fishing was negatively

correlated to adoption because fishing represented the daily lifestyle of the Ngöbe farmer.

Fishing was the better alternative to the adoption of a technology the farmer felt was too

123

risky, costly, and laborious. Instead of spending energy trying to make something work

and losing food, they went fishing and obtained the food for that day.

Although Patronato was found to have an influence on the adoption of agricultural

technologies, the program was not conducted in a focused manner. This is demonstrated

futher in Table 26 where the Patronato program is positively correlated to the adoption

Table 26: Positive indicators of adoption

Question Activity Adoption Rate Positive indicators of adoption

Wea

lth

Ris

k

Imm

edia

te

Ben

efits

Prio

r Kno

wle

dge

Abi

lity

to

expe

rimen

t

Patro

nato

Pro

gram

Educ

atio

n

41 Agricultural Chemicals 5% x x x 44 Fish Ponds 11% x x 37 Contours 16% x x x x x

43 Duck pens 16% x x x x 42 Chicken Pens 17% x x x x 38 Manures 21% x x x x 51 Taro Root (Otoi) 21% x x x 52 Vegetable Gardening 21% x x x x x x 45 Pig Pens 26% x x x

47 Non native trees 26% x x x 49 Coffee management 37% 53 Nursery Techniques 37% x x x 54 Drainage 42% x x x x

40 Pineapple in Rows 53% x x

48 Banana and Plantain Management 63% x x x x

50 Cassava 74% x x x

of contours, vegetable gardening, pineapple management, and banana management.

However, except for pineapple, other main factors were prior knowledge and immediate

benefits. The table also demonstrates that prior knowledge and immediate benefits are

124

positively correlated with the adoption of the agricultural technologies. However, the

highly adopted agricultural technologies also had the factor of education. In other words a

combination of education, facilitation, immediate benefits, and follow up can increase the

adoption of an agricultural technology that is right for a specific area.

Table 27 summarizes the fishing phenomenon. As stated prior, fishing is another

way of saying the technology is not perceived to be a valuable asset to the farmer.

Agricultural technologies with low adoption rates further this summation as demonstrated

Table 27: Negative indicators of adoption

Question Activity Adoption Rate Negative indicators of adoption

Wea

lth

Ris

k

Labo

r int

ensi

ve

Oth

er o

ptio

ns

Fish

ing

41 Agricultural Chemicals 5% x 44 Fish Ponds 11% x x 37 Contours 16% x

43 Duck pens 16% x 42 Chicken Pens 17% x x 38 Manures 21% 51 Taro Root (Otoi) 21% x x 52 Vegetable Gardening 21% 45 Pig Pens 26% x x

47 Non native trees 26% x x x 49 Coffee management 37% 53 Nursery Techniques 37% x x x 54 Drainage 42% x x x x 40 Pineapple in Rows 53% x x

48 Banana and Plantain Management 63% x x

50 Cassava 74% x

125

in the table. The fishing variable, combined with risk or lack of wealth, are indicators for

low adoption. Programs must find out what is important to the farmer in order to have

better success.

The farmers in Chalite live day to day. Therefore, if the technology cannot be

utilized on a daily basis and guarantee them food, they will not adopt the technology.

Many times, I would pasear (pass time with neighbors) with people and they would say “

yo no tengo presa Chodi, tengo hambre” which means, "I do not having anything to eat

but bananas and I am hungry". Farmers in Chalite strive to eliminate daily hunger in an

efficient, risk-free manner. In the final chapter, I reemphasize the need to work within the

culture of Panama and the Ngöbe and give recommendations on how development and

specifically Patronato could improve their program and more effectively work with the

Ngöbe farmers to improve their lives.

126

CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: GO SMALL OR THEY WILL GO FISHING

Communities like the town of Chalite are poor, and are perceived as is in need

help. Institutions are created to help poor farmers, be it for humanitarian, political, or

economic reasons. However, poor people will not necessarily think the ideas brought to

them are always useful. Many times people will not change if they feel outside

influences control them (Huizer 1970). This is similar to the Ngöbe farmer, except some

feel in that in order to control their lives they must retain the part of their lives that makes

them free. Fishing represents the daily life of a farmer in Chalite and the ability of the

farmer to control what he is going to during any given day.

When institutions come to a village to work with farmers, many times they have

made assumptions about the farmers without regard to the local situation (Bannister and

Nair 2003, Raintree 1986). In the case of Patronato de Nutrición, they are no exception.

All agricultural extension agents for Patronato received training in Chiriquí or Veraguas.

Those regions have a distinct dry period. Bocas del Toro is humid and rainy most of the

year. Some technologies, like vegetable growing, are based on crops which require a dry

summer, and so they did not grow well in Chalite. The Patronato program, like many

other programs, had disregarded the daily ritual of the Ngöbe farmer. They came with

solutions before they knew the problems.

Of the eighteen technologies studied, only three had more than a 50% adoption

rate. Correlations to adoption in this study were wealth, prior knowledge, and immediate

benefits. Wealth indicators include tools, debts, and selling goods. Prior knowledge

127

indicators are knowledge of agricultural technologies from Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé,

MIDA, Banco de Desarollo Agropecuario, and education from school. Immediate

benefits are cash income and crop improvement.

Farmers in Chalite said that a reason to adopt or use an agricultural technology

was experimentation. When a farmer was experimenting, they were taking small risks

without disastrous consequences. Bunch and Lopez (1995) observed that farmers in

Honduras adopted the mucuna system, a slash and mulch method. It was similar to their

swidden fallow system and it easily passed down from other farmers. The farmers

experimented with the method and saw it worked for them. It became their innovation.

The Ngöbe farmer does not live in a close-knit society; he lives in a society where the

family is the central decision maker. Therefore, risk increases because it will affect the

family. Small-scale experimentation is a way to reduce risk (Bunch 1999).

Wealth is an indicator for adoption. Indicators of wealth are number of houses,

number of tools, and number of farm areas. The ability to obtain tools, food, and clothing

increases a farmer's likelihood to adopt a technology, especially if the technology

requires external inputs. Wealth is an indicator in determining adoption by Pattanayak

(2003). In the study of 120 different adoption studies, Pattanayak found that resource

endowments were one of the most important components of adoption. The ability to

acquire wealth and use that wealth for other purposes promotes adoption. Godoy (2000)

found that the Tawahka people of Honduras were more likely to adopt chemicals if they

had access to wealth or were wealthier. Lack of access to wealth and markets by roads,

was identified by Fischer and Vasseur (2002) as a constraint to reaching markets, and

128

therefore obtaining more wealth. The Ngöbe people are not wealthy, and have limited

market access due to distance and boat travel.

Previous knowledge of an agricultural technology was an indicator of adoption to

the farmers in Chalite. Many had previous experiences through work at the Bocas Fruit

Company and the coffee harvests in Chiriquí. They gained experiences from previous

programs such as Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé, MIDA, and Banco de Desarollo Agropecuario.

Amend (2002) notes in a coffee study in Tanzania that farmers with some previous

knowledge of coffee production adopted coffee more easily. In a study of the adoption of

laurel in three Ngöbe communities, Neri (1999) found farmers adopted the management

of the trees because they were native and were willing to try out the technologies.

Previous knowledge is also obtained through one's own farm. Everyone has bananas, and

a slight change could help them produce more, hence a higher adoption rate. Not

everyone has manioc, however it is highly desired, and so people are more willing to try

to obtain and manage it. Knowledge of manioc comes from the farm and other farmers.

Site specificity, local knowledge, and attitudes matter because the internal knowledge

could contribute to adoption of an agricultural adoption (Bannister 2003, Bunch and

Lopez 1995).

Patronato de Nutrición is a contributing factor to adoption in Chalite, in other

words they are succeeding but in an unfocused manner. The program acts as a

continuation on previous knowledge. Although the program does not focus on Ngöbe

farmers' knowledge nor attempt learn about previous programs, they are using a wide

range of agricultural technologies and sometimes follow up something that another

organization has promoted. Patronato's hierarchal structure does not allow the extension

129

agents the flexibility or time to help the development of each farm on an individual basis.

In effect, when rice ponds fail in a community, Patronato tries to continue them without

focusing on other technologies that work better in a specific site. Fischer and Vasseur

(2002) state that in order for people to adopt the alternative agricultural technologies,

they need follow up to the programs. Patronato is in effect, acting as the follow up to

prior programs and knowledge. Bunch and Lopez (1995) found in a follow up survey in

Honduras, that the farmers adopted mucuna not specifically because of the extension

programs, they adopted more quickly because of the programs.

The biggest constraint to the adoption of agricultural technologies in Chalite is

when a farmer "goes fishing". Farmers in Chalite are not accustomed to working in

groups. When a farmer felt that a technology was not going to help them in their daily

lives they do something they feel will add to their daily diet. Technologies such as rice

tanks and tree grafting were not adopted because they were not proven to work. Use of

inappropriate varieties, which did not grow as well, and required extensive education or

labor, are attributed to non-adoption. The factor most recognized contributing factor to

the non-adoption of agricultural technologies is risk (Pattanayak 2003). If a farmer

believes the endeavor may decrease or not increase his daily diet by much, he will not

adopt the technology.

Overview

The objective of this study was to determine if the Patronato farm program was

helping farmers to adopt agricultural technologies used on the Patronato farm. Bort and

Young (1985) state that Ngöbe are integrating into the Panamanian culture. However,

130

due to their social structure, without strong leaders and the family unit as the decision

makers, group organization and work has been difficult. The people of Chalite live in a

remote site with little market access and are subsistence farmers.

In chapters three and four, I introduced and explained current and past literature

dealing with adoption studies. Gomez (1995) notes that before the 1980s there is no

literature about agricultural adoption and technology in Panama. In 1986 organizations

started to work with agroforestry. My study attempted to take a holistic approach to this

adoption study by using statistical analysis, personal observations, personal interaction,

and surveys to present findings as a farm system and not just as technology adoption.

In the results, I found that the average Ngöbe farmers farm in three areas: by the

river, in the swamp, and on hillsides. They farm in a slash and burn or slash and mulch

system and live on their resources day to day. The Patronato de Nutrición program

attempted to provide a farm area to cultivate more food and experiment with different

agricultural technologies to be transferred to the region. They borrowed a piece of land

and created a farm group. Adopted agriculture technologies are indirectly attributed to

the Patronato program. The program did reinforce some technologies the farmers were

already familiar with such as bananas and pineapple management. Farmers adopted

technologies they could do themselves, and therefore have a direct benefit to their farms

with little cost in terms of labor, time, and money.

Recommendations

Many times development work focuses on large-scale projects that do not take

into consideration the local scale in which they will be working (Raintree 1986). Prior

131

knowledge on the part of the institution with respect to the particular village they are

working in can improve their focus and effectiveness on improving farmers lives.

Realizing a cooperative system of the farmer, the institution, land conditions, and past

work could greatly improve adoption of improved agricultural technologies. Many times

institutions will give all the necessary resources to a farmer, such as tools, and believe

that will help them adopt technologies. However, the tools are just one component of the

farm system. If farmers cannot access the tools and technologies at all by themselves,

how are they going to utilize those things when the agency is gone? In a final note, the

Ngöbe farmer works hard, and Patronato has attempted to help them. However, a

program such as this could improve focusing the program towards farmers' specific needs

in Chalite, and not on what other people say their needs are. Otherwise, they will go

fishing.

If Patronato de Nutrición wants to help the farmers, and continue to use the

methods they use in each of the farms, they must evaluate what is working and what is

not. An initial evaluation may be done with rapid rural appraisal methods and analysis

involving the farmers. Then after a year, an evaluation of the agricultural technologies

may be performed to select the ones working, and discontinue the others. Perhaps

through this method Patronato can use the allocated funds more effectively and help the

farmers take those small steps towards adoption more rapidly. Extension agents should

have a basic understanding of rural appraisal and be allowed to help the farmers develop

in a rational way, making sense to the farmers. Just because the farm does not look

weeded does not mean it is not working. Agricultural development tends to be site

specific and Patronato can take advantage of this fact.

132

LITERATURE CITED Allen, Patricia, D.Van Dusen, J. Lundy, and Stephen Gliessman.1991.Integrating Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues in Sustainable Agriculture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(1):34-39

Amacher, Gregory S., W. F. Hyde, and Mohammed Rafiq.1993.Local Adoption of New Forestry Technologies: An Example from Pakistans Northwest Frontier Province. World Development 21(3):445-453

Amend, Joshua D. 2002.Risk and Coffee Production in Mhaji, Tanzania. Masters Thesis at Michigan Technological University. 109 p.

ANAM. 2001. Corredor Biologico Mesoamérica del Atlantico Panameño. Accessed at website www.cbmap.org/es/home.php

ANAM. 2004. Informe del Estado del Ambiente. Autoridade Nacional del Ambiente, Panamá. 175 p.

Anguizola, Gustave. 1980. Philippe Bunau-Varilla: The Man behind the Panama Canal. Neslon hall, Chicago. 472 p.

Apantaku, S.O, C.I.Sodiya, F.S. Apantaku, and E.O.Fakoya. 2000. Alternative Internal Sources of Funds for Extension Service in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development 17(1):37-53

Asamblea Legislativa. 1992. Ley No.24 (del 23 de Noviembre de 1992) por la cual Establecen Incentivos Reglamento Actividad de Reforestación en La Republica de Panamá. 27 p.

Asamblea Legislativa. 1997. Ley No.10 por la cual se Crea la Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé. Presidencia Fondo de Emergencia Social. 19 p.

Avery, Ralph Emmett. 1915. The Greatest Engineering Feat in the World at Panama. Haskins, William C. (ed.) Leslie Judge Co., New York 384 p.

Bannister, M.E., and P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Agroforestry Adoption in Haiti: The Importance of Household and Farm Characteristics. Agroforestry Systems 57:149-157

BBC. 2004. (British Broadcasting Company) 2004 Country Profiles- Thursday, 2 September, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229332.stm

133

Beets, Willem C. 1990. Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming Systems in the Tropics. AgBé Publishing. Alkmaar Holland. 738 p.

Black, Jan Knippers, and Edmundo Flores. 1989. Chapter 1: Historical Setting. Pages 1-66 in Meditz, Sandra W, Hanratty, Dennis M., (eds.), Panama: A Country Study. United States Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 337 p.

Bort, John R., and Philip D.Young. 1985. Economic and Political Adaptations to National Development Among Guaymi. Anthropological Quarterly 58:1-12

Bort, John, and Mary W. Helms 1983. Panamá in Transistion: Local Reactions to Development Policies.University of Missouri Monographs in Anthropology Number Six. Department of Anthropology. University of Missouri-Colombia 198 p.

Bourgois, Philippe. 1988. Conjugated Oppression: Class and Ethnicity Among Guaymi and Kuna Banana Workers. American Ethnologist 15:328-348

Braimoh, Ademola K. 2001. Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Soil Science to Develop a National Soil Classification System for Nigeria. Agriculture and Human Values 19:75-80

Buckles, D., and B. Triomphe. 1999. Adoption of Mucuna in the Farming Systems of Northern Honduras Agroforestry Systems 47:67-91

Bunch, Roland, and Gabinó López. 1995. Soil Recuperation in Central America: Sustaining Innovation After Innovation. Sustainable Agriculture Program of the International Institute for the Environment and Development. Gate Keeper series No.55 18 p. Bunch, Roland. 1999. Reasons for Non-Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies and How to Overcome them. Mountain Research and Development 19(3):213-220

Carrasco, Domingo A., Scott G. Witter, 1993. Constraints to Sustainable Soil and Water Conservation: A Dominican Republic Example

CIA. 2003. The World Fact Book- Panamá 2003 http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pm.html

Cochran, Jason B. 2004. Approaches to studying technical innovation adoption and characteristics of adopters in developing countries: Masters Thesis, McGill University

Cook, Richard G. 1982. Los Guaymis Si Tienen Historia. pages 27-64 in Comité Patrocinador del "Foro sobre el Pueblo Guaymí y Su Futuro" y Centro de Estudios y Acción Social-Panamá (eds.), CEASPA 1982. Republica de Panamá

134

Crane, Julia G., and Michael V. Angrosino, 1992. Field Projects in Anthropology: A student Handbook. Waveland Press. Illinois 200 p.

Cromwell, Godfrey. 1992. What Makes Technology Transfer: Small Scale Hydro Power in Nepals Public and Private Sectors. World Development 20(7):979-989

DeWalt, B.R. 1985. Anthropology, Sociology, and Farming Systems Research. Human Organization 44:106-114

Doorman, Frans.1991. A framework For the Rapid Appraisal of Factors that Influence the Adoption and Impact of New Agricultural Technology. Human Organization 50(3): 235-244 FAOSTAT. 2002. Food and Agriculture Indicators. Accessed at http://www.fao.org/es/ess/compendium_2003/pdf/ESS_PAN.pdf

Feder, Gershon, Richard E. Just, and David Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33:255-299.

Fischer, Alexandra, and Liette Vasseur. 2002. Small Holder Perceptions of Agroforestry Projects in Panama. Agroforestry Systems 54:103-113

Fischer, Alexandra, and Liette Vasseur. 2000. The Crisis in Shifting Cultivation Practices and the Promise of Agroforestry: A Review of the Panamanian Experience. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:739-756

Franco, Fray Blas José, and A.L. Pinart. 1882. Noticia de LosIindios Guaymies y de sus Cosumbres 19 p.

Godoy, Ricardo, Kathleen O´neil, Kendura McSweeney, David Wilkie, Veronica Flores, David Bravo, Peter Kostishack, and Adonio Cubas. 2000. Human Capital, Wealth, Property Rights, and the Adoption of New Farm Technologies: the Tawahka Indians of Honduras. Human Organization 59(2):222-233

Gómez, Manuel. 1995. Economic and Industrial Analysis of Agroforestry Projects in Panama. in pages 146-162 of Costs, Benefts, and farm Adoption of Agroforestry: Project Experiences in Central America and the Caribbean. A CATIE-IFPRI- World Bank Project. Current, Dean, Earnst Lutz, and Sara Scherr (.eds). World Bank Environmental Paper #14, Washington D.C. 219 p. Gordon, Burton L. 1982. A Panamá Forest and Shore: Natural History and Amerindian Culture in Bocas del Toro. The Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove California. 178 p.

135

Harwood, Richard R. 1996. Development Pathways Toward Sustainable Systems Following Slash and Burn. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 58:75-86

Hidrometeorologia. 2004. Republica de Panama. Accessed at www.hidromet.com.pa

Howarth, David. 1966. Panama: Four Hundered Years of Dreams and Cruelty. McGraw-Hill Book Company. NY Toronto London 297 p.

Huizer, Gerrit. 1970. Resistance to Change and radical Peasant Mobilization: Foster and Erasmus Reconsidered. Human Organization. 29(4):303

Johns, Norman. 1999. Conservation in Brazils Chocalate Forest: The Unlikely Persistence of the Traditional Cocoa Agro ecosystem. Environmental Management 23(1):31-47 Johnson, Fredrick. 1948. The Post-Conquest Ethnology of Central America: An Introduction. The Meso-American Division. Bulletin 143. Handbook of South American Indians 4:195-204

Kitchen, Rob, and Nicholas J. Tate 2000. Conducting Research into Human Geography. Theory, Methodology, and Practice. Prentice Hall. United Kingdom 330 p.

Kluck, Patricia. 1989. Chapter 2: The Society and its Framework. Pages 67-122 in Meditz, Sandra W, Hanratty, Dennis M., (eds.), Panama: A Country Study. United States Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 337 p.

Koster, Richard M., and Guillermo Sanchez. 1991. In the Time of the Tyrants. Panama 1968-1990. W. W. Norton & Company 434 p.

Larose, Daniel T., and Chun Jin. 1998. Ready, Set, Run. A Student Guide to SAS Software for Microsoft Windows. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View California. 96 p. Lincoln, Kathryn M. 2004. The Use and Potential use of the Pita Plant, Aechmea magdalenae (Andre) Andre EX. Baker, In a Ngobe Village: A Case Study of Chalite, Boocas del Toro, Panama. Masters Thesis at Michigan Technological University 118 p

Marianela, Martinelli A. (Lic.) 1993. El Pueblo Ngöbe: Cultural Y Organization. Documento Ngöbe Tomo 1. Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe-PAN. Republica de Panamá. Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables Agencia de Cooperacion Tecnica Alemaña-GTZ 78 p. Martin, Adrienne, John Sherington. 1996. Participatory Research Methods- Implimentation, Effectiveness, and Institutional Context. Agricultural Systems 55(2):195-216

136

Mele, Paul Van, and A.K.M. Zakaria. 2002. The Innovation tree: A New PARA Tool to Reveal the Innovation Adoption and Diffussion Process. pla notes: participatory learning and action. Community-based animal healthcare. IIED. 45:54-58 Mora-Urpi, Jorge, John C. Weber, and Charles R. Clement. 1997. Peach Palm, Bactris gasipaes Kunth. Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops.20. Internatioanl Plant Genetic Resource Institute (IPGRI). Gatersleben Germany. 76 p.

Neill, Sean P., and David R. Lee. 1999. Explaining the Adoption and Disadoption of Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of cover Crops in Northern Honduras. Working Paper WP-99-31. Department of Agricultural Resource and Managerial Economics, Cornell university, Ithaca, NY 25 p.

Neri E, Beer J., SO Marriba, M. Gomez, and Validcium D. Durret. 1999. Adopcion Inicial y Difusion de Tecnologia Agroforestal en Cacaotales con Indigenas Ngabe en Panama. Revista Agroforesteria en las Americas 26 8 p.

Nichols, J.Doland, Martha E. Rosemeyer, F. Flynn Carpenter, and James Kettler. 2001. Intercropping legume trees with native timber trees rapidly restores cover to eroded tropical pasture without fertilization. Forest Ecology and Management 152:195-209

Nichols, Paul. 2000. Social Survey Methods: A Field guide for Development Workers. Development Guidelines, No.6. Oxfam, Oxford 131 p.

Panama Census. 2000. http://www.contraloria.gob.pa/index.htm

Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (a). Patronato de Nutricion Encuesta Antropométrica (Peso y Talla en niños menores de 5 anos.)

Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (b). Patronato de Nutricion Encuesta Socioeconómica

Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (c). Cuerpo de Paz y Patronato de Nutricion. De Plan Panama Rural 2001-2004. Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario. Panama 2000

Patronato de Nutrición. 2004 (d). Patronato de Nutricion Proyectos de Granjas Sostenibles Capitulo Bocas del Toro. Provincia de Bocas del Toro. Coordinador Felipe Villamil. Patronato de Nutrición. 2004 (e). Proyecto de granja de Agricultura Sostenible Comunidad de Chalite, Distrito de Kankintu, Provincia de Comarca Ngobe Bugle. (El Perfil de la Granja)

137

Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., D. Evan Mercer, Erin Sills, and Jui-Chen Yang. 2003. Taking Stock of Agroforestry Adoption Studies. Agroforestry Systems 57:173-186

Peng, Martin Khor Kok. 1996. The Knowledge We Need Is There for the Taking. Ceres 157:33-36

Place, F., Dewees, P. 1999. Policies and incentives for the adoption of improved fallows. Agroforestry Systems 47:323-343

PNB (Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe-Buglé). 2002. Atlas de la Comarca Ngöbe-Bugle. Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe-Buglé (PAN-ANAM-GTZ). San Felix, Chiriqui, Rpublica de Panamá 26 p.

PNB 2001 (Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé) 2001. Plan de Desarrollo del Distrito de Kankintú. Congresso General Ngöbe-Buglé y Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe (PAN-ANAM-GTZ)

Prinz, Dieter. 1986. Cropping technologies in the tropics for Soil Conservation and Soil Improvement. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 25(2):86-99

Raintree, J.B., 1986. Agroforestry Pathways: Land Tenure, Shifting Cultivation and Sustainable Agriculture. Unasylva 38(4): 1-15

Rauniyar, Ganesh P.,Franklin Goode. 1996. Managing Green Revolution Technology: An Analysis of a Differential Practice Combination in Swaziland. Economic Development and Cultural Change. :413-436

República de Panamá. 1999. Decreto Ejecutivo No.194 (De 25 de Agosto de 1999). Por la Cual se Adopta la Carta Orgánica Administrativa de la Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé . Ministerio de Gobierno y Justicia. 49 p.

Roder, Walter. 2004. Are Mountain Farmers Slow to Adopt New Technologies. Mountain Research and Development 24(2):114-118

Ruf, Francois, and Gotz Schroth. 2004. Chapter 6: Cacao Forests and Monocultures: A Historical Review of Cocoa Growing and Its Conflicting Role in Tropical Deforestation and Forest Conservation found in pages 107-134 Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in tropical Landscapes. Schroth, Gotz, Fonseca, Gustavo A.B, Harvey, Celia A., Gascon, Claude, Vasconcelos, Heraldo L., Izac, Anne-Marie N.(eds.) Island Press. Washington Covelo London.

Sanchez, Pedro A., 1976. Properties and Management of Soils in the Tropics. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 618 p.

138

Selener, Daniel, Nelly Endara., and Jos'e Carvajal. 1999. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Planning Workbook. IIRR (International Institute of Rural Reconstruction). Ecuador. 146 p. Shiferaw, Bekele. Stein T.Holder. 2000. Policy Instruments for Sustainable Land Management: the case of Highland Smallholders in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 22:217-232 SIL International. 2004. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=1920 Language Family Trees of Chibchan.

Simmons, Cynthia S., Robert T. Walker, Charles H. Wood. 2002. Tree Planting by Small Producers in the Tropics: A Comparative Study of Brazil and Panama. Agroforestry Systems 56:89-105

Smith, Derek.2003. Participatory Mapping of Community Lands and Hunting Yields among the Bugle of Western Panama. Human Organization 62(4):332-343

Tollefson, Scott D. 1989. Chapter 3: The Economy. Pages 123-170 in Meditz, Sandra W, Hanratty, Dennis M., (eds.), Panama: A Country Study. United States Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 337 p. Tripp, R. 1985. Anthropology and On-Farm Research Human Organization. 44:114-124 United States Department of State. 1989. Panama: A Just Cause. Current Policy No.1240. United States Department of State. Bureau of Public Affairs. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of State. 2004. Background note of Panama. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2030.htm

USAID. 1974. Agronomic-Economic Research on Tropical Soils. Annual report for 1974. Soil Science Department, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, N.C. Contract AID, CSD 2806. 230 p.

Vakis, Renos, and Kathy Lindert. 2000. Poverty in Indigenous Populations in Panamá: A Study Using LSMS Data. The World Bank. Latin American and the Caribbean Office. LHSHD Series. Department of Human Development 1-27

Versteeg, M.N., Eteka F. Amadji, A. Gogan, A. Koudokpon. 1998. Farmers Adoptability of Mucuna Fallowing and Agroforestry Technologies in the Coastal Savanna of Benin. Agricuitual Systems 56(3):269

139

Wayhoo.com 2004. Location of Chalite. http://wayhoo.com/index/a/sgns/detail/1/gns_id/886823/waypoint/Chalite/ (location)

Wiggins, Steve, Elizabeth Cromwell.1995. NGO´s and Seed Provision to Smallholders in Developing Countries. World Development 23(3):413-422

Wit, Cornelis T. de.1987. Integrating Agricultural Research and Development. Quarterly Journal of Integrated Agriculture 26(3):311-324

World Bank. 2000.Panama Poverty Assessment: Priorities and Strategies for Poverty Reduction. A World Bank Country Study. The World Bank

WRI. 2004. (World Resources Institute) Country Profiles Access Oct.10 2004 at http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.cfm?theme=8&rcode=6

Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd Edition. Applied Social Research and Methods Series Volume 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi. 181 p.

Young, Philip D. 1978. La Trayectoria De Una Religión: El Movimiento De Mama Chi Entre Los Guaymis Y Sus Consecuencias Sociales. Revista La Antigua 11:45-75

Young, Philip D. 1979. The Politicization of the Guaymi. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 11:74-135

Young, Philip D.; 1971. Ngawbe: Tradition and Change Among the Western Guaymí of Panamá. University of Illinois Press 256 p.

Documents

AN EVALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL ADOPTION BY NGÖBE …...the Ngöbe in Bocas del Toro and some cultural values. Finally, I describe the community of Chalite where I conducted my research