New and now we wait until the fruits grow’saveuplands.org/05 Final thesis Hanneke Hermans.pdf · 2014. 10. 12. · Title : ‘…And now we wait until the fruits grow’ Subtitle

Wageningen University - Department of Social Sciences

MSc-thesis Communication and Innovation Studies

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’

Case studies on farmers’ and communication workers’ ambiguous perceptions on farm development in

Philippine agricultural innovation systems. October 2006

MAKS

19

Hanneke Hermans

Supervisors: Dr. Annemarie van Paassen

Jugger Afrondoza Benn Viloria


Case studies on farmers’ and communication workers’ ambiguous perceptions on farm development in

Philippine agricultural innovation systems.

Author : Hanneke Hermans (student number 780306-329-010)

Email : [email protected] / [email protected]

Programme : Management of Agro-ecological Knowledge and Social Change,

Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen University, the

Netherlands

Title : ‘…And now we wait until the fruits grow’

Subtitle : Case studies on farmers’ and communication workers’ ambiguous

perceptions on farm development in Philippine agricultural innovation

systems

Supervisor : Dr. Annemarie van Paassen, Department of Communication and

Innovation Studies, Wageningen University, the Netherlands

Supervisor UDP: Ben Viloria, Sustainable Agriculture Coordinator, UDP, Davao, the

Philippines

Supervisor NEH: Jugger Afrondoza, Corporate Social Responsibility, NEH, Davao, the

Philippines

Written for : Wageningen University, the Netherlands

NEH, Davao, the Philippines

Upland Development Programme, Davao, the Philippines

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

Strangely, first pages always have to wait to the last moment to be written. It signifies the final station

of a learning process. Benjamin Franklin once said: ‘Tell me and I will forget, teach me and I will

remember, involve me and I will learn’. After writing this thesis and conducting fieldwork I fully

understand this statement. It was a process full of learning moments and involvement; making

mistakes, getting up on my feet again and go on. Off course this learning and involvement would not

have been possible without some crucial actors that helped me along the way.

First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Annemarie van Paassen for her input, efforts and

critical reflections that stimulated me to keep a broad perspective and to rethink used concepts and

methodologies.

In Davao city, I owe my gratitude to Mr Paul Smits (NEH) and Mr Wiebe van Rij (UDP) for giving

me the opportunity to conduct my field work in cooperation with their organisations. Within UDP, I

would like to thank my supervisor Ben Viloria and Wiebe van Rij for their assistance and input in my

initial proposal. Also, I would like to thank Ken, Mr. Dashiel, Alex and the personnel from PMO and

PPO 1 for the interesting discussions on the topic. Within NEH, I would like to thank Jugger

Afrondoza for his guidance and the production staff in St. Tomas, who gradually introduced me into

the world of Cavendish bananas.

A special word of thanks, for the people in Kilagding and Kinamayan: my deepest gratitude and

appreciation. To Dondon and Maloy: for having patience with me and involving me into your daily

reality. To ‘nanay’ and ‘tatay’ Calipusan: for your hospitality and for giving me much more than ‘just

a home’ in Kilagding. For Mario and Dading: for showing me the hospitable traditions of a lowlands

family in Kinamayan.

Further, thanks to: Medy, Paul, Jeroen (big), Jeroen (small), Micah & Jojo, Rolien, Cherry, Wiebe,

Bea & Nina, for making this experience worthwhile and enjoyable.

In the Netherlands, I am grateful to have received moral support from my family (mum, dad, Bart and

Suzanne) in times of need. To Philip: thank you, for revision of my draft, but more important, for

being there - at distance and in proximity. Also, a word of thanks to my friends, especially for keeping

me updated with your lives in the MOM. My companions of Maks 19 and friends in Wageningen:

thank you for sharing interesting concepts, your culture and your friendship - an experience never to

forget!

v

Abstract

Abstract

This fieldwork of this MSc-study was conducted from October 2005 until March 2006 in the

Philippines in order to gain understanding of perceptions on farm specific development. This study

approaches the complexity of agricultural innovations on grass root level between farmers and

communication workers.

Worldwide explosive population growth and the growing demand for food, due to food shortage on

one hand and growing food consumption on the other hand puts considerable pressure on the

agricultural production regions in the world and on the natural environment. The present challenge is

to develop these agricultural regions in a responsible manner, taking ecological, economical,

technological and social aspects into consideration. Communicative agricultural research and

intervention methods went through an evolution from ‘Green Revolution’ technologies to

‘participatory approaches’, with an emphasis on participatory processes in which farmers and farm

specific innovations are developed. Innovations are a crucial part for development of farms. Regarding

to farmers as only users of technology neglects the fact that most of the technologies used on farms

today have been developed by farmers themselves (Röling, 1997), yet farmers are also triggered to

innovate and develop by intervening organisations (e.g. NGO’s, GO’s and profit organisations).

The fieldwork of this study is conducted in two highly different regions in the South of the Philippines,

in cooperation with UDP and NEH. UDP is a governmental programme that deals with the reduction

of environmental degradation and stimulation of the economic position of peasants in the uplands of

Mindanao. NEH as a profit organisation concerns with farm development and improvement of the

economic position of small scale farmers (Cavendish banana cultivation) in the lowlands area of

Mindanao. The areas in which these two organisations operate differ geographically (UDP in the

upland and NEH in the lowlands), in farming type (UDP in LEIA area vs. NEH in HEIA area) and

farming system (UDP in subsistence based economies with heterogeneous farming systems vs. NEH in

market oriented economies with homogeneous farming systems). The problem situation for both

organisations is the sustainability of the socio-technological innovations which they promote in the

areas. To address the sustainability problems of these innovations (as triggered by UDP or NEH), it is

necessary to look into the correlation of the socio-techno innovations and the farmers livelihood

strategies.

With the sustainability of socio-techno innovations as focal point, I studied the diversity in perceptions

on innovations that exist between two stakeholder groups on grass root level: farmers and

communication workers. Two case studies have been conducted in ‘barangay’ Kilagding (UDP) and

vii

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ ‘barangay’ Kinamayan (NEH), both situated in the southern Island of Mindanao.

The actors perceptions have been explored using a conceptual framework based on the ‘cognitive

framing theory’ conceptualized by Aarts and van Woerkum (2005). This approach led to the analysis

of the past experiences, present situation and future aspirations of farmers and communication workers

concerning:

(1) the socio-technological innovations of the Diversified Farming System (case study of UDP)

and Cavendish cultivation (in the case study of NEH).

(2) the relation between communication worker and farmers

(3) the innovation system that is applied.

Data on this topic are gathered with various techniques. Participant observations and living with key

informants (communication workers and farmers who are beneficiaries of either UDP or UDP), field

visits and attendance of seminars. Individual information of key informants is gathered via

combinations of casual conversations, informal and in-dept interviews.

On local level, the analyses of frames show the impact of intervention on the informants’ cognitive

patterns of thinking. In the case study of UDP in Kilagding, frames of farmers and the communication

worker on DFS as socio-technological innovation convergence over time, because all are appointed

towards development of a DFS in future. Main factors that can influence these developments appeared

to be the household situation, the access to resources and labour availability. A divergence of frames

between farmers and the communication worker occurs mainly on ecological aspects, while the

farmers only take these into account when they do not interfere with their economic goals. From the

perceptions on the relationship between the farmer and the communication worker is derived that trust

in DFS as an innovation is mutually dependent on trust in the individual relationship between farmers

and communication workers and trust in UDP as an organisation. The innovation process as applied by

UDP contains of joint experimenting & knowledge exchange on a ‘learning site’ and dissemination of

innovations via a framers training group. The difference between these processes was not clear for the

informants, which, together with the ‘progressive farmer bias’ and the consequence of F2F extension,

creates potential gaps in the sustainability of DFS as an innovation.

Perceptions of informants in the case study of NEH show an ambiguity of frames between the

communication worker and the dominant frame of the farmers. From the four theoretical concepts

(ecological, economical, management and social considerations) only management and economical

considerations are taken into account. For farmers and the communication worker social aspects play a

minor role and ecological aspects are absent. Frames on Cavendish cultivation as a socio-techno

innovation diverge highly between farmers and the communications worker. The main obstruction for

viii

Abstract

creation of a sustainable innovation is the reluctance of the communication worker to recognise the

necessity to rearrange the household’s mixed on- and off farm activities that Cavendish cultivation

brings along. Trust in the relationship of the farmers and the communication worker is predetermined

by the economic nature of the customer-supplier relationship they have. All stakeholders aspire a

trustworthy relationship, yet they still frame the communication worker as superior (in terms of

knowledge on Cavendish cultivation) and the farmers as inferior. NEH’s innovation system consists of

top down dissemination (Training and Visit system) that intrinsically misdirects information. Diversity

of supervision and gender biases are not taken into account in this system. The ambiguity of frames in

this case study is evident; putting the sustainability of the innovation at risk.

Sustainability of innovations can be obstructed by the unequal spread of technical practices and the

fact that innovations require institutional changes to trigger the interconnected process of collective

and individual reframing. The diversity of frames pinpoints to the heterogenic nature of actors.

Multiple actors shape their cognitions on innovations, relations and process of innovation by their own

past experience, their present situation and future aspiration. In my conclusions I argue that

sustainability of innovations need a level of heterogeneity in frames, yet patterns of thinking should

display opportunities for convergence and mutual understanding.

A first step to create convergence in frames is making them explicit for the involved actors. Framing

as a theory can be used to trigger this process, while it obliges actors to think and makes less obvious

aspects (like the perceptions on relationships and the process on innovation) visible. The added value

of using framing in a conceptual frame is just that: it has the potential to make knowledge explicit. The

frames on grass root level can be linked with frames on higher level of the organisation to determine

possible conflicting frames of reference throughout organisations. Once explicit, it can make room for

mutual understanding and joint sense making.

Framing as an approach attempts to make the phenomenon of the ‘different interpretations of reality’

explicit for the involved actors. It allows outsiders as well as insiders to understand how actors shape,

organise and make sense of the world around them (Gray, 2003).

Key words: Philippines, innovation, Diversified Farming System, Cavendish cultivation, frames and

framing, sustainability of agriculture.

ix

Table of content

Table of content

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ________________________________________________________________ V

ABSTRACT____________________________________________________________________________VII

TABLE OF CONTENT __________________________________________________________________ XI

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES AND BOXES_________________________________________________XV

LIST OF FIGURES _______________________________________________________________________ XV LIST OF TABLES________________________________________________________________________ XV LIST OF BOXES_________________________________________________________________________ XV

ACRONYMS _________________________________________________________________________ XVII

ACRONYMS __________________________________________________________________________ XVII LIST OF INDIGENOUS WORDS _____________________________________________________________ XVII

OUTLINE OF THE REPORT____________________________________________________________ XIX

1. INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH_______________________________________________________21

1.1 INDUCEMENT OF STUDY________________________________________________________________21 1.2 SETTING THE SCENE___________________________________________________________________22

1.2.1 Development setting_____________________________________________________________________ 22 1.2.2 Academic setting _______________________________________________________________________ 23

1.2.2.1 Innovation design, up-scaling and dissemination of innovations ______________________________ 24 1.2.3 National setting: Republic of the Philippines__________________________________________________ 26 1.2.4 Regional setting: Mindanao, the southern Philippines___________________________________________ 27 1.2.5 Local setting: barangay Kilagding and barangay Kinamayan _____________________________________ 30

1.2.5.1 Barangay Kilagding _________________________________________________________________ 31 1.2.5.2 Barangay Kinamayan ________________________________________________________________ 33

1.3 PROBLEM SITUATION AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ___________________________________________34 1.3.1 Problem situation for UDP and NEH ________________________________________________________ 34

1.3.1.1 Problem situation for UDP____________________________________________________________ 35 1.3.1.2 Problem situation for NEH____________________________________________________________ 36

1.3.2 Research objectives _____________________________________________________________________ 38

2. CONCEPTUAL EXPLORATION ________________________________________________________39

2.1 FARM DEVELOPMENT _________________________________________________________________39 2.2 SUSTAINABILITY IN AGRICULTURE _______________________________________________________39 2.3 INNOVATION PROCESS _________________________________________________________________41

xi


2.4 FRAMES AND FRAMING ________________________________________________________________41 2.5 FRAMING THEORY ____________________________________________________________________41

2.5.1 Functions of frames _____________________________________________________________________ 43 2.5.1.1 Constructions of reality ______________________________________________________________ 43 2.5.1.2 Interpret new situations ______________________________________________________________ 43 2.5.1.3 Understand why people act the way they do ______________________________________________ 44

2.6 FRAMES IN THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY _____________________________________________________44 2.6.1 Content frames _________________________________________________________________________ 46 2.6.2 Relation frames_________________________________________________________________________ 47 2.6.3 Process frames _________________________________________________________________________ 47 2.6.4 Past experiences ________________________________________________________________________ 49 2.6.5 Present objectives _______________________________________________________________________ 49 2.6.6 Future aspirations _______________________________________________________________________ 50

2.7 CONTEXT FOR THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY __________________________________________________50 2.8 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ________________________________________________________________50 2.9 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY _____________________________________________________________51

2.9.1 Research proposal_______________________________________________________________________ 52 2.9.2 Research strategy of the fieldwork __________________________________________________________ 52 2.9.3 Data collection techniques ________________________________________________________________ 59 2.9.4 Recording of notes ______________________________________________________________________ 61 2.9.5 Method of analysis ______________________________________________________________________ 61

3. PERCEPTIONS ON SOCIO-TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS____________________________63

3.1 THE CASE STUDY OF UDP IN KILAGDING: - FRAMES ON DFS BY BENEFICIARIES AND THE LOCAL

COMMUNICATION WORKER - _______________________________________________________________63 3.1.1 Past experiences ________________________________________________________________________ 64

3.1.1.1 Management experiences _____________________________________________________________ 64 3.1.1.2 Economical experiences______________________________________________________________ 67 3.1.1.3 Ecological experiences_______________________________________________________________ 69 3.1.1.4 Social experiences __________________________________________________________________ 71

3.1.2 Present situations _______________________________________________________________________ 71 3.1.2.1 Management situations_______________________________________________________________ 72 3.1.2.2 Economical situations _______________________________________________________________ 75 3.1.2.3 Ecological situations ________________________________________________________________ 77 3.1.2.4 Social situations ____________________________________________________________________ 78

3.1.3 Future aspirations _______________________________________________________________________ 79 3.1.3.1 Management aspirations______________________________________________________________ 79 3.1.3.2 Economic aspirations ________________________________________________________________ 80 3.1.3.3 Ecological aspirations _______________________________________________________________ 81

xii

Table of content

3.1.3.4 Social aspirations ___________________________________________________________________ 82 3.1.4 Analytical reflections on frames of DFS in Kilagding___________________________________________ 83

3.2 THE CASE STUDY OF NEH IN KINAMAYAN: - FRAMES ON CULTIVATION OF CAVENDISH BANANAS - _____85 3.2.1 Past experiences ________________________________________________________________________ 86

3.2.1.1 Management experiences _____________________________________________________________ 86 3.2.1.2 Economical experiences______________________________________________________________ 88 3.2.1.3 Social experiences __________________________________________________________________ 89

3.2.2 Present situations _______________________________________________________________________ 89 3.2.2.1 Management situations_______________________________________________________________ 90 3.2.2.2 Economical situations _______________________________________________________________ 94 3.2.2.3 Social situations ____________________________________________________________________ 95

3.2.3 Future aspirations _______________________________________________________________________ 96 3.2.3.1 Management aspirations______________________________________________________________ 96 3.2.3.2 Economical aspirations ______________________________________________________________ 98 3.2.3.3 Social aspirations ___________________________________________________________________ 98

3.2.4 Analytical reflection on frames of Cavendish cultivation in Kinamayan ____________________________ 99

4. PERCEPTIONS ON RELATION FARMER-COMMUNICATION WORKER __________________101

4.1 THE CASE OF UDP IN KILAGDING: - PERCEPTIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BENEFICIARIES AND

COMMUNICATION WORKER - ______________________________________________________________101 4.1.1 Past experiences _______________________________________________________________________ 101 4.1.2 Present situations ______________________________________________________________________ 104 4.1.3 Future aspirations ______________________________________________________________________ 104 4.1.4 Analytical reflections: convergent frames on relation farmer-communication worker in Kilagding ______ 105

4.2 THE CASE OF NEH IN KINAMAYAN: - PERCEPTIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FARMERS AND

COMMUNICATION WORKER –______________________________________________________________105 4.2.1 Past experiences _______________________________________________________________________ 105 4.2.2 Present situation _______________________________________________________________________ 107 4.2.3 Future aspirations ______________________________________________________________________ 108 4.2.4 Analytical reflections on relation frames in Kinamayan ________________________________________ 109

5. PERCEPTIONS ON THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION____________________________________111

5.1 THE CASE OF UDP IN KILAGDING: - FRAMES ON THE ‘LEARNING SITE’ AND F2F EXTENSION - _________111 5.1.1 Past experience ________________________________________________________________________ 113 5.1.2 Present situation _______________________________________________________________________ 114 5.1.3 Future aspiration_______________________________________________________________________ 116 5.1.4 Analytical reflection on process frames in Kilagding __________________________________________ 117

5.2 THE CASE OF NEH IN KINAMAYAN: - FRAMES ON T&V EXTENSION - ____________________________118 5.2.1 Past experiences _______________________________________________________________________ 119

xiii


5.2.2 Present situations ______________________________________________________________________ 120 5.2.3 Future aspirations ______________________________________________________________________ 122 5.2.4 Analytical reflections on process frames in Kinamayan ________________________________________ 122

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ___________________________________________125

6.1 FRAMES IN THE LOCAL CONTEXT OF KILAGDING (UDP) AND KINAMAYAN (NEH)__________________125 6.1.1 Convergence of frames in Kilagding _______________________________________________________ 125 6.1.2 Ambiguity of frames in Kinamayan ________________________________________________________ 128

6.2 COMPLEXITY OF INNOVATIONS; PERCEPTIONS ON LOCAL LEVEL AND CONSEQUENCES FOR SCIENCE_____131 6.2.1 Unequal spread of technical practices ______________________________________________________ 131 6.2.2 Innovations require institutional changes____________________________________________________ 132 6.2.3 The role of science _____________________________________________________________________ 134

6.3 THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON FRAMES ______________________________________________134

PITFALLS IN RESEARCH_________________________________________________________ CXXXVII

APPENDIXES _____________________________________________________________________CXXXIX

APPENDIX 1 DFS MODEL OF A FARM __________________________________________________ CXLI

REFERENCES _____________________________________________________________________ CXLIII

ARTICLES AND BOOKS_________________________________________________________________ CXLIII WEBSITES __________________________________________________________________________CXLVI

xiv

List of figures, tables and boxes

List of figures, tables and boxes

List of figures

Figure 1 Evolution of paradigms in international agricultural research and development

Figure 2 Concepts of scaling-out and scaling-up

Figure 3 Population growth of the Philippines from 1942 until 2015 (prospect)

Figure 4 Map of the Philippines and the island of Mindanao

Figure 5 Map of province Davao del Norte and Compostela valley

Figure 6 Age distribution in Kilagding

Figure 7 Gender distribution in Kilagding

Figure 8 Map of barangay Kilagding

Figure 9 Age distribution in Kinamayan

Figure 10 Gender distribution in Kinamayan

Figure 11 Map of barangay Kinamayan

Figure 12 Model of cognitive frame construction in interaction

Figure 13 Indicators of socio-technological innovations and frame of integration

Figure 14 Historical pathway of linking research with farmers via agricultural extension

Figure 15 Contemporary pathway of knowledge exchange

Figure 16 Photo of a field visit in Kilagding

Figure 17 Photo of the degraded hilly land in Kilagding

Figure 18 Photo of banana harvesting on Mr Paradero’s farm

Figure 19 Photo of the Cavendish fields in lowland Kinamayan

Figure 20 Photo of residue from eradication of Moko infected banana trees

Figure 21 Photo of Maloy, the communication worker

Figure 22 Photo of the ‘learning site’ in Kilagding

Figure 23 Photo of road sign to demonstration farm and view of newly planted demo-farm

List of tables

Table 1 Illustration of dissimilar nature from the case studies for UDP and NEH

List of boxes

Box 1 Profile Upland Development Programme, in Southern Mindanao

Box 2 Profile Nader, Ebrahim & Hassan, in Southern Mindanao

Box 3 Case study of UDP; key informants in barangay Kilagding

Box 4 Case study of NEH; key informants in barangay Kilagding

xv

Acronyms

Acronyms

Acronyms

AKIS Agricultural Knowledge and Information System

BBTV Banana Bunchy Top Virus (Ferreira et al., 1997) FF Farmer First approach to extension

FPR Farmer participatory research

FTG Farmers Training Group. A group used by UDP for dissemination of innovations

F2F Farmer to Farmer extension system. Horizontal dissemination of knowledge between

farmers in a similar region

GO Governmental Organisation

Hh Household

HEIA High External Input Agriculture

LEIA Low External Input Agriculture

LGU Local Government Unit. The lowest unit of institutional governance in the Philippines

LS Learning Site

NEH Nader Ebrahim and Hassan. Referring to the agribusiness company based in the

Philippines (Davao) with a mother company in Bahrain

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

Php Philippine peso (Exchange rate on 26.09.06: € 1,- = Php 57,26 GWK http://www.

travelex.com)

PTD Participatory Technology Development

TOT Transfer of Technology

T&V Training and Visit system of extension. An extension method introduced by the World

Bank based on field visits and trainings of farmers by experts

UDP Upland Development Programme. A governmental programme co-financed by the

Department of Agriculture and the European Union

List of indigenous words

Abaca Musa textilis is a species of banana native to the Philippines. The plant is being

harvested for its fibre, called Manila hemp.

Balay Farm house, mostly made out of wood

Barangay Village, lowest level of government in the Philippines

Bisaya Visaya dialect, spoken in Southern Philippines, Visayas and Mindanao

Calendaria A local variety of a cantina or small restaurant, where one can eat a fixed meal.

Camote Sweet potato

Captain The barangay captain is the formal leader of the barangay, being head of the barangay

xvii


council and reporting to the municipal mayor

Carabow Ox

Cebuano Native inhabitants of the Island of Cebu, in the central Visayas. Cebuanos are

principally of Malay ancestry

Dabaon Native or indigenous population of the province of Compostela Valley, who origin

from the ‘negritos’, which are considered as the original population of the Philippines.

Ilocano Ilocanos are originally indigenous to the narrow coastal strip of north western Luzon.

To this day, the Ilocanos are the dominant ethnic group in Northern Luzon. Ilocanos

are primarily of Austronesian stock.

Ilongo People stemming from the province of Iloilo are called Illongos. Iloilo is a province of

the Island of Panay, located in the Western Visayas region.

Jeepney Most commonly used form of public transport in the Philippines. They were originally

made from US military jeeps left over from World War II and are well known for their

flamboyant decoration and crowded seating. The word Jeepney is commonly believed

to be a conflation of ‘jeep’ and ‘jitney’, or ‘jeep’ and ‘knee’, the latter referring to the

Jeepneys’ crowded face-to-face seating

Kaingin Traditional rotational land use system, nowadays referred to as slash-and-burn

agriculture

Nanay Mother

Outang To be in debt or to have an outstanding loan.

Pajag A small hut made out of rattan or bamboo

Pilipino National language of the Philippines

Purok A neighbourhood of the barangay

Rattan Rattan (from the Malay word Rotan), is the name for the roughly six hundred species

of palms in the tribe Calameae, native to tropical regions of Africa, Asia and

Australasia.

Sari-sari store Refers to a little store which sells a mixture of products (sari-sari means mix-mix).

This form of selling products is inherited from the Chinese migrants in the Philippines

Tatay Father

Tricycle A tricycle is a motorized three wheeler, with on the back a construction of benches

where people can sit. There is an extensive systems of tricycle routes or tricycle taxies

in the Philippines and is the second most used from of public transport (after the

Jeepney)

Videoke A form of amusement often seen in Asia, which is adapted from Karaoke. Participants

sing along with songs and texts displayed on a video screen.

xviii

Outline of the report

Outline of the report

In the first chapter, the research topic is introduced; the inducement of this study, its academic setting,

the involved organisations and its geographical and local setting. Furthermore it explains the problem

situation and objectives of this thesis.

Chapter two is a theoretical exploration of concepts used in this study and evolves into the research

questions that were used to conduct my fieldwork. Furthermore the research methodology is

introduced. It describes the research strategy, the data collection techniques in the field, the recording

of notes and the method of data analysis. It ends with a brief introduction of key informants used in the

two different case studies. Chapter three, four, and five are merely analytical chapters, where gathered

field data are explored and analysed via the use of quotes and numeric data. These chapters are divided

into two separate parts. The first part deals with the case study of UDP, the second section deals with

the case study of NEH. In chapter three, experiences, objectives and aspirations from farmers and

communication workers on socio- technological innovations are analysed. In this chapter, first the

experiences, objectives and aspirations of the farmers and communication worker of UDP in

‘barangay’ Kilagding are analysed. Second, a similar approach is employed for the case of the farmers

and communication worker of NEH in ‘barangay’ Kinamayan. The fourth chapter will analyse the

perspectives on the farmer- communication worker relationship via experiences, objectives and

aspirations from involved farmers and communication workers. Again this chapter is split into two

case studies, starting with UDPs’ case followed by the case study of NEH. Perspectives on the

dissemination processes are analysed in chapter five. First experiences, objectives and aspirations from

farmers and communication workers from the UDP area are explored and second the experiences,

objectives and aspirations from farmers and communication workers in the case study of NEH. In the

final part, chapter six, conclusions and recommendations are drawn from the analysed field data and

on a more profound theoretical level. Shortcomings of this study are discussed in the last section,

Throughout this report, ‘boxes’ are used to give some additional back ground information on actors

and organisations. These boxes are referred to in the text, yet placed at the end of the paragraphs. The

used figures, tables and pictures are spread throughout the paragraphs. Acronyms are explained in the

‘list of acronyms’ at the beginning of this report, as well as translations of Visaya (indigenous)

terminology which is used (written in Italic in the main text). References and appendixes are placed at

the end of the report.

xix

Chapter 1: Introduction to research

1. Introduction to research

The first chapter of this thesis is an introduction with the topic of this research, starting at the

inducement of the study, shaping its background and justification and leading via the problem situation

and research objectives into an outline of this report.

1.1 Inducement of study

This written report is the result of the research: “Case studies on farmers’ and communication

workers’ ambiguous perceptions towards farm development in Philippine agricultural innovation

systems.” A master thesis in the field of social sciences at the department of Communication and

Innovation Studies. The fieldwork for this thesis has been conducted in cooperation with UDP (Upland

Development Programme) and NEH (Nader, Ebrahim and Hassan) in the Philippines from October

2005 until March 2006.

Driven by curiosity on the dynamics of an ever changing society, the first idea for this study was born.

The population of our world is growing and agriculture plays an important role in the lives of many.

For some, this role is limited to consumption of agricultural products. For others, agriculture provides

them their main source of income. For another group, agriculture is their way of existence. Farmers,

how diverse they may be, belong to the latter two groups. Agriculture often interferes with nature and

natural resources, causing natural decline. For many farmers as well as scientists, this natural decline is

causing serious problems. Losses of biodiversity, loss of nature and soil erosion are examples of this.

Sustainability of nature and the sustainability of agricultural practices are therefore important. Farm

development is vital for farmers to survive nowadays. Often they are being supported in this

development by organisations that have resources and knowledge additional to their own. Central in

this study is the reality of farmers and communication workers on farm development. The changes in

farming, as aspired by farmers and triggered by outside organisations, made me curious to the role of

innovations in the lives of farmers and an extension workers. This curiosity together with the nature of

human actors to develop themselves contributed to the evolution of this topic.

The study is initiated in cooperation with two organisations that are based in the Southern part of the

Philippines, namely: the Upland Development Programme (UDP) and Nader, Ebrahim & Hassan

(NEH). The topic addresses a field of interest for the both of them. The issue at stake is to learn about

the variations of perspectives towards farm development between small scale farmers and

communication workers. Further it sheds a light on the sustainability of the agricultural exchange

systems that are explored in this study.

21

‘...and now we wait until the fruits grow’

Agricultural extension and communication to trigger innovations have been explored extensively by

academics. They show that there are not only different concepts on how to trigger farm development

in practice, but also show a diversity of theories on academic level. This makes it worthwhile to

compare the various perspectives and thus to study this topic. ‘Exploratory research considers research

objects in their natural circumstances and tries to understand social processes and realities, while

acknowledging that there is no single objective reality’(Guba & Lincon, in Rap & Boon, 2004: 6)

shows a dichotomy concerning the objectivity of perspectives. This research explores the variations of

perspectives or ‘realities’ on grass root level between farmers and communication workers and tries to

understand and interpret reasons for actors’ actions, practices, relationships and interactions that

emerge.

Because farming innovations themselves are unable to speak, I have followed farmers and

communication workers within two different agricultural innovation systems along the way. By

studying the social relations of the actors in which they shape their frame of reference towards farm

development I gained a better understanding of the perceptions from farmers and communication

workers. I would like to make recommendations for the sustainability of future agricultural innovation

systems and make a small contribution to the ongoing discussion in the field of agricultural science.

1.2 Setting the scene

1.2.1 Development setting

In the light of the development debate concerning global poverty alleviation and food security the

discussion on agriculture and agricultural practices is ongoing. There lies a challenge ahead. Food

security has become a major issue in global politics for years now, because of the explosive population

growth that occurs mostly in developing countries (in some parts of Asia growing exponential) and

thus demanding a growth of food. But population growth is not the only stimulator of growing food

demand. Growing food demand is also due to higher economic prosperity. This signifies that the

average increase of incomes in development countries enables people to eat and buy more high

standard agricultural and animal products (Van den Ban, 1999). In this sense, food production

worldwide should be intensified or extended, not only because of food insecurity or shortage, but also

due to the growing food consumption. This creates a considerable pressure on the food producing

regions worldwide as well as on the natural environment.

To gain a higher agricultural production, either expansion of agricultural areas or more profound use

of existing areas is necessary. While expansion of agricultural areas is not always possible, a more

profound use of existing areas is a necessity. A higher production on the same area can be achieved by

using it more efficiently and activating hidden resources. This (re)enforces scientists as well

22


institutions concerned with agricultural development to rethink their methods of agricultural

innovation and communication. Promotion of sustainable agricultural practices, communication

concerning innovations and knowledge exchange between farmers and scientists are being used to

develop context specific solutions.

1.2.2 Academic setting

Extension research nowadays is mostly focussed on context specific farm development instead of

prefixed ‘technology packages’ (Röling and De Jong, 1998). It has its focal point on sustainability of

agricultural practices, participatory development of knowledge and development of sustainable

agriculture. The actual issue at stake is to set up a communicative intervention system, which ensures a

sustainable form of agriculture. This is to be achieved by optimising and making use of resources that

are available rather then expansion of the existing agricultural areas. In what way should

communicative intervention take place? Who is to be included in the process and in what form does or

should exchange take place? How to create an environment in which knowledge is exchanged

effectively? These are examples of questions dealt with in academic literature concerning

communication for innovation and farm system specific development. Studies in this area are aimed at

up scaling and out scaling of socio-technological innovations in order to ensure the continual use of

the socio-technological innovations and the innovation systems (van Paassen, written com, 2006).

In academic literature the terminology and attitude towards agricultural extension has shifted towards

the use of “communicative intervention” (replacing extension) and “communication worker”

(substitute for extension worker) (Van Woerkum et al. in Leeuwis, 2004: 29). This shift implies a

change in intervention methods, from persuasive, linear, top-down communication to a more

participatory, bottom-up approach. In this approach, farmers play a central role in creating agricultural

innovations, while being facilitated in their process by communication workers.

This change has been initiated by lessons learned from the field, where numerous examples of failed

transfer of technologies (TOT) based on linear adoption theories can be pointed out (Rogers, 1983).

Intervention approaches and models have been reformulated to incorporate more interactive aspects, to

avoid future failure in farm development. The discussion on how to facilitate interactive socio-techno

innovation and make intervention programmes succeed is the underlying motive of this study.

Although (successful) attempts have been made to move away from linear persuasive models of

intervention, in practice the linear approach is still often used. Accordingly it is in the interest of this

research to take a closer look at the innovation behaviour of farmers, the processes of communicative

intervention and the importance of relations between farmers and communication workers. The use of

a conceptual framework, compared with practical field data will hopefully lead to a small contribution

on the ongoing discussion in the field of communicative intervention.

23


1.2.2.1 Innovation design, up-scaling and dissemination of innovations

In traditional extension science as described in the previous paragraph, innovations are seen as a rather

simple and linear process. This is called the positivist paradigm (Douthwaite et al., 2003: 244). It is the

underlying paradigm of the research and extension approach described as Transfer of Technology

(TOT). Within TOT, scientists develop new (ready-made) techniques which are transferred to farmers

(Chambers & Ghildyal, in Van Huis & Meerman, 1997: 316). These positivist based structures helped

catalysing the Green Revolution in the 1960’s and were proven ‘successful’ in terms of breeding high

yield rice and wheat varieties (Douthwaite et al., 2003: 244). Arguably, a general critique on this

approach (Richards, Jiggings, Chambers, Waibel etc.) is its low flexibility, that it turns farmers into

consumers of technology and it ignores the fact that farmers are capable to innovate.

A revision of agricultural thinking into a social and complex matter, made underlying approaches shift

from positivist tendencies to constructivist tendencies. Where positivists consider knowledge as a

static entity, constructivist see knowledge as the result of an active learning process, in which actors

construct knowledge by fitting new information into their existing life world. (Douthwaite et al., 2003:

245). Farmer First (FF) approaches1 are designed in a constructivist mind-set, taking the farmer as

starting point for the definition of problems and development of technology (Van Huis & Meerman,

1997: 316). This evolution in agricultural thinking is shown in figure 1. Starting from a positivist

linear processes of technology transfer, where farmers were seen as passive receivers into a

constructivist view, in which innovations are seen as complex social learning processes (Bijker &

Pineth, in Douthwaite et al., 2003: 246). This involves working with farmers on participatory basis,

experimenting, integrating and adapting innovations to their own socio- economical, cultural and agro-

ecological conditions.

1 FFS as designed by Chambers et al. is a FF based concept, as well as IPM approaches

24


Positivist Early farming systems research (FSR)

• On-farm technical problem, diagnosis and adaptive research

Development and transfer of Green revolution technologies

• Technology development, best practices, models

Systems agriculture

• Emphasis on participatory processes that can scale-up from local to general and work in different situations Constructivist

Participatory approaches

• Emphasis on co-learning and on farmer empowerment to become better managers

Prac

tice p

arad

igm

Local General

Scale focus Figure 1: Evolution of paradigms in international agricultural research and development (adapted from

Douthwaite et al., 2003: 246)

The movement from Rogers’s linear adoption theory to participatory approaches made researchers

rethink extension approaches in terms of the innovation process: practical design, scaling-up and

scaling-out. To clarify, figure 2 graphically demonstrates these concepts, in which:

(1) Scaling-up means an institutional expansion from grassroots organizations to policy

makers, donors, development institutions, and other stakeholders to building an enabling

environment for change,

(2) Scaling-out signifies dissemination of innovations from farmer to farmer and community to

community, but within the same stakeholder group (Douthwaite et al., 2003: 248).

Up- and out-scaling are different processes but are interlinked; when innovations spread

geographically the chance that it becomes institutionalised in policy of organisations is increased and

visa versa.

25


Figure 2: Concepts of scaling-out and scaling-up (IIRR, in Douthwaite 2003: 247)

1.2.3 National setting: Republic of the Philippines

The setting for this research’s empirical fieldwork is in the Southern part of the Philippines, the Island

of Mindanao (figure 4). The Philippines, officially called the Republic of the Philippines (in Filipino

language: Republika ng Pilipino), is an island nation located in the Malay archipelago in Southeast

Asia, with Manila as its capital. It lies 1200 kilometres from mainland Asia and comprises 7,107

islands called the Philippine Archipelago, of which approximately 700 are inhabited. It borders the

South Chinese Sea on the West, the Philippine Sea in the east and the Celebes Sea in the South.

The Archipelago can be divided into three main areas which are: Luzon (North), the Visayas (central)

and Mindanao in the South. The native inhabitants are called Filipinos who, according to government

statistics and anthropological research, descend from the various Austronesian-speaking migrants who

arrived from southern China over a thousand years ago. These ethnic Filipinos are divided into various

ethno linguistic groups. The three most numerous are the Tagalogs, the Cebuanos, and the Ilocanos

(Blumentritt, 1882).

In terms of nature, the Republic of the Philippines is blessed with a luxuriant natural environment and

abundant natural resources (e.g. timber, petroleum, nickel, cobalt, copper) but the ecological

26


environment and its natural resource base is steadily worsening as the country develops and

industrialises. There has been a long period of economic stagnation2 and the country is now on a

stabilizing growth trend. This economic development however, is inducing rapid destruction of the

natural environment and it is mostly the poor and marginalised farmers that suffer from this.

In agricultural terms, one third of the Philippine population is directly involved in food production, in

either agricultural or aqua cultural occupation, such as production of sugarcane, coconuts, rice, corn,

bananas, pineapples, fish, shrimps, mangoes, pork, eggs etc.3, while two third of the country's

estimated 89 million people in 2006 are rural based and directly or indirectly dependent upon

agriculture for their livelihood.

The Philippines has to deal with an expanding population that needs to be fed merely by local

agricultural products. Statistics from the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) show a

population growth from 42 million in 1975, to 80 million in 2002, to 89 million in 2006 and estimates

a population of over a 110 million by the year 2015 (figure 3). This expansion will have a considerable

impact on the agricultural production regions.

Population growth Philippines

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Year

Popu

latio

n (in

Mln

)

Figure 3: Population growth in the Philippines from 1942 until 2015 (prospect)

1.2.4 Regional setting: Mindanao, the southern Philippines

The southern island of Mindanao (figure 4 and 5) is the second largest Island of the Philippines,

covering 95,000 km² and is called the ‘breadbasket of the Philippines’ because of its suitable climate

for agricultural production. It consists mainly of hill sited arable land with two main lowland areas.

2 According to some sources due to the political climate of Ferdinand and Emalda Marcos, who governed the country from

1965 till 1986, although this statement is contradicted and protested by many. 3 Facts and figures as given by the FAO and CIA world fact book.

27


The mountainous island is home to Mount Apo, the highest mountain of the country (altitude of 2,954

m). To the west of Mindanao is the Sulu Sea, to the east is the Philippine Sea, and to the south is the

Celebes Sea. The island group of Mindanao encompasses Mindanao island itself, plus the Sulu

Archipelago to the southwest. The island group is divided into six regions, which are further

subdivided into 25 provinces. Provinces are subdivided into municipalities, which are in turn

composed of ‘barangays’ (villages). The barangay is the official smallest unit of local government

(LGU) in the Philippines.

Figure 4: Map of the Philippines and the island of Mindanao

Due to its suitability for agriculture and the growing demand for food production, agricultural regions

in Mindanao have been expanded from the lower tropical lands into the highland areas. Both areas can

be classified as productive agro- ecological zones due to their amount of rainfall. Most of Mindanao’s

lowland area is classified as being moist zone, whereas the hilly or mountainous areas are classified as

wet zone4.

4 Agro- ecological zones as classified by FAO.

Source : http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Philipp.htm.

Wet zone – Regions with rainfall usually greater than 2,500 mm annually with slight moisture deficit during the dry season

and a crop growing period of 270 to 320 days. Average temperature is cool ranging from 19.0 to 22.90C. These conditions

dominate in the hilly/mountainous to highland regions. The wet zone area covers 47.6% (6.7 M ha) of Luzon’s total area,

44% (2.5 M ha) in Visayas and 31.5% (3.2 M ha) in Mindanao. In areas where slope and other soil properties are favourable,

this zone is favourable for the production of some traditional and exotic crops such as tea, grapes, pears, strawberries and

other plants which require semi-temperate conditions.

Moist zone – Regions with rainfall ranging from 1,500 to 2,500 mm annually with moderate moisture deficit during the dry

28


In terms of agriculture, there is a historical bifurcation between the peasant sector growing mainly

subsistence crops (in the uplands of Mindanao) and the plantation sector (in the lowlands) growing

tropical cash crops (Hayami, 1985). Historically, Mindanao grew into the agricultural ‘frontier’ during

the 1920s because of its large undeveloped but fertile lands. At that time plantations of ‘abaca’

(hemp), coconut, rice and coffee were established in the lowlands, whereas agriculture in the highlands

was mainly to produce subsistence crops.

At present time, agriculture in the lowlands is mainly dominated by homogeneous crop cultivation and

can be classified as ‘high external input agriculture’ (HEIA), catalysed by the Green Revolution. Until

a few years ago the dominant grown crop in the lowlands was rice (staple crop in the lowland area),

but at the time of writing huge areas of sugarcane, Cavendish banana5, pineapple and mangoes are also

being cultivated here on large scale for export purposes. HEIA is (export) market oriented and capital-

intensive (Reijntjes, et al., 1992). This form of agriculture in the lowlands is plantation wise enforced

by the arrival of multinational companies like Dole, Chiquita and Del Monte in the 1960s.

The upland areas traditionally have a more diversified or heterogeneous land use system. Upland small

holder farmers traditionally cultivate a mixture of crops for their own subsistence (surpluses being

used for local trade). Additionally to that, they have a vegetable garden and sometimes a small amount

of livestock. Most widespread crops are: white corn (staple crop in the upland areas), yellow corn,

different native banana varieties (Latundan, Cardava and Lacatan), coconut, cacao, coffee, but also

vegetables and root crops like eggplant, cassava and camote (sweet potato). These traditional and

complex land use systems are subsistence orientated and can be considered as low external input

agriculture (LEIA) (Reijntjes, et al., 1992). In this region the highly visible and maligned slash-and-

burn agriculture is practiced. This was already practiced by the native inhabitants of the highlands, but

on a small scale. Nowadays, the uplands are much more inhabited and migrants that came to the

uplands are also practicing slash-and-burn agriculture. All together, this is causing ecological problems

as deforestation and soil erosion, let alone loss of biodiversity.

season and a crop growing period of 210 to 270 days. It covers most of the present agricultural and expansion area in the

lowland, upland and hilly regions. Moist zone areas cover 5.7 M ha in Luzon, mostly in the Cordillera Autonomous region

and Ilocos region. In the Visayas, it occupies 2.8 M ha, 72% of which is found in the Eastern region. In Mindanao, it covers

6.5 M ha. 5 Cavendish is by far the most commonly known banana cultivar. The species Musa acuminata or the Musa paradisiaca, are

mostly eaten in temperate countries, but are cultivated in the tropics. Cavendish is exported in large quantities from the

Philippines to Japan, China and the Middle East. It is being cultivated as cash crop in the lowlands of Mindanao for export

purpose.

29


Landownership systems are also divided in twofold. In the lowlands ownership systems are based on

and inherited from the countries colonial past6, a feudal system, where few landowners own large parts

of arable land. Tenants, e.g. individual farmers or multinational companies, work on this rented land

under diverse contract conditions. Although the agrarian reform law reallocated part of the land again

to the peasantry, still large areas are in hands of outsized landholders (Rosales, 2004). In the uplands,

landownership is less influenced by the colonial past and mostly based on heritage by patrilocal

kinship, which scattered the land over the years into rather small patches (1 to 2 ha) (this study).

1.2.5 Local setting: barangay Kilagding and barangay Kinamayan

The research area for this study is situated in the provinces of Davao del Norte and Compostela Valley

which are situated in the South of Mindanao (figure 5). This subparagraph provides a brief

introduction to the two research sites used in this study.

The first research site, ‘barangay’ Kilagding, is located in the province of Compostela Valley (map

figure 5). Kilagding belongs to the municipality of Laak, one of Compostelas’ 11 municipalities.

The province has a population of 580,244 on 4,667.0 km² which means a population density of 124 per

km² 7.

The second research site is ‘barangay’ Kinamayan, situated in the province of Davao del Norte (figure

5) and belongs to the jurisdiction of one of the province’s 8 municipalities, Santo Tomas. The province

of Davao del Norte, the countries major important rice and banana producing region, has a population

of 743,811 with a population density of 215 per km² covering its 3,463.0 km² area8.

6 The Philippines fell under Spanish jurisdiction (colony) from 1565 until 1898; they were ceded to the US in 1898 following

the Spanish-American War. In 1935 the Philippines became a self-governing commonwealth. In 1942 the islands fell under

Japanese occupation during WWII, and US forces and Filipinos fought together during 1944-45 to regain control. On 4 July

1946 the Philippines attained their independence. 7 Statistics drawn from the National Statistics Office of the Philippines, 2000 census report. 8 Statistics drawn from the National Statistics Office of the Philippines, 2000 census report.

30


Figure 5: Map of province Davao del Norte and Compostela valley

1.2.5.1 Barangay Kilagding

Kilagding is situated in the uplands at an altitude of 500m above sea level and is located 15 km from

the municipality of Laak (and nearest market) The village is accessible via a dirt road per public

transport: a bus (once per day) or a single motor9. The community counts 1,710 inhabitants divided

over 220 households (average of 5.3 members per household).

Age and gender division of the population are showed in the graphics of figures 6 and 7. The gender

distribution is almost even; 48% of the population is female whereas 52% of the population is male.

The division of age however is not distributed evenly over the population; 67 % of the population is in

between 1 and 29 years old. A minority of 36% of the population are youngsters in between 1 and 14

years old, which means that the inhabitants of Kilagding are rather young. This hints towards a

growing population. In this village, 96% of the households are involved in agriculture, while 4% are

9 Single motor is a type of transportation used often in the uplands for people who don’t own a vehicle themselves. People

who do own a motorcycle drive as a sort of taxi. Often used when roads are inaccessible for tricycles or jeepneys.

31


involved in administration10.

Gender distribution Kilagding

889 821

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Population

MaleFemale

Age distribution in Kilagding

0

100200

300

400500

600

> 1 1 - 5 6 - 14 15 -29

30 -44

45 -59

60 -99

100 >

Age group

Popu

latio

n

Figure 6: Age distribution in Kilagding11 Figure 7: Gender distribution in Kilagding12

In terms of ethnicity, the majority of the population, 65%, stems from the Cebuanos, who migrated

here from the Island of Cebu (located in the Visayas) for agricultural reasons after WWII. Only 17%

of its inhabitants still belong to the native upland population of this area, the ‘Dabaon’.

Roman Catholic is the major religion practiced (67%), while small separated congregations of the

Catholic Church are also present13.

The village houses one Catholic Church, a barangay square, a barangay hall, an elementary school, a

handful of ‘sari-sari’ stores and two

‘calendarias’. A small river runs

through the centre of the barangay,

commonly used for fishing and

laundry. Only a little amount of

houses within the settlement centre

have access to electricity (17%) and

drinking water is provided via wells

and manual water pumps which are

present at various places throughout

the village14. Figure 8 shows a map

Figure 8: Map of barangay Kilagding

10 Data provided by various departments of the municipal Hall in Laak, based on municipal conducted surveys. 11 Data provided by various departments of the municipal Hall in Laak, based on municipal conducted surveys 12 Data provided by various departments of the municipal Hall in Laak, based on municipal conducted surveys 13 Data provided by various departments of the municipal Hall in Laak, based on municipal conducted surveys 14 Data provided by various departments of the municipal Hall in Laak, based on municipal conducted surveys

32


of the village, drawn by myself during my first field days.

1.2.5.2 Barangay Kinamayan

Kinamayan is situated in the lowlands at sea level and is located 8 km from the municipality of Santo

Tomas (nearest market). The village is accessible via a gravel road per public transport: bus (every

day), ‘jeepney’ (every two hours) and ‘tricycle’ (every half an hour). The community counts 3,857

inhabitants divided over 640 households (average of 6,1 members per household)15.

Here, gender is distributed evenly; 53% of the populations is male and 47% is female, as shown in

figure 10. Again, age is not evenly distributed as figure 9 shows. Kinamayan also deals with a rather

young population, 69% is in between 1 and 29 years old, with youngsters in the age groups 6 to 14 and

15 to 29 being the largest groups. 81% of the households of this village are involved in agriculture,

while 19% is involved in the administrative, production or transport sector16.

Gender distribution in Kinamayan

2026 1851

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

P opula tion

Ma leFe ma le

Age division in Kinamayan

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

> 1 1 - 5 6 - 14 15 - 29 30 - 44 45 - 59 60 - 99 100 <

Age group

Popu

latio

n

Figure 9: Age distribution in Kinamayan17 Figure 10: Gender distribution in Kinamayan18

The majority of the population are migrants (92%); 46% is Cebuano, 21% Ilocano and 15% Ilongo

and the main religion practiced is Roman Catholic19.

Two churches (one Catholic, one Baptist), two elementary schools, a chapel, a barangay square and

hall, a health care centre, 39 ‘sari-sari’ stores and a tenfold ‘calendarias’ are present in the village as

the map of figure 11 shows. The majority of the inhabitants have access to electricity in their homes

15 Statistics drawn from the National Statistics Office of the Philippines, 2000 census report. 16 Barangay profile. Provided by the municipal Hall of Santo Tomas, based on NSO consensus 2000 report. 17 Barangay profile. Provided by the municipal Hall of Santo Tomas, based on NSO consensus 2000 report 18 Barangay profile. Provided by the municipal Hall of Santo Tomas, based on NSO consensus 2000 report 19 Barangay profile. Provided by the municipal Hall of Santo Tomas, based on NSO consensus 2000 report.

33


(67%) and drinking water is supplied via central wells and pumps.(35% have their own well or water

pump connection on their property)20. The tropical climate and clay type of soil on the plain grounds

of Kinamayan is suitable for growing any kind of fruit crops. At the time of writing, the main crops

grown in Kinamayan were irrigated rice and rain fed Cavendish banana.

Figure 11: Map of barangay Kinamayan

1.3 Problem situation and research objectives

1.3.1 Problem situation for UDP and NEH

Farm development and socio-technical farm innovations for small scale farmers in the south of

Mindanao have multiple purposes: increasing yield and output, economic stability or techno-agro- and

ecological development.

Farmers can be seen as managers, who run their farm in an economic environment. Farm management

involves planning, organising, directing, controlling and decision making as described by Olson

(Olson, 2004). The farming environment in which they have to manage their farm has four main

components: available resources, accessible markets, available technology and institutions (Olson,

2004).

Farmers make choices in order to develop their farm. Innovation is a crucial point in terms of farm

development. As said by one of the interviewed farmers: ‘innovation is a way to change our low standard of

living’. He is referring to farm development in order to change his economic position, but also to

development of his social, environmental and cultural practices. In his statement he positions himself

20 Barangay profile. Provided by the municipal Hall of Santo Tomas, based on barangay survey 2000

34


as having a low standard of living and he shows willingness to change this position. As mentioned

already by Engel and Röling (1992), ‘the farmers’ innovative capability is not to be questioned’. This

explains that to look at farmers only as users (of technology) neglects the important fact that they are

experimenters and that farmers have developed most of the technologies used on the farm today

themselves (Engel and Röling, 1992).

However, in the setting of this study farmers do not always take the lead themselves or are not

expected to take lead. They are triggered in their development by organisations that promote farm

development. During my field observations, I noticed that these farmers (beneficiaries) sometimes

create an (unintended) dependency upon these organisations and their resources. The organisations

(UDP and NEH) introduced socio-technical innovations to the farmers, in order to develop their farms.

Internalising and practising these innovations means a major learning effort for all actors, involving

new theoretical and practical knowledge, incorporation of new risks, new indicators, and new methods

of making things visible (Röling, 1997).

The study is focussed on context specific farm development projects carried out in the provinces of

Compostela Valley and Davao del Norte by correspondingly, NEH and UDP. Both organisations differ

highly as described in detail in box 1 and 2. UDP, as a governmental programme initiated by the

European Union and the Philippine government, deals with the reduction of environmental

degradation and stimulation of the economic position of peasant farmers in the uplands of Mindanao.

Different to that is NEH. As a corporate organisation they buy bananas from small farmers in the

lowlands and sell them merely to Japanese retailers.

One common interest however has made this study interesting for both organisations: i.e. learning on

ambiguity of perspectives towards farm development and dissemination of socio-technological

innovations on grass root level, between small scale farmers and communication workers. Both UDP

and NEH intervene with predetermined socio-technological innovations. These innovations however,

are not fixed technologies but should rather be seen as guidelines for development, to be filled in by

the farmers themselves (in the perspective of UDP and NEH). They are open for interpretation but

only to certain extend (I will come back to this in paragraph 3.1). UDP and NEH both have specific

problems with up-scaling and dissemination of these innovations. These will be explained in the next

two sections.

1.3.1.1 Problem situation for UDP

UDP works with peasants in the rural and difficult to reach areas of the uplands. Their main goal is

twofold: both altruistically and environmentally driven. On one hand, improve farmers’ livelihood

stability, by supporting them to develop a more staple income. On the other hand, protect the upland

35


watershed areas from soil erosion. Soil erosion is a major problem in the upland region. Upland

farmers are forced to use steep slopes for their husbandry because of the upcoming lowland plantation

agriculture (they shift to cultivate steeper slopes). In doing so, they disregard the influence of slope

cultivation on the natural environment (UDP, internal documents, 2005).

One of the farm development innovations promoted by UDP is the Diversified Farming System (DFS).

This innovation stimulates farmers to diversify their farm. Instead of cultivating corn as their main

crop, they stimulate farmers to cultivate bananas and fruit trees. Additionally to this, it promotes

keeping of livestock and a small vegetable garden for own subsistence. An example of a DFS model

farm and diversity of planting is given in appendix 1. According to UDP, the use of the DFS, will

decrease soil erosion in the uplands (planting of trees) and on the long term, farmers will be able to

secure and increase their household income by harvesting different types of fruit (UDP, internal

documents, 2003). Changing from corn to diversified farming system is not only a switch in

technology; it also implies a shift in the management of farming and further activities (off- and on

farm activities). A shift in knowledge and most important a shift in peoples mindset has to occur that

provides willingness and trust to change (Röling, 1997).

The problem which UDP is facing at the moment is up-scaling and dissemination of the farm systems

innovations. To make these innovations sustainable so that farmers will be able to maintain them and

will continue to use them. Why are some beneficiaries capable of and willing to use the DFS and

others are not? What are restrictions or creates resistance? In order to reach their goals, (facilitate

knowledge exchange, up-scaling and dissemination of innovations and make them sustainable), a

correlation between the socio-, techno-, ecological and management fit of the DFS and the farmers’

livelihood strategies is necessary.

1.3.1.2 Problem situation for NEH

NEH operates in the lowlands area, where former rice farmers have shifted to Cavendish banana

cultivation. This cultivar is purely a cash crop, while the farmers are not using them themselves in any

way. NEH, as a distributor of bananas, provides individual farmer with technical and knowledge based

advice on banana cultivation. Land preparation, planting, growing, harvesting, usage of fertilisers and

pesticides and post harvest information is part of their campaign. Providing farmers with information

is not only an approach to develop the farms and to support farmers’ income. It is also a tool to control

and influence the quality of the bananas.

NEH tries to segregate itself from the existing plantation ‘bourgeoisie’, which is mainly found in the

lowland, by working with small farmers, or farmer entrepreneurs. However, this brings along one

difficulty, NEH has no direct control over the farms and its management, thus no control over

36


production and quality of fruits, while the Japanese export market demands high standard (cosmetic

and quality) fruits. Low yields and farmers using non-conformal cultivation methods are considered as

a problem for NEH. Transition farmers (from rice cultivation to Cavendish cultivation) have little or

no previous knowledge of the promoted crop and it requires a shift in farm management and mindset

to ensure the sustainability of farming systems’ innovation as stated before. For NEH, dissemination of

‘best’ cultivation practices (as predetermined by NEH) and farm development to ensure the farmers’

output and income is a major problem at this time.

Profile Upland Developme

The Upland Development Project is a governme

and executed by the Philippine Department of A

design a replicable model to improve the living

upland resources. Thereby contribute to the susta

of SMAP (Southern Mindanao Agricultural Prog

that they consider fostering sustainable develop

sustainable agriculture, forest protection and natu

rural finance, marketing and enterprise developme

The different facades of the program are carried o

(World Agro Forestry Centre) and other local NG

watershed management in selected regions (wh

watershed management is carried out in a mo

communities subsistence needs and stimulate

conducted for this study was in cooperation wit

communication worker and the communication w

Box 1

nt Program, in Southern Mindanao

ntal program initiated and funded by the European Union

griculture (DAR) in southern Mindanao. They envision to

standards of upland peasant communities and conserve

inable development of the region. As a follow-up program

ram) in the year 2000, UPD focuses on six key activities

ment. These activities involve: agricultural extension in

ral resource management, labour-based road maintenance,

nt and land use planning (UDP information leaflet, 2000).

ut by different organisations (mainly NGO’s) e.g. ICRAF

O’s. Their purpose is to protect the natural resources via

ich are situated in Southern Mindanao). The mean of

del, as defined by UDP. This model addresses upland

s market-led agricultural development. The fieldwork

h the upland agricultural extension department, ICRAF’s

orker from the Local Government Unit (LGU).

37


Profile Nader, Ebrahim S

NEH is a fresh fruit distributing organisation f

supply Japanese and Middle-East markets with C

multinationals, by buying, producing and selling

they cooperate with small scale banana producers

corporate economic purposes come along with

agricultural advice and knowledge on cultivation

on daily basis with the cooperatives and their

conducted in cooperation with the NEH producti

and the farmers in Kinamayan.

1.3.2 Research objectives

The problems that occur for NEH and UD

innovations. From my point of view, an innov

when a technical practice does not fit to the l

aspiration of the farm. It is also not sustainabl

(abandoned). Thus, to address the problem o

exchange systems, it is necessary to look in

economical- and management fit of the farm

grass root level. Hence, the objective of this re

farmers and communication workers on farm d

Box 2

/O Hassan, in southern Mindanao

ounded in 2001 in Davao, the Philippines. They mainly

avendish bananas. Their goal is to differentiate from large

fruits in a socially responsible manner. This means that

and buy the fruits via farmer cooperatives. In this way the

economic prosperity for individual farmers and include

practices. The staff of NEH’s production team cooperates

extension workers. For this case study, the fieldwork is

on staff, Liberty cooperative, their communication worker

P are related to the sustainability of socio-technical

ation (as triggered by NEH or UDP) is non-sustainable

ocal farm situation or does not fit with farmers’ future

e when it is not spread, or not applied in the long term

f the sustainability of socio-technical innovations in

to the correlation of the socio-, techno-, ecological-,

innovations and the farmers’ livelihood strategies on

search is to understand the difference in perceptions of

evelopment innovations in exchange systems.

38

Chapter 2: Conceptual exploration

2. Conceptual exploration

In this chapter, the theory and concepts to address the problem at stake are being explored. To get an

overview on what has been written by academics and to interpret which concepts are useable for

interpretation of the problem and objectives of this research. This conceptual framework will evolve in

a set of research questions and concepts used for the conducted fieldwork. The last paragraph explains

the research methodology.

To narrow down the objectives into research questions, a conceptual framework is used. This

framework interprets and defines concepts relevant for this study. It will be used to understand

variations in perceptions of farmers and communication workers on farm development in agricultural

innovation systems. To shed a light on the ambiguity of perceptions, the following key concepts are

chosen to enter this study: ‘farm development’, ‘sustainability in agriculture’, ‘innovation process’,

‘ambiguity’ and ‘perceptions’.

2.1 Farm development

Farm development can be described as improvement of the farm in various ways. Ideally, innovation

environments exist of farmers and ‘experts’ who both innovate and learn from each other, in order to

improve or develop farms. In this study both UDP and NEH use farm development in its broadest

sense. It is being used as a communicative intervention method to reach their goals. For this study,

farm development will be defined as ‘innovations in terms of social, economical, ecological, technical

and management development’, claiming that ‘development’ and ‘innovation’ go beyond a focus on

technology only. These innovations will be described as ‘socio-techno innovations (as aspired by

farmers and triggered by UDP or NEH) related to economical, management, social and ecological

thinking’. This includes agricultural practices, stimulate a market-oriented way of thinking and

develop an improved management of the farm. From the perspective of UDP and NEH, developments

via these socio-techno innovations bring about ‘change’ in the contemporary way of farming.

2.2 Sustainability in agriculture

Sustainable agriculture is a form of agriculture in which a delicate balance between the optimal use of

resources and the ecological-, social- and economic and political objectives are met (Engel, 2004). Or,

as Reijntjes, et al. put it, ‘it is a successful management of resources to satisfy human needs while

maintaining or enhancing the quality of the environment and conserving natural resources’.

Sustainability in general can be described as ‘capability of being maintained at a certain level’ (Oxford

dictionary of English, 2003), but for this study sustainability must be defined more specifically. In the

39


scope of this research, sustainability is defined as ‘a means to ensure continued use and development

of innovations so that farmers are capable of maintaining it at a certain level, in which ecological,

social and economic demands are satisfied and long term depletion of natural resources is avoided’

Engel, 2004). Paradoxically, in the conceptualisation of sustainable agriculture, it is difficulty to find a

satisfying balance between the different aspects, because they often conflict each other (Reijntjes et al.,

1992). Ecological systems for example, are complex systems and are in different ways interrelated

with social systems. What is economically demanded by farmers may not be sound in the perspective

of ecological scientists or nature protection institutes. These polarisations of views take place in multi-

stakeholder environments, when the goals of intervention or action are not clear or intermingled. In

settings like these, it is often the uncertainty that creates room for manoeuvre, which evolves into

ambiguity of perspectives or even causes clashes. This is often seen in environmental conflicts,

(Dewulf et al., 2005; Gray 2004; Aarts & van Woerkum, 1994) where human and environmental

aspects classically interfere with each other. Relating this to farm development, goals between actors

(for this study communication workers and farmers) may conflict because of different interpretations

of development on ecological, economical and social basis. These interpretations however, are crucial

to distinguish the fit of innovations and farmers’ livelihood strategies.

Starting from the point that ‘there is no single objective reality’ one could state that actors make sense

of situations by applying different views to reality e.g. to give a solution to a problem. An example of

this ambiguity of perspectives is given in the article ‘integrated management…and diverging frames’

by Dewulf et al., 2005. There, an environmental issue concerning the effective management of the

Podocarpus national park (inhabited by farmers and miners) in Ecuador is followed in a simulation of

a multi-stakeholder negotiation. It shows how, in a negotiation which has minimally defined tasks,

different stakeholders (the Ministry of Environment, farmers and miners) take the opportunity to put

forward their constraints and own view on what should be done. These views differ highly (from

closing the mine, moving out of miners and farmers, stop illegal logging to interference with peoples

livelihoods and no willingness to move out) and show that uncertainty and ambiguity of perspectives

are major constraining factors in environmental conflicts. Ambiguity thus is defined here as two or

more equally plausible interpretation possibilities as a characteristic of social situations in which

multiple actors bring in multiple frames of reference (Dewulf et al., 2005).

Relating ambiguity as ‘two or more plausible interpretations as a characteristic of social situations in

which multiple actors bring in multiple frames of reference’ (Dewulf et al., 2005), to the scope of this

research, it can be argued whether looking at interpretation possibilities of farmers and communication

workers is to be considered as a multi stakeholder environment. From my point of view, it is.

Therefore ambiguity of perspectives, in this study is defined as ‘variations in perspectives’ (whether

they are divergent or convergent).

40


2.3 Innovation process

In theory, design of the innovation process is based on three stages (Leeuwis, 2003; Douthwaite, 2003;

Van Paassen, written com., 2006):

(1) Exchange of knowledge and joint experimenting to develop an innovation within a specific

context

(2) Up-scaling of the innovation or institutional embedding to arrange collaboration with input

suppliers, marketing, infrastructure etc., according to the needs of the innovation

(3) Dissemination of this innovation within a similar region

Innovations consist of a practical design within a specific context, followed by up-scaling and

dissemination of the innovation (Van Paassen, written com, 2006). In theory, up-scaling and

dissemination of innovations (referred to as out-scaling by Douthwaite, 2003) in agricultural

environments is aimed to spread innovations in two dimensions: horizontally and vertically (figure 2).

In this research, the process, content and actors of the socio-technical innovations are studied. The

socio-technological innovations refer to ‘innovations as aspired by the farmers on one hand and

triggered by NEH or UDP on the other hand’. Within these innovation systems, knowledge is

exchanged between farmers and communication workers and in between farmers themselves. For this

study, communicative intervention at grass root level is explored and thus we speak of ‘knowledge

exchange & joint experimenting, dissemination and up-scaling of innovations and its related processes

between farmers and communication workers’.

2.4 Frames and framing

Actors have the ability to perceive and construct different, partly contradicting or complementary

‘images’ of the same situation. Thus, the meaning of a situation can vary accordingly to the actor at

stake. The mode of explanation (which again is an image) to this situation can also differ from actor to

actor. The above mentioned ‘images’ can be translated into perspectives or ‘frames of reference’. The

process of actors to create frames is called ‘framing’ (Gray, 2003). To do research in an environment

of communication workers and farmers in which agricultural knowledge is created, reshaped and

exchanged calls for a theory in which variations (whether convergent or divergent) of frames can be

made visible.

2.5 Framing theory

Framing theory is a rather new and little explored theory that is historically extracted from meta

communication theories (Bateson in Dewulf et al.,2005: 6) and theory of memory (Bartlett’s in Dewulf

et al., 2005: 4). Therefore framing theory has a twofold base: a cognitive approach and an interaction

approach. The cognitive approach uses frames merely as cognitive building blocks: ‘when one

41


encounters a new situation, one selects from memory a structure called ‘frame’. (Minsky in Dewulf et

al., 2005: 4). Hence, in this sense a frame is a knowledge scheme or ‘structure of expectation’ about

events that happen (Dewulf et al., 2005). The second approach is a theory in which frames refer to the

communication’s role in ongoing interactions: it concentrates on alignments (which form the frame)

negotiated in interaction (Aarts & van Woerkum, 2005: 1). These two theories are both used similarly

in academic research, which creates conceptual confusion amongst scientists. However, as the studies

of Dewulf et al., (2005) and Aarts & van Woerkum (2005) prove, the two approaches are

complementary and addressing different aspects of the framing process.

An example often used to explain framing was studied by Batesons (Bateson in Gray, 2003: 11) and

shows children in a rowdy play, wrestling each other to the ground, without taking this as a real fight.

They frame their behaviour and actions as play. Any small alteration however, e.g. as one kid is

snatching the others ear, may change the frame from play into a real fight. This reframes their

behaviour, meaning they change their frame from ‘harmless play’ into ‘harm full fight’ during the

interaction. The reason for the change of interpretation is caused because one of them misinterpreted

the action of the other. In this example, they view their interaction in a new light, changing the frame

from ‘play’ into the frame of ‘fight’. From a cognitive point of view, the structures of expectations

changed while being in interaction. Thus, frames can be seen as cognitions constructed during

interaction with others.

A characteristic of frames is they are based on subjectivity of knowledge and perceptions. Knowledge

and perceptions are never neutral and can change according to interpretation of the actor who puts the

frame forward. The next example shows that frames may not be permanent and can be adjusted

considering the circumstances.

A friend, who loves cycling and interprets it as a professional sports, always watches de tour de

France. At one point, his ‘idol’ cyclist is being excluded from this race because he is being accused of

using doping. The friend changes his frame concerning cycling as ‘a professional sport’, to an

‘infected and unfair sports’ where ‘everybody uses doping’ and now watching the race is not

interesting anymore. In this sense he reframes his attitude towards cycling as ‘professional sports’ and

his ‘interest’ to watch it. After some weeks, when the race is ongoing, he prefers to watch again

although he still reconciles it as a ‘dirty sport’, thus he reframes part of his frame back to his previous

one. This example shows that actors change their frames according to the circumstances. They also

justify the way of looking at a certain ‘reality’ rendered by ideas from outside combined with already

existing cognitions. Changes in frames are not permanent and can be changed given any circumstances

and make an ‘actor shape, organise and focus his cognitions’ (Grey, 2003: 11).

42


2.5.1 Functions of frames

Frames have a multiplicity of functions, as they are used in various disciplines of science. In an

attempt to create some structure in these various functions, this subparagraph describes the main and

most used functions of frames.

First of all, a difference has to be made in functions for (1) the actors themselves and functions for (2)

scientists. For actors themselves, frames are functional to be able to interpret their world and make

decisions based on this interpretation. It consciously and unconsciously helps actors to compare new

situation with previous experienced ones and shapes their cognitions towards them. Yet, as a

bottleneck, framing can become an issue when there is confusion e.g. confusion whether a statement

was serious or merely a joke (Goffman, 1974) or even more confusing when a statement was

(deliberately or unconsciously) false.

For scientists and communication workers frames are functional to understand people’s mindset and

actions that derive from it. Because of its ability to highlight actors’ various perspectives on reality

and their agency to interpret new situations, it helps to understand why people act the way they do and

can visualise their mindset. Bearing those abilities in mind, framing is often used in conflict studies;

management and environmental conflicts in particular (Neuvel & Aarts, 2001; Grey & Lewicki,

2003). In these fields, ambiguity of perspectives amongst stakeholders occurs often, because the

situations that occur have different plausible interpretations for each of the stakeholders. The nature of

these conflicts (or ambiguous perspectives) can be analysed by visualizing the frames of each of the

stake holders. This allows scientists to see the nature of the divergence and if and where there is room

for convergence. The next three subsections briefly describe the various functions of frames and

whether they are applicable for individual actors or for scientist and communication workers.

2.5.1.1 Constructions of reality

For individual actors, the concept of ‘frames’ is used to understand the ‘rules’ which govern our view

of our world and enable us to differentiate between different types of ‘realities’ (Goffman, in Aarts &

Van Woerkum, 2005: 1). Frames can thus be seen as ‘constructions of reality’ which are used to base

certain decisions. This function of frames is important for individual actors.

2.5.1.2 Interpret new situations

Another important function for individual actors is the ability to interpret new situation. Framing and

reframing theories are based on the thought that actors ‘interpret new situations and information’ based

on certain frames of reference (Gray, 2003: 12). In other words it is making sense of the world around

us, by shaping, focussing and organising (Gray, 2003: 11).

43


2.5.1.3 Understand why people act the way they do

Frames can help to understand why people act the way they do. Understanding both social and

cognitive processes can ‘help to understand why people act the way they’ do while reality is

constructed; shaped by cognitive and social processes (Aarts & van Woerkum, 2005: 3). This function

is interesting for scientists as well as individual actors. For individual actors, it can give an

understanding of why other people, with whom they might be in conflict, act and react they way they

do. For scientists, it is an interesting analytical method to show divergence or convergence in

ambiguous perspectives. In exchange systems where innovations are intended to bring change,

different actors (e.g. farmer, scientist, communication worker) with different backgrounds, goals and

purposes play a vital role. To determine the variations in frames of desirable change processes, it is

necessary to know how actors interpret and expect this change process to go.

2.6 Frames in the scope of this study

As a basis for this research, the cognitive framing theory will be used, in which actors make decisions

via frames of reference by making conscious or unconscious use of their background, past

‘experience’, present ‘objectives’ and future ‘aspirations’ (Aarts & Van Woerkum, 2005: 5). Cognitive

frames put forward by farmers and communication workers have been studied already in

conversations, interviews, seminars and field visits.

Farmers, like every other human being have their own ‘frame of reference’. Different farmers have

varying frames of reference. In the context of this research and with the definition of framing as stated

by Aarts & Van Woerkum, it can be said that farmers (re)shape their reality by innovations, which are

aligned with their frame of reference. Thus, they make use of their past experience with the promoted

innovations and extension service, their relationship towards communication officers, whether they

like the extension method and whether they have trust in the promoted innovation. Communication

workers shape their frame of reference by using their background, past experience with- and future

trust in the promoted innovations, their relationship with the farmers, experience, objectives and

aspiration concerning the method of up-scaling and dissemination of the innovations.

Frames are constructed by combining and integrating cognitive building blocks in a ‘time frame’;

referring to ‘previous experiences, present objectives and future aspirations concerning the issue at

stake, actors involved and the process that takes place’ (Aarts & Van Woerkum, 2005).This, so called,

‘process of frame construction’ should be seen in the light of a certain content (in order to interpret

them correctly) and is mutually dependent to the relationships or social networks people engage in

(Rosales, 2004).

Above mentioned aspects which are present in framing can be summarised as: ‘content’, ‘process’ and

44


‘relation’. They should be interpreted from a time dimension; concerning past ‘experiences’ of the

farmer and communication worker, present ‘objectives’ and future ‘aspirations’.

Figure 12 (adapted from Aarts & Van Woerkum, 2005: 6) visualises this process of frame construction

as developed in theory nowadays. Actors (individuals or groups) put frames forward based on past,

present and future variables but not in a static way, they can change and adapt to situations whenever

possible or needed.

Content

Past experience Present situation

Future aspirations

Relations

Process Figure 12: Model of cognitive frame construction in interaction (adapted from Aarts and Van Woerkum, 2005: 6)

In this study, framing is defined as an approach to disentangle and explore, the past experiences,

present objectives and future aspirations of farmers and communication workers in the innovation

systems of both NEH and UDP. Studying their frames concerning socio-technological innovations,

process of knowledge exchange and farmer-communication worker relation will allow me to evaluate

and compare their frames and look at convergences and divergences between them. The variations in

perceptions might cause conflicts between the socio, ecological, economical and management fit of

these innovations and the livelihood strategies of the farmers.

This framing theory will be defined more specifically to be able to use it for the scope of this study. In

figure 13, the same theory is presented in a different view. The three time dimensions past experience,

present objectives and future aspiration represent the frame indicators of the actors. These can be

interpreted as the dependent variables. They are dependent on the content, process and relation.

45


The first block represents the indicators of socio-technological innovations, as determined from figure

12 which are content, process and relations. These variables are interdependent of each other

(especially the relation and the process) and derive from situations or events that are presented to

farmers and communication workers. These indicators as visualised in figure 13, will be iterated and

defined more specific for the two different case studies of UDP and of NEH.

Cognitive frames

Indicators:

1. Past experience

2. Present situations

3. Future aspirations

Socio-technological innovations

Indicators:

1. Content

2. Process

3. Relation

Figure 13: Indicators of socio-technological innovations and frames

2.6.1 Content frames

Content can be defined as the ‘innovation’ (aspired by farmers and triggered by UDP or NEH) related

to economical, social, ecological and management thinking.

In the case study of UDP, the content is related to an observed innovation in ‘barangay’ Kilagding. In

Kilagding the beneficiary farmers of UDP are (partly) adopting or integrating DFS as it is triggered by

UDP. As a researcher at distance, I observed the power of UDP putting the agenda and followed the

events, situations and frames attached to this. The socio-technological innovation on the agenda of

farmers is the Diversified Farming System. This system is based on LEIA principles. DFS aspires

farmers to differentiate between crops in order to achieve a variation in what is grown. The end goal is

to establish a farm where local varieties of bananas and fruit trees are grown. Bananas are an

intermediate crop, which can give a direct income after 9 months of planting and fruit trees are long

term crops, which will give them an income after 5 to 10 years (depending on the type of tree).

In the case study of NEH in ‘barangay’ Kinamayan, farmers’ reality consists of the cultivation of

Cavendish bananas. This banana variety is cultivated for export purposes, which requires a new

farming rationality, based on HEIA principles (high inputs, credits etc.). The envisaged HEIA farming

system is cost-effective and uses chemical fertilisers for the soil nutrition and pesticides to avoid the

spreading of diseases. Also in this case study, the power of NEH to put innovations on the agenda is

recognised by me as an outside observer. Yet, is has to be mentioned that farmers in this case study are

46


not only triggered by NEH to start cultivating Cavendish bananas, but also from their surroundings21.

As an outside observer I followed the events, situations and frames that were presented to me as

important parts from farmers’ rationality.

2.6.2 Relation frames

Relation refers to the ties between the actors involved in the framing process. For the scope of this

study, relation frames refer to the frames on the ‘farmer- communication worker relation’.

The basis for this relation is defined by: trust (related to others that are typified as trustworthy or

untrustworthy), power (related to perception of status as being inferior or superior) and relational

distance (formality, power, solidarity) (Dewulf et al., 2005: 9).

2.6.3 Process frames

In general, process refers to a ‘system of innovation exchange’ between farmers and communication

workers, concerning farm development, whether dealing with innovation, farm rationality, ecology or

economy.

Historically, agricultural exchange was a linear process in which the outcome of scientific research

was transferred from researcher, via private or governmental institutions to farmers, as visualised in

figure 14 (Röling, oral com., 2005). It shows the gap between the academic world (science) and the

local application, which had to be bridged by means of extension services.

Farmer extension scientific research

Figure 14: Historical pathway of linking research with farmers via agricultural extension.

To overcome the difference in language between farmers and scientists, extension services came into

existence. Their task was to transfer knowledge to grass root level, in a top down system. The general

failing of the ‘transfer of technology’ method on grass root level called for a system in which there is

space for flexibility, where both parties (researchers and farmers) accept each others’ view and see

each other as equal, within mutual interdependency. These are minimal conditions necessary to enable

parties to ‘dance with each other’22 and create a learning environment. Stimulated by the constructivist

paradigm, approaches in which farmers and researchers are linked directly were designed as shown in

figure 15 (Röling, written com., 2005). This picture does however not imply that no extension system

was necessary anymore, but shows that the role of extension changed. From linear transfer of

21 Kinamayan is located in the lowlands where most of the arable land is cultivated plantation wise with

Cavendish bananas. 22 Metaphor used by Niels Röling during a guest lecture in the course ‘management of change’ by Noelle Aarts

47


technology to a participatory environment in which communication workers have a facilitating role to

achieve direct interaction between farmers.

Farmers scientific research

Figure 15: Contemporary pathway of knowledge exchange

These Farmer First (FF) approaches intend to stimulate mutual learning in participatory systems. Yet,

participatory, bottom-up approaches also have its pitfalls e.g. the participatory paradox. In the most

extreme sense, this means that, when all actors have the same level of participation, in a non-

hierarchical democratic environment, no one will take lead and it will be difficult to make consensus

based decisions.

Knowledge on innovations is exchanged and transformed through different pathways, both formal and

informal. The formal pathway of diffusion can be specified as the intended system of communicative

intervention of innovations as designed by UDP and NEH.

In line with the concepts about contemporary innovation and diffusion theory (Leeuwis, 2003;

Douthwaite, 2003; Van Paassen, written com.,2006), theoretically innovation comprises of:

(1) exchange of knowledge and joint experimenting to develop an innovation within a specific context;

(2) up-scaling of the innovation to arrange collaboration with input suppliers, marketing, infrastructure

etc., according to the needs of the innovation;

(3) out-scaling or dissemination of this innovation within a similar region.

In the case study of UDP, the exchange of knowledge (1) is based on Farmer Participatory Research

(FPR) principles, defined as ‘the collaboration of farmers and scientists in agricultural research and

development’ (UDP, internal leaflet 2005). Farmers are exchanging knowledge and experiment on so

called ‘learning sites,’ facilitated in their experiments by communication workers. Up-scaling of the

innovations (2) is achieved by collaboration with the LGU, for institutionalising the facilitation of the

DFS within the local government, by collaborating with governmental infrastructure programmes to

create ‘farm to market roads’ and by cooperation with business suppliers for the marketing of the

fruits. Dissemination of innovations (3) within the similar region is based on farmer to farmer (F2F)

principles. F2F systems are designed to trigger farmers to spread their practices and knowledge to

other farmers23. Often the farmers are guided in this process by communication workers, but the goal

is that the innovations are spread by the farmers themselves.

23 A major critique on his kind of approach is that the spread of innovations will stay in family related spheres.

48


For NEH, the exchange of knowledge (1) is based on linear exchange of knowledge and

experimentation between farmers and communication workers in the field. In this so called T&V

system, designed by the World bank to complement the general extension system (Ntifo-Siaw, 1994),

farmers and extension workers exchange knowledge via hands-on trainings about certain topics (both

pre-set as well as on request) and field visits from communication workers. Up-scaling of innovations

(2) is done in collaboration with a local farmer cooperative. They provide a stable market for the

Cavendish bananas, a packaging plant that creates employment in the ‘barangay’ and sell food and

input supplies for farmers. Also the institutionalisation of field visits via communication workers of

the cooperative is part of the up-scaling process. Out-scaling of innovations (3) is based on a linear

adoption process, in which farmers are triggered to adopt cultural practices through training and visits

by communication workers of the cooperative.

The informal process, mutually described for farmers who are beneficiaries of UDP and NEH, is the

system in which farmers retrieve knowledge and experiment outside of the formal system and the way

they adjust their situation on the farm with this knowledge. Examples of the informal pathway are

knowledge gathered from neighbours, family advisors and independent seed companies.

2.6.4 Past experiences

Experience as defined in the Oxford Dictionary of English, is ‘the knowledge or skill acquired by such

means over time. Especially that gained in a particular profession’. For this study the definition of

experience is in line with the above mentioned, hence it will be defined as ‘knowledge’ that is acquired

or gained ‘in the past’ by the involved actors concerning promoted innovations, the innovation process

and the relation between farmer and communication worker.

In the case study of UDP, this relates to experience with the DFS, the experience with the innovation

process of UDP and the relationship between communication worker and farmer. For the second case

study of NEH, this refers to the past experience with Cavendish cultivation, the experience with

innovation process as set up by NEH and the relationship between the farmer and the communication

worker of NEH.

2.6.5 Present objectives

Objectives refer to goals aimed at by individuals or organisations (Oxford Dictionary of English,

2003). Goals however, can also refer to future ambitions instead of present aims. To avoid the

terminology to become obfuscate, present objectives in this research refer to the ‘present situation’ in

which the actors are involved in, at the time of writing.

In the case study of UDP, these relate to the present situation to the DFS, the present situation of the

49


innovation system of UDP and the present time relationship between communication worker and

farmer. For the second case study of NEH, this means the present situation related to (export) banana

cultivation, the innovation process of NEH and the present relationship between the farmer and the

communication worker of NEH.

2.6.6 Future aspirations

Actors’ future aspirations can be defined as a wish or ‘ambition which they hope to achieve in future’.

In UDP’s case this means future aspirations focussed on the DFS, the future aspirations for the

innovation system and the aspirations of the relationship between communication worker and farmers.

For NEH, this means the actors’ future with (export) banana cultivation, the aspirations for the

innovation process and the aspired relationship between the farmers and the communication worker.

Future aspirations can be interpreted in a broad sense and they can refer to goals that can actually

become reality or goals that are not likely to be achieved (e.g. there is a difference in: ‘I would like to

be a millionaire’ and I would like to earn a stable income from my farming activities). Whether the

actors are referring to aspirations that actually can be achieved or not is not a matter of the author’s

judgement.

2.7 Context for the scope of this study

In respect of this study the farming innovations (triggered by UDP and NEH, aspired by the farmers)

form an essential setting in which farmers and communication workers shape their frames. The

process refers to the innovation system in which communication workers (of NEH and UDP) and

farmers exchange knowledge. The relations are daily interactions based on trust, power and relational

distance between communication workers and farmers.

Looking into farmers’ vis-à-vis communication workers’ experiences, present situation and aspirations

in the above mentioned context (innovation, relation and innovation process) will provide a deeper

understanding of the perceptions on socio-technological innovations. It will show how to interpret the

actors past experiences, present situations and future aspirations in farm development.

2.8 Research questions

Starting from the objectives of this research and the assumption that farmers and communication

workers shape perceptions according to their own ‘reality’, research questions have been determined.

The cognitive framing theory is as the basis for this study and therefore each research question refers

to one of the three main concepts in frame construction: content (question 1: variations on socio-

technological innovations), relation (question 2: variations on relation between farmer and

communication worker) and process (question 3: variations on innovation process).

50


(1) To what extend do frames of farmers vis-à-vis communication workers on socio-

technological innovations vary?

- What are the experiences objectives and aspirations of small farmers with the promoted

socio-technological innovations in relation to economic, management and ecological

thinking?

- What are the experiences, objectives and aspirations of the communication workers with

the promoted socio- techno innovations, in relation to economic, management, social and

ecological thinking of the farmers?

- In what way do frames between farmers and communication workers vary?

- What is the effect of the innovations?

(2) In what way do farmers and communication workers perceive their relationship?

- What are past experiences, present objectives and future aspirations of the relationship,

according to farmers?

- What are past experience, present objectives and future aspirations of the relationship,

according to communication workers?

- In what way do the frames concerning the relation between farmers and communication

workers vary?

- In what way does this relationship play a role in development of sustainable socio-

technological innovations, according to farmers and communication workers?

(3) To what extend do frames regarding the process of innovation vary?

- What are farmers’ experience, objectives and aspirations with the innovation process?

- What are communication workers’ experience, objectives and aspirations with the process

innovation?

- In what way do the frames of farmers and communication workers diverge and converge

with regard to the innovation processes?

2.9 Research methodology

This paragraph describes the methodology used to conduct this research. Overall, three main research

steps can be distinguished: (1) the elaboration of the research proposal, (2) the field work and (3) the

analysis of data. This paragraph contains a chronological description of (1) the proposal elaboration,

(2) the research strategy in the field, including sampling methods and units of study, description of

research sites and key informants, data collection techniques that were employed and data recording

methods. The last subparagraph describes (3) the methods of data analysis.

51


2.9.1 Research proposal

In preparation of this study and prior to the fieldwork a research proposal was designed, based on

concepts out of literature retrieval, experiences from courses and comments from my university

supervisor and contact persons in Davao city. The proposal was approved in October 2005 at the

Wageningen University. Further elaboration and adjustments to the field situation of the proposal took

place during the first weeks of my stay in the Philippines- in Davao city- in cooperation with my local

supervisors.

2.9.2 Research strategy of the fieldwork

This is an exploratory social research, mainly based on primary qualitative data gathered during

fieldwork, supplemented with available quantitative secondary demographic data gathered at

municipal level.

The used research strategy is those of a ‘case study’, defined by Yin (Yin, 1984: 23) as ‘an empirical

enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, when boundaries

between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and in which multiple sources of

evidence are used’. A case study, as defined above, will allow me to look into the complexity of

relationships in the real life context among actors (for this study, farmers and communication workers)

and indicators of the phenomena (constructed frames of reference) towards socio-technological

innovations.

The fieldwork has been conducted in the southern part of the Philippines on the Island of Mindanao,

specifically in two ‘barangays’: (1) Kilagding, situated in the province of Compostela Valley and (2)

Kinamayan, situated in the province of Davao del Norte as they are described in paragraph 1.2.6. Each

‘barangay’ represents the research population of one autonomous case study, hence both should be

conceived as separate case studies. The choice of conducting two separate case studies derived

naturally and logically from the fact that this study is conducted in cooperation with two different

types of organisations (UDP and NEH), that operate in different geographical regions, promote

different types of innovations and different farming styles. Table 1 illustrates an overview of the two

case studies as such, illustrating their different nature. Comparison between all these entities is no

more than comparing chalk to cheese. They obstruct direct comparison between the two case studies at

organisational level (UDP and NEH).

52


Table 1: Illustration of dissimilar nature of the two case studies of UDP and NEH Case study area UDP Case study area NEH

Barangay Kilagding KinamayanMunicipality Laak Santo TomasProvince Compostela Valley Davao del NorteNb of hh in brg 220 640Geograghy Uplands (ca. 500 m above sea level) Lowlands

5,5 hours driving from Davao City 2 hours driving from Davao cityFarming type LEIA HEIA

Subsistence oriented Market orientedHetrogenity of crops Mono cropping

Farmers (mainly) Transition from corn to fruittrees Transition from rice to bananaStable crop in region White corn RiceFarm development via: DFS system Cavendish banana cultivation

However, entering from grass-root level in both villages did give me the opportunity to see what is on

the agenda of farmers, to experience in real-life the dissimilarity of knowledge exchange and the

difference in context and environments. It also let me gain the insight that farmers are difficult to

classify in groups.

Within ‘barangay’ Kilagding and Kinamayan, the research strategies, sampling, way of approach, data

collection techniques and recording techniques are kept similar as much as possible. Both ‘barangays’

(or cases) were chosen on purpose by NEH and UDP, mostly because of political and safety reasons.24

Academic critique towards the “typicality” bias of a case study is in this sense completely justified and

therefore it is not in the scope of this study to make generalisations outside of the ‘research universe’.

The research universe is defined by Poate and Daplyn as ‘the population which the sample is to

represent’(Poate and Daplyn, 1993: 44).

The ‘research universes’ in the two case studies (UDP and NEH) are defined as:

(1) Farmers who are beneficiaries of UDP in ‘barangay’ Kilagding and communication workers who

are assigned from UDP in ‘barangay’ Kilagding.

(2) Farmers who are beneficiaries of NEH in ‘barangay’ Kinamayan and communication workers

who are assigned from NEH in ‘barangay’ Kinamayan.

The ‘units of analysis’ (Bernhard, 1995: 35) are the frames of reference, put forward by farmers (men

and women that consider themselves as head of the household) and communication workers. This

rather abstract research unit, can however be examined by looking at the past experiences, present

objectives and future aspirations of actors with regard to the content, process and relations in the

dynamics of farm development.

24 Southern Mindanao has a history of (armed) conflicts between militant groups and state and between different

religious groups. Provinces of Davao del Norte and Compostela valley are know for presence of NPA (New

Peoples Army) and its supporters which constrained a random sample severely.

53


The ‘observation units’ are the actors that construct these frames. Therefore my units of observation

are:

(1) Individual farmers; men and women, which are beneficiaries of either UDP in ‘barangay’

Kilagding, or beneficiaries of NEH in ‘barangay’ Kinamayan.

(2) Communication workers, which are related to either UDP in ‘barangay’

Kilagding or to NEH in ‘barangay’ Kinamayan.

In both case studies, one key informant; the communication worker assigned, was chosen to introduce

me into the village, guide me in gaining permission from the municipal major (in Laak and Santo

Tomas) and ‘barangay’ councils to stay in the area for my study. The sampling of the farmers and

selection of key informants was done via household lists of beneficiaries provided by UDP and NEH.

In Kilagding, (the UDP case study) first some farmer key informants (members of the so called

Farmers Training Group or FTG) were sampled ‘purposefully’ (Bernhard, 1995: p.95) in cooperation

with the communication worker. The selection criteria were that they had to be beneficiaries of UDP

and were belonging to the farmers-training-group25 of UDP. This group consists of farmers that are

trained by UDP to start using and disseminating the DFS. This farmers-training-group forms the basis

for UDPs’ out-scaling strategy. In terms of up-scaling, the UBA26 is used to raise important issues

during barangay meetings. The legitimate power from the UBA to raise questions during official

barangay meetings, pin point important issues for the FTG, is used to persuade local government when

needed. An example of this is the UBA chairman requesting the transport official during a barangay

meeting for funds to repair the damaged road to the farmers-training-site. That is the site where the

weekly meetings of the FTG are held and the issue of the inaccessibility of the site was discussed the

previous week during a FTG meeting. The marketing of fruits and institutionalising of the facilitation

of the FTG is done via the LGU. The LGU tries to attract interested buyer to the barangay. Also the

communication worker who facilitates the FTG, is employed by the LGU and not directly by UDP. In

that way, UDP want to institutionalise their programme at government level. To ensure its

sustainability, even when the UDP programme stops27

25 The first members of the Farmers Training Group (FTG) were chosen strategically by UDP in the year 2000. It consisted of

farmers who were willing to cooperate with UDP from the first moment. Yet, other selection criteria are not known by the

researcher. The initial group of 6 people extended to 11 in the last years. These ‘new comers’ are asked and selected by the

members of the FTG and based on criteria set within the FTG. 26 The UBA chairman is also member of the FTG. In terms of up-scaling he has the legitimacy to raise issues during barangay

meetings. 27 The initial time span set for UDP to institutionalise the program was 6 years (from 2000 until 2006). By December 2006

they got permission to proceed until June 2007.

54


A random sample for interviews was drawn from beneficiaries to complement the data gained from the

key informants. In Kilagding, safety (for me and the informants) and the political situation was taken

very serious, which obstructed me to draw an ‘objective’ random sample, while the list of beneficiaries

was ‘filtered’ by the communication worker. This makes the results of this study less representative in

this sense (because it is impossible for me to know all the conditions on which the communication

worker filtered the list; political supporters or also on individual reasons?). Nevertheless it is

acceptable, because these restrictions are due to the political situation in the region and could not be

avoided.

In Kinamayan, the NEH case study, key informants were also sampled purposefully in agreement with

the communication worker. These key informants were farmers that were participating in seminars

given by NEH via a farmer cooperation called Liberty. In a later stage, a random sample for field visits

and interviews was made from farmers that attain membership of Liberty Cooperation.

In Kilagding, one communication worker and 6 farm families (husband and wife) are used as key

informants. Their statements and perceptions are for the main part of the data analysis of this research.

Box 3 shortly introduces these key informants. In Kinamayan, the key informants consisted out of one

communication worker and 6 farmers (mostly the male farmers who considered themselves head of the

household). They are also introduced shortly in box 4. Names used are nicknames, which are

commonly used in the Philippines. These names are not made up by myself and are known in the

villages and by the informants. I deliberately asked permission to use their names in the context of this

thesis.

55


Box 3

Case study of UDP, key informants in ‘barangay’ Kilagding

Dondon Malayan, the communication worker.

Dondon is a 28 year old agriculturalist who is working for the LGU in the municipality of Laak. For one of

his tasks, he is assigned to extend the DFS for UDP in the village of Kilagding. Kilagding is also his home

village, where he is living with his wife and two children (6 and 4 years old). He finished his bachelor

degree in agriculture on university in the city of Tagum. He doesn’t own land himself, but works on his

father-in-laws’ land during the weekends. His wife is studying during the weekends and works at the local

school during the week.

Mr Florencio, Mrs Rose Calipusan and their family

Mr and Mrs Calipusan are an elderly couple (66 and 63 years old) living on the edge of Kilagding, together

with one of their 4 sons called Bob (30 years old, teacher on a nearby high school) and three cousins (12, 15

and 18 years old). Rose’s mother also lives with them, as well as one of her brothers.

They have two houses, one ‘balay’ (main house) within the ‘barangay’ and up on the mountain near to their

fields they have a ‘palag’ (small hut). Their main income derives from farming, all family members

together own 5 ha of land and have rented another 4 ha. They are beneficiaries of the UDP program and the

so called ‘learning site’ (where some local farmers come together to learn about the DFS system and

experiment together) is situated on their land. They grow a variety of crops (white and yellow corn,

coconut, ‘Lacatan’ banana, a vegetable plot with eggplant, coffee, peanuts, pineapple and rubber trees) and

their main income comes from farming. During harvest season they hire outside labour to help them

harvesting.

56


Box 3

Case study of UDP, key informants in ‘barangay’ Kilagding

Mr Nelson Calinisan

Nelson is a 44 year old farmer who is living with his family (wife, mother-in-law and 5 children (from 1

year to 19 years old) on his land in ‘barangay’ Kilagding. Their ‘palag’ is on the edge of their 1/4 ha plot of

land, where they grow cassava, camote, ‘latudan’ bananas and coconut trees and a jack fruit tree. They also

own 5 chickens and 2 roasters. Mr Nelson cultivates the land together with his oldest son, while his wife

takes care of their children and the household. His main income comes from farming, but he gets additional

income from selling traditional cassava pastries during festivities.

Mr Victor and Mrs Benny Delag

Mr and Mrs Delag (52 and 49 years old) are a living on their farm land outside of the ‘barangay’ centre.

Only two of their five children are still living with them on the farm. Together they own 3 ha of land on

which they grow different types of fruit trees (coconut, durian, lanzones, ‘latundan’ banana, mango,

pomelo, gemelina trees and rubber trees). As vegetables they cultivate eggplant, chilli and herbs for

cooking.

Mr Marlon and Mrs Juna Plandiz

Mr Marlon and Mrs Juna Plandiz (46 and 39 years old) are living in their ‘palag’ on a difficult to reach

mountain outside of the ‘barangay’. Thay have three children, ranging in age from 4 to 15 years old.

They own 1 ha of land which Marlon cultivates himself. Their income from the land is not sufficient to feed

them, so Marlon also works as a labourer on his neighbour’s farm. This captures 50% of his time.

The crops they cultivate on their land are ‘cardava’ banana and rubber trees, cassava, and vegetables such

as squash and beans.

Mr Raimundo Paradero

Mr Raimundo and his wife (52 and 46 years old) are living in their ‘baranagay’‘balay’ together with their

in-laws. They also have a ‘palag’ on their 3 ha of land outside of the village. They plant only ‘Latundan’

banana and some vegetables and corn for their own use. As they don’t have children, his wife and he are

working daily on their land and banana provides them their main income.

Mrs Jennifer Guillas

Mrs Guillas, and her husband (26 and 31 years old) are living in their Pajag up the hill, located outside the

barangay and on their farmland. They have 4 children ranging in age from 7 to 3 years old. They own 3 ha

of land. Half of it is cultivated with corn, the rest planted with some coconut trees, a small amount of rubber

trees and some native banana. They also have a vegetable patch where they grow vegetables like eggplant

for own use. Her husband works on the land himself, while she takes care of the domestic tasks and takes

care of the children. They don’t have other family to help them out on their farm. Corn is their subsistence

crop, while rubber gives them their main income.

57


Box 4

Case study of NEH, key informants in Kinamayan

Maloy, the communication worker.

Maloy is a 26 year old communication worker assigned for NEH in barangay Kinamayan. He is employed

by the Liberty cooperative and in cooperation with NEH he visits farmers and tries to guide them to ‘better’

cultivation methods. He lives in a neighbouring barangay, La Libertad, together with his wife, their four

children (1, 2, 3 and 5 years old) and his mother and father. He finished high school and learned cultivating

Cavendish from his dad, who is a respected Cavendish farmer in the neighbourhood. Prior to this job, he

was employed as a communication worker in his own barangay, but since 6 months he was transferred to

Kinamayan.

Mr Mario and Mrs Dading Dandoy

Mr and Mrs Dandoy live in a small house of stone, nearby the packing plant of cooperative Liberty. They

have three sons (19, 21 and 23 years old) of which the youngest two going to college and are living in

nearby cities of Tagum and Butuan. Their household consists of 8 people; their oldest son, his wife and two

children (1 and 2 years old), a cousin and a labourer who helps out on the farm. Mario Dandoy is the

manager of the Dandoy common farm, which he owns together with his brothers and sisters. In total, this is

9 ha of land, each of them owning 1.5 ha. They cultivate Cavendish banana and beside this he is growing

and training cocks for cock fighting. He is also part of the board of directors of Liberty Coop and is active

for this at least three times a week. Mrs Dandoy takes care of the little sari-sari store they own and does the

administration for the farm. She also teaches religion on the local elementary school once a week. Their son

works as a controller in the packing house of Liberty coop. Their main income comes from the work in

packing house.

Mrs Leonora Jadraque

Mrs Jadraque lives with her husband and three sons (5, 13 and 15 years old) in a house in the centre of the

municipality of Santo Tomas. Their two oldest sons are going to college and live in Tagum and Davao. Mrs

Jadraque and her husband own 2.1 ha of land. 1.1 ha is located in barangay Kinamayan and is planted with

Cavendish banana. The remaining land is at the back of their house and is planted with rice. They also have

10 coconut trees for their own use. Her husband is working as a Jeepney driver for four days a week, to gain

extra income for his family. The farm is mostly managed by Mrs Jadraque and a labourer. Cavendish

banana is their main source of income.

Mr Godefrido Placido

Mr Placido and his family (his wife, two sons and their families) live in their Balay on the outer side of

Kinamayan, far from the main road. Their household consists in total of 11 persons. The 1.8 ha of land they

own are fully planted with Cavendish banana and his two sons (30 and 32 years old) work on the land

fulltime. He mostly helps out on the land two to three days per week, while he is also occupied with the

inventory of the bodega from cooperation, one day a week.

58


Case study of NEH, k

Mr Antony Sum

Mr Antony Sumile and his family (his wife, 25 ye

outside of the barangay centre on the 2.8 ha far

neighbouring parcel, an area of 4 ha, but he is liv

grow Cavendish bananas, there is a small fish po

they have 20 coconut trees and a mango tree. F

farmer Mr Antony Sumile also is the Purok

neighbourhood. Mr Cinon Sumile is also growin

are working for him. He only visits his area once

Mr An

Mr Juarez (71 year old) and his wife (66 year old

them. Their household consists of 5 members (da

main road to Santo Tomas. They own 1.7 ha wh

none of his male children live in Kinamayan he cu

Mr an

Mr and Mrs Flores (49 and 46 years old) live wit

the Barangay, with no direct access to a road (onl

which is completely planted with Cavendish ba

livestock they own 10 chickens and breed 2 coc

Santo Tomas and Mr and Mrs Flores work on the

2.9.3 Data collection techniques

In order to validate and cross-check data an arr

and communication workers have been observ

that were ongoing in the villages during my tim

‘Living’ with a host family in both of the villag

farm family. In both cases I lived, ate, shared

during the weekends with them on their farm. I

a short stay (3 to 4 days) in Davao for reflecti

good relationship with my host family allowe

both case studies, the family with whom I s

analysis. During my stay I noticed the impor

Box 4

ey informants in Kinamayan

ile and Mr Cinon Sumile

ars old and their son, 6 years old) are living in their Balay

m land they own. His father, Mr Cinon Sumile owns the

ing in the municipality of Santo Tomas. On their land they

nd which is not very well developed and for their own use

urther they own 2 chickens and 2 pigs. Besides being a

leader, which makes him the representative of the

g Cavendish bananas, but leaves this to his labourers that

a week, while he lives in Santo Tomas.

drecito Juarez

) have 10 children of which 1 is still living together with

ughter and her two children) and the balay is located at the

ich is completely planted with Cavendish banana. While

ltivates the land on his own.

d Mrs Flores

h their six children in their balay located at the far end of

y via neighbouring plots of land). They own 1.1 ha of land

nana and have one mango tree for own use. In terms of

ks for cock fighting. Their children go to high school in

land themselves.

ay of techniques has been used to collect data. Farmers

ed during their daily activities, meetings and seminars

e of stay.

es gave me the opportunity to experience daily life of a

shelter and cooked with the host family and worked

n both cases I spend 6 weeks with them, interrupted by

on. This ‘socialising’ process and attempt to build up a

d me to share experiences and to learn from them. In

tayed were also part of the key informants used for

tance of ‘making friends’ and ‘opening –up’ and how

59


these forms of socialising contribute to trust in a relationship. Hence, I spend a lot of time ‘socialising’

with local villagers, joining them to church, cooking together, doing the laundry at the river and adopt

a repertoire of songs to be sang at the local ‘videoke bar’. This form of ‘participant observation’

enabled me to observe and experience people’s daily reality and their perceptions and knowledge

about farm development.

Another form of ‘participant observation’ is my involvement with the communication workers and

following them in their daily activity. We visited farmers in the region, the regional offices of NEH

and UDP, making field visits, attending seminars and group workshops. Joining them made extensive

talks and discussions on up- and out-scaling of socio-technological innovations possible. It also

allowed me to see their work with my own eyes.

‘Interviews’ with key informants took place in the form of

casual conversations, informal interviews and in a later

stadium more profound in-dept interviews by employing

topic lists. Majority of the interviews took place on the

fields or at the informants’ home (figure 16). Data from one

key informant are gathered from observations, multiple

casual talks and an in-depth interview.

Figure 16: A field visit in Kilagding

‘Time and planning’ seem to be of another kind dimension in the villages of Kilagding and Kinamayan

(seen from a Dutch perspective). The rainy season contributed to this by making it sometimes

impossible to reach farms and farmers. The different reality in time made me reframe my initial

amount of planned interviews and forced me to adapt to a more flexible planning.

I tried to avoid interview biases as much as possible, but one aspect was inevitable; the ‘interpreter

bias’. While the official national languages of the Philippines are English and ‘Pilipino’, the people in

the south of Mindanao use their own dialect in daily life, which is called ‘Bisaya’. 28 My assumption,

fed by UDP and NEH, that most of the people understand English was proven correct. Unfortunately

speaking English was difficult for most of them. During my stay in the two villages I learned quite

some basic words; enabling me to introduce myself and do some courtesy calls in the ‘Bisaya’ dialect.

However, the use of interpreters was still necessary. The two communication workers both spoke

English and helped me during interviews with translation when necessary. The lack of resources and

28 ‘Visaya’ or ‘Bisaya’ is considered as the language spoken in the south of the Philippines, the Visayas and Mindanao

regions. The language can be classified as Austronesian, stemming from the Malay race intermixed with old Spanish words.

60


safety regulations restricted the use of independent interpreters. These made me fully aware of and

experience the difficulty and biases due to working with interpreters that have their own agenda. Via

triangulation of questions I tried to avoid this bias as much as possible.

2.9.4 Recording of notes

Data gathered during fieldwork have been recorded in various ways based on the methods described

by Southwold (Southwold, 2002). General observations and my activities were recorded in daily field

notes, recording in sequence what happened during the day. Important aspects or information from

casual conversations were noted down on the spot (or during toilet breaks) in a little note book which

was in my pocket.

The majority of the in-depth interviews (80%) that took place at people’s homes have been recorded

on paper (during the interviews), when it appeared that interviewees were comfortable with this

method. In the case study of UDP in Kilagding, four interviewees allowed me to record the interviews

on tape, while in Kinamayan, none of the respondents allowed me to record on tape. In Kinamayan

(NEH case study), respondents were much more suspicious towards taking notes and taping interviews

than in Kilagding (UDP case study). Underlying reasons for this difference might be the relationship

between the farmers and the organisations (in the case of NEH, farmers have more economical

relationship based on customer-buyer).

2.9.5 Method of analysis

To gather data regarding family structure and composition of the households, agriculture and

migration I collected ‘genealogies’ (Long, 2001: 132-166) from the interviewees. This allowed me to

get some background information and past experience with farming, look into the relationships

between the family members and their occupational tasks within the household. But mainly, I used it

to let the interviewees, mostly the head of the household, talk about their family.

The ‘situational analysis’ as ‘the description of behaviour of individuals in a specific situation or series

of situations’ (van Velsen, 1967: pp. 140-141) gave me in depth insides about the innovation process

and the perceptions that people put forward towards the interrelated topics of this research. Focussing

on different types of situations, like a workshop on the use of waste material in Kilagding or a seminar

on the use of chemicals and health protection materials in Kinamayan, allowed me to observe

interactions between communication workers and farmers and practices related exchange of

knowledge on innovations.

Further I analysed the ‘frames of reference’ (based on past experience, present objectives and future

aspirations) put forward by the farmers and compared them with the frames of reference put forward

61


by the communications workers to show the varieties in their perspectives. The analysed data are

presented in two ways:

(1) With quotes from farmers and communication worker to show the variety in perspectives

(2) With numeric data to show the dominance of perspectives and show how many people have been

interviewed or responded to the topic29.

29 The total interviewees as regarded to in the text differ per topic. Some topics have a larger amount of total interviewed than

there are key informants. The reason for this is that some interesting views were presented by non- key informants. These

views are gained via (haphazard) casual talks with actors (for example an ex- communication worker in Kilagding) which

represent views that are interesting and contribute to the scope of this study. Because all of these are based on “one time

meetings,” which often only covered one topic of interest, I choose not to introduce them as key informants. However, I use

their view to support or contradict what the key informants say. In the text there will be referred to as ‘the amount of actors

interviewed on this topic’ to how many actors have been interviewed.

62

Chapter 3: Perceptions on socio-technological innovations

3. Perceptions on socio-technological innovations

The frames of actors (farmers and communication workers) towards socio- technological innovations

are analysed in this chapter. It tries to answer the first research question: ‘To what extend do frames of

farmers vis-à-vis communication workers concerning socio- technological innovations vary?’ The

question is answered by analysing the perceptions from the interviewed informants, concerning past

experience, present situation and future aspiration with the socio-technological innovations, as derived

from the conceptual framework.

This chapter is divided in two main paragraphs. The first represents the case study of UDP in

‘barangay’ Kilagding and the second the case study of NEH in ‘barangay’ Kinamayan. Starting with

the case study of Kilagding, where UDP is promoting its DFS, a threefold split in analysis of data are

made for actors ‘experience with the DFS’, ‘their present situation’ and their ‘future perspective with

the innovation’. These subparagraphs provide both farmers and communication workers views. The

last subparagraph (3.1.4) gives an analytical reflection on the frames of the stakeholders in Kilagding.

The second main paragraph regarding the case study of Kinamayan is structured similarly.

3.1 The case study of UDP in Kilagding: - frames on DFS by beneficiaries and the local

communication worker -

The view of the hilly area of Kilagding is diverse in terms of crops that are grown on the slopes.

Historically, this is a region where farmers cultivate agricultural products for their own subsistence.

With the modernization of the past years and expanding local markets this is slowly shifting to a

market related form of agriculture. Gradually, some farmers step out of their subsistence culture and

are able to produce little surpluses to sell on the

local market. Part of the arable land on the

slopes is visible degraded (figure 17), while

practices of slash-and-burn agriculture, (illegal)

deforestation and cultivation of non-permanent

crops (e.g. corn) destruct the soil. At least, seen

from the point of view of UDPs’ ecologists and

their communication worker. This ecological

‘reality’ as represented by the communication

worker, might be perceived differently by the

local farmers. Ecological as well as

economical, management (crops and cultural practices) and social perspectives towards DFS will be

analysed in the next subparagraphs. Looking at the past experiences of farmers and the

Figure 17: Photo of degraded land in Kilagding

63


communication worker with the DFS will enable me to make an interesting comparison with the

present objectives and future aspirations. The DFS as designed by UDP, triggers farmers to diversify

their crops, for ecological and economical reasons. Cultivating native banana varieties (Cardava,

Lakatan and Latundan) as intermediate cash crops and plant fruit trees as long term cash crops is a

part of this system.


In terms of past experience with DFS a split has been made in frames on management (crops,

technology, cultural practices and knowledge), economical, ecological and social thinking.

In general, none of the informants consider themselves to have experience with DFS. The DFS is

being perceived as a new innovation that was introduced to them by UDP in the start of 2002. 10 out

of 10 farmers (including 6 key-informants and views of 4 non key-informants) state that they have no

past experience with a Diversified Farming System or at least not under that name. During the

interviews, it occurred to me, that the farmers relate experience with DFS mainly to experience with

the ‘technical’ side of it: the growing of fruit trees. They frame DFS in first instance as a management

innovation, concerning crops, cultural practices and knowledge. The communication worker however,

relates it not only to the management experience but also to the ecological experience.

3.1.1.1 Management experiences

Experiences in terms of management point out that corn used to be the dominant crop grown by the

informants. All of the informants were previously cultivating corn (white and yellow) together with a

small amount of root crops, like Camote. White corn was and still is the staple food in the area.

Marlon Plandiz tells: ‘In 1980 we came here from North Cotabato. This land was abandoned before; we cultivated it and

planted corn. In our vegetable garden we grew camote and squash’. This perspective of planting corn is supported

by statements of all other interviewees, who explain that their previous experience is cultivation of

corn.

From a management perspective, DFS is mostly conceived as a ‘technology’ of planting fruit trees.

Experience with planting of trees varies. None of the informants has experience with planting trees as

a main source of income on their own land, but 6 out of 9 explain that they do have some previous

knowledge of fruit tree cultivation. Only one informant, Marlon Plandiz, has previously worked on a

banana plantation in the lowlands, where he learned how to cultivate Latundan banana on large scale.

The dominant perspective in experience with planting trees however, is that they gained knowledge

via their parents. It was passed on to them, while working on their parents land in the past (before they

owned land (inherited) themselves).

64


As Florencio Calipusan explains: ‘My parents came from Bohol to Kilagding with the first stream of migrants (in

1947). In that time there were only few people living here. There were pieces of land that nobody was using and my parents

started to cultivate any kind of crops that they could afford, mostly Cardava, Abaca and root crops. I started to work on the

land of my dad since I was a kid and learned how to plant and harvest different varieties of banana tree, but also Camote and

other types of root crops’.

Victor Delag tells the following: ‘I inherited the land I own from my parents in 1991. My parents both come from

Cebu and migrated to Kilagding after the second World War. I had trouble to start cultivating it, because it was abandoned

from 1970 until 1990 while there were armed forces in the barangay. Before 1970, when my dad was still cultivating it, he

planted upland rice, corn, camote and abaca. Abaca was introduced by the Japanese and we used the fibre for making

clothes. Although these banana trees were not grown for their fruits, still I learned from them how to grow them’.

Cultural practices are not static monolithic entities, but are past on, inherited and adjusted to the

present situation when needed (Leeuwis, 2004). Both Victor Delag and Florencio Calipusan frame

their experience with cultivation of trees as ‘I learned it on the fields of my parents’, showing that cultural

practices are passed on from generation to generation. This shows that the informants do have previous

knowledge with planting of fruit trees, although not as the main source of their income. Or not even as

food supply, which is confirmed by Victor Delag by saying that ‘Abaca fibre was used for making of clothes’.

Especially native banana varieties were already part of the upland agricultural traditions in the past,

although they might have been cultivated for other purposes (e.g. fibre for clothing).

Another issue becomes clear from the past experience of Victor Delag and Florencio Calipusan. Both

their parents migrated after WWII from the Visayas (Bohol and Cebu) to the uplands of Mindanao.

This stream of migrants from the Visayas to Mindanao is one of the two major events (migration and

logging) that occurred in the Philippines which were to change the land use pattern in the Mindanao

uplands.

The population increase after WWII has led to a decreasing farm size and limited opportunities for off-

farm rural employment. Most agricultural activity was undertaken in the lowlands, where land is more

easily cleared and developed for irrigated rice lands, rain fed corn and coconut production. As shortage

of land began to occur in the Visayas and the Mindanao lowlands30, landless farming families began to

migrate to the Mindanao uplands, where rent free- land could be obtained (Viloria et al., 2005).

Together, these two events, an expanding population seeking rent-free land and logging, have changed

the whole upland land use pattern. It has created an upland farming community whose first priority is

to produce enough food to supply its subsistence needs. As the majority of the new settlers are from

the Visayas, their traditional rain fed crop of corn predominates in upland agriculture (Viloria et al.,

30 Encouraged by the settlement of large agribusiness groups leasing fertile lands in the 1960s

65


2005). These land use systems were based on corn as the main subsistence crop, diversified with

backyard gardening, and native banana trees. This was the land use pattern of most of the

interviewees’ parents and this was passed on to them.

As the majority of the interviewees are migrants (2nd generation), the previous background helps to

understand why farmers cultivate corn as their main crop. Nelson Calinisan confirms this by saying: ‘then I started to plant corn, because that is our main food, we learned this from our parents and everybody was planting it’. Looking closer at this statement, we can determine 3 different reasons for planting of corn: (1) staple

food, (2) inherited cultural practices and (3) copying or ‘parroting’ behaviour of farmers. The first

becomes an important issue in the present and future situation in which the goal of the communication

worker is to persuade farmers to shift from corn to fruit trees. The third confirms that farmers copy

cultural practices from each other. This is an essential aspect for the design of the innovation process

as it is applied by UDP (paragraph 5.1). The dissemination of DFS as applied (F2F extension) by them

is partly based on the behaviour of farmers to copy from each other.

3 out of 9 informants claim to have no experience with planting of fruit trees because of divergent

reasons. These reasons are related to indigenous cultural practices and migration from city to the rural

area. One of these three interviewees, Jennifer Guillas, has no agricultural experience at all, because

she grew up in a city (Cagayan de Oro) and only moved to the rural area six years ago. Her husband’s

experience is restricted to cultivation of corn. A different perspective on experience with DFS is put

forward by Mr Recto and Mr Bawan. Both belong to the native inhabitants of Kilagding, the

‘Dabaon’. During our conversations both explain their view on DFS. In their perception, not different

from the other informants, DFS is considered as a technology to plant banana and fruit trees as a way

to gain more income. Both Mr Recto and Mr Bawan do not have any experience with planting of trees,

while it is not part of their indigenous land use system. The ‘Dabaon’ land use system differs from the

‘migrants’ land use system. Traditionally it is based on planting of root crops and short terms crops

(leaving out long term crops such as trees). In these two isolated instances, people have no experience

with planting of trees, neither the willingness to plant trees due to indigenous cultivation patterns.

The majority of the farmers (6 out of 9) however, does have past experience with planting of fruit

trees, as shown above, but perceive DFS as none. They interpret DFS as a fixed package. In reality,

their experience with diversifying farming as it is presented by UDP might be limited, but they do

have experience with planting of trees and with cultivation of diversified crops. The cause of this

perception might be the difference in the cultivation pattern of the main crops. Where corn plays the

central role in their past farm systems, fruit trees are opposed to play this central role in a ‘model’ DFS

farm.

66


3.1.1.2 Economical experiences

Above mentioned management aspects bring us to the topic of market related thinking. In economic

terms, with the objective of providing food and nutrients to their families, land use systems in the

uplands are often framed as subsistence oriented economies (Eder, 1999).

Florencio Calipusan: ‘I have experience with growing of fruit trees, on our original corn patch; we planted Cardava and

Latundan on the side, for our own consumption and to feed our pig’. This shows that the farmers were cultivating

banana trees for their own nutrition needs and for animal feeding. The dominance of this perspective is

clear, since all farmers who were growing fruit trees, used them for additional nutrition. Hence, for

their subsistence needs. Subsistence agriculture has a connotation of leaving no or little room for

market related thinking. Although the cultural practices of the interviewed farmers have merely been

subsistence based rather than market related, this does not imply that the farmers lacked the capacity to

think market related.

Raimundo Paradero: ‘I do not have experience with DFS, but got to know it when I was selected by UDP to visit farmers

in South-Cotabato. There, we visited beneficiaries who shifted from growing corn to growing bananas and fruit trees. I do

have a little experience with planting banana, because my parents had a little area where they planted Cardava. When I

inherited their land, I stopped cultivating them and never planted new bananas because there was no buyer for the fruits here

in Kilagding.

A critical point in terms of market related thinking is made here. By stating that ‘there was no buyer for

fruits in Kilagding’, he refers to a lack of marketing possibilities for fruits. This implies that market

related thinking existed, next to the subsistence based patterns of thinking. The latter meaning that

maybe there was no lack of market related thinking, but a lack of access to markets. Raimundo

Paradero emphasized that, if there would have been a buyer for fruits in the past, he would have had

the opportunity to grow fruit trees and sell his fruits on the market. Hence, the frame put forward by

the communication worker, of farmers as only ‘subsistence’ driven actors might not be completely

correct (next section). The communication worker perceived the subsistence driven mindset as reality

of the farmers, because market related aspects were hidden. The frame of the farmer shows that the

capacity to think market related is present. However, he organises his farm (crops) and shapes his

cognitions according to his subsistence reality, while he doesn’t have market access. This lack of

access restricts him to act upon his lived experiences at this point in time.31 Although this example

31 In contrary to Longs’ statement that ‘actors are capable of processing their lived experiences and act upon them, even

within severely restricted social and personal space’ (Long, 2001), I would like to argue that in some cases (which might be

exceptions) actors may not be able to act upon their experiences.. In this case, the lack of access to a market is a constraining

factor for the actor to put his experience or pattern of thinking into action. Lack of access restricts him to put his market

67


might be an exception, it condemns me to argue that frames are influenced by social constructs from

outside. These social constructs can restrict actors to step outside of their normal pattern of thinking.

Once the farmer realised there was no buyer for fruits, he incorporated this information and stopped

cultivating bananas (while he did not want them for his own needs). It restricted him to look for other

possibilities (e.g. finding another way to gain access to the market). This village might appear to be

subsistence based; trade has been and is going on small scale and farmers are rather restricted by

access to markets then they lack capacity to think market related.

Mary-Joy replies: ‘As you see our farm is located far from the barangay centre and far from the road 32. My husband

and me, we grow corn and would like to sell our surpluses to buyers. Other farmers were also doing this in the barangay. We

have very bad experience with buyers, because they hardly ever show up and if they did, then they gave us a bad rate. So we

started to trade with our neighbours. We exchange our surpluses in white corn for their Cardava banana, which I can

prepare for our children’.

This example shows the dynamics of a subsistence based economy, who, although on small scale were

‘marketing’ their surpluses. As buyers for Mary-Joy where often out of reach, they set up their own

sub trading system. Only 2 of the 6 key informants confirm that in the past they were completely

subsistence based and self-reliant. All other farmers had some kind of trade systems for their corn

surpluses.

All three examples show that farmers did consider economic aspects in the past. They were trading the

surpluses of their main crop (corn), or at least using them as a means of exchange. In terms of fruits,

there was no previous experience with market trade, although the example of Raimundo Paradero

shows that this was due to lack of access rather then lack of capability to think market related. Farmers

framed their market possibilities for fruits (bananas mostly) as nil and therefore restricted themselves

to search for other options.

Dondon Malayan, the communication worker in this barangay has a slightly different perspective,

while he states: ‘People here have never had experience with trading or markets. They only grew corn for their own needs

and that is it. Before, buyers never came to the barangay so there was reason for farmers to start thinking market related’.

With this statement, he argues that before UDP started their innovation process in Kilagding33, farmers

had no relation at all with economic thinking. First of all, because they only produced corn for their

related considerations into action. 32 To access their farm, we walked a small trail going uphill for two hours. The path makes their farm rather inaccessible

during rain. 33 He was also referring to the time before he was living in Kilagding (before 2000).

68


own needs. Second, he frames the market reality of farmers as ‘unnecessary’, because there were no

buyers present in the barangay. The frame he puts forward leaves no space for the capability of

farmers to think market related.

3.1.1.3 Ecological experiences

In terms of ecological experiences, there is a clear difference in interpretation between the

communication worker and the farmers. The communication worker frames his own awareness of

ecological aspects as superior to that of the farmers. From the farmers group, 4 out of 7 interviewed

showed that they were aware of soil problems in the past, but they did not understand the explicit

reasons for it. 3 of the farmers tell that they were completely unaware of ecological problems. Within

the group of farmers there is divergence of awareness; not only caused by differences in ecological

knowledge but also caused by information given from logging companies.

With the objective of producing food and obtaining maximum return on their labour, upland farming

families have traditionally resorted to the rotational agricultural land use, utilizing the slash- and- burn

system or kaingin (Viloria et al., 2005). Migrants who moved to the uplands after WWII adopted the

slash-and-burn agriculture, but aborted the rotational agricultural system, due to the lack of land

(Viloria et al., 2005).

Dondon Malayan, the communication worker explains: ‘The farmers used kaingin after they harvested the corn.

This is extremely bad for the soil, as is planting corn on steep slopes. The farmers did not know this is bad. They are not

aware of the soil erosion, but we technical people are. Farmers did realise that their income was reduced in time, but they

were unaware that this was caused by soil erosion’.

Dondon Malayan refers to the use of the cultural practice kaingin as a main cause of soil erosion. Also

the planting of short term crops on the steep slopes is causing soil erosion. His frame towards farmers’

awareness of soil erosion is very clear: ‘they are not aware’. He reflects on his own knowledge about soil

erosion as being superior to that of the farmers by stating: ‘but we technical people are aware’. Slash-and-

burn practices have been often used by the interviewed farmers as a form to clear the lands after the

corn harvest. All interviewed informants, 7 out of 7, were previously using the ‘kaingin’ method on

their parcels.

Raimundo Paradero tells the following: ‘Before, I used Kaingin after harvest to clear the land. I didn’t know that it

was bad for the soil. I also used to plow the mountain slopes with a ‘carabow’. Now I know this is not good for the soil. I did

notice the presence of stones in the earth during plowing and thought the stones were growing. But I did not understand why.

But crops don’t grow on stones. We discussed this with our neighbours and tried if it was better when we did not plow the

land before planting. Unfortunately, this did not help. We had no information on how to protect the land from stones’.

69


Mr Mataas shares this awareness: ‘I observed that the soil was bad because of the growth of the corn. If we did not

put fertiliser on the field, there was only little output. I figured it were the stones in the ground, because they weren’t there

before’.

These frames show that the farmers were indeed not aware of the ecological consequences of their

cultivation methods. 4 out of 7 interviewees show that they were aware of soil problems. They noticed

this by the presence of stones and lack of nutrients in the soil. For Raimundo Paradero this was a

reason to experiment with his cultivation practices, to protect the land. Unfortunately, he did not

succeed in finding a solution. The awareness of soil problems was merely caused by economic

reasons; the harvest was going down, rather then by ecological reasons.

3 out of 7 farmers were not at all aware of ecological problems. They didn’t realise that the soil was

eroding. As Jennifer Guillas explains: ‘we were only, planting, planting and planting without any guidelines’.

One of these 3 farmers however, told a complete different story. Innocencio Delares: ‘I was not aware of

the importance of planting fruit trees for the soil and that it could give me an extra income. I got information from loggers

that we could earn much more by selling logs from fast growing trees, than from planting fruit trees. They discouraged us to

plant fruit trees and stimulated me to cut down the small amount of trees I had to sell them to them’. This story reflects

the influence of outside pressure on the farmers’ life worlds. A former barangay communication

worker puts it as followed.

Betty Fueconciallo: ‘Protection of the environment is not always appreciated by the politicians and farmers. Some of

them are involved in illegal logging and thus have double agendas. I experienced this myself while working with the farmers

and with local politicians’. She points out that those environmental issues are also influenced by political

logging practices. In the case of Kilagding, the agenda of the farmer does not always coincide with the

agenda of the communication worker.

To sum up, the frame of Dondon, the communication worker is partly convergent with the farmers’

ecological awareness. Especially the use of slash-and-burn agriculture was not seen as a cause of

environmental problems in the past. Dondon’s frame coincides with 2 of the farmers that they were

completely unaware of soil erosion. However, there is an apparent divergence in frames with the

group of farmers who did notice a decline in soil nutrients. By claiming that they were aware of the

growing amount of stones in the soil they show that the consequences of soil erosion did not stay

unnoticed by them. The fact that these farmers were seeking for a solution of the problem together

shows a willingness to do something and not be reluctant about it.

The present communication worker never mentioned the influence of logger and double agendas in

past. He was either unaware of this or he did not want to share this information with me. That some of

the farmers were influenced by logging companies became evident when both a farmer and a former

communication worker independently share the same information. From this perspective, there was

70


not only lack of ecological awareness in the past, but also contradicting agendas when it comes to

environmental issues.

3.1.1.4 Social experiences

The topic of social experiences turned out to be a difficult one for the farmers as well as the

communication worker. Often they do not take social issues into consideration when referring to their

past cropping experience. Working in the field might have been hard, but they can only relate this with

the present situation if something in their working pattern has changed significantly.

Jennifer Guillas and Raimundo Paradero are the only two (2 out of 7) who refer to social aspects of

farming in their past experience. They considered some parts of their work as being a burden. Jennifer

Guillas says: ‘Because I was not used to work in the fields, I found it hard. I had to kneel down all day to weed and we

were exposed to the sun’. Raimundo Paradero makes the remark: ‘before, we were exposed to the sun all day long.

Especially for my wife, that was a burden. And the itching of the corn was also annoying at times’.

For Jennifer Guillas, it is a burden because she never worked on a farm before. That is the reason why

she reflects on social aspects as part of her experience. Raimundo Paradero reflects on the social

aspects, because he can compare it to his present situation, which changed considerably (this will be

elaborated on in paragraph 3.1.2.4; the present social situation). He is able to see practical advantages

he has nowadays from a social viewpoint and relates these to his past experiences.

Analytically, social considerations were not an issue in the past for the majority of the farmers (5 out

of 7) and the communication worker. Interviewed farmers and the communication worker did not

consider them while reflecting on their past experiences with growing of trees or growing of corn. The

two examples given can merely be considered as isolated instances. One of them only recently started

with farming and thus compares it with her lived experiences of non-farming. The second farmer

might be reflecting on the social issues because his present day reality has changed completely. They

are one of the only families who shifted completely to tree cultivation and are not growing corn

anymore in the present situation.

For the other interviewees (farmers and communication worker), social considerations in relation to

their cultural practices were not seen as an issue in the past. If there were any issues, than they simply

belonged to their reality at that point.

3.1.2 Present situations

The present situation represents the reality in which the informants found themselves at the time of

conducting this study. To present the farmers frames towards DFS, a split has been made in

71


management (crops, technology, cultural practices and knowledge), economical, ecological and social

thinking.

From the participant observations and farm visits we did, it turned out that at the time of this study,

almost all farmers were trying to develop their farms, with the resources and knowledge that were

handed to them by UDP. From what the informants told and showed me, it became clear that the

farmers, who gained trust in UDP and in the DFS as an innovation, slowly start to apply it. The

beneficiaries who accepted the tree seedlings slowly started a transition period. The farmers who

started to diversify their farm reached the stage in which the intermediate crops (banana trees) already

bear fruits and provide them an income, while the long term crops are not yet productive.

The way they are diversifying their farms and are able to apply DFS is partly dependent on their

individual farm situation. Important aspects in this are:

- available labour and resources

- time availability

- household structure (age, gender, number of members, on- and off-farm activities)

The transition is visible for outsiders in terms of changing cropping patterns (visible management).

However, to trigger sustainable change, a shift in knowledge and most important a shift in people’s

mindset has to occur (Röling, 1997). The analysis in this paragraph will show the frames on DFS in

the present situation. This will enable me to disentangle changes that occur between frames in the past

and frames in the present situation.

3.1.2.1 Management situations

The socio-technological innovation that UDP promoted in Kilagding has become part of the farming

reality in the barangay. In the perspective of the communication worker, the present management

situation in which the farmers find themselves at the moment is that most of them are applying DFS

on their farms in the way he presents it to them.

Dondon Malayan: ‘Most of the farmers have shifted from corn to planting bananas and fruit trees. DFS is difficult to

manage and to apply. To apply it properly, a shift in cultivation pattern is necessary. There are some stages which you have

to go through. First, the land has to be divided into terraces and hedgerows have to be planted on the edge of the terraces.

Once the hedgerows are established, they will prevent the soil to be washed away by the rain. Then you can plant bananas

and other fruit trees on the terraces. I advice them to plant trees (e.g. rubber) on very steep slopes and fruit trees on more

gradual slopes. Bananas can be planted as a medium term cash crop. They bear the first fruits 8 months after planting and

from that time on you can harvest them every 15 days. In between the bananas trees, they can start planting the permanent

fruit trees which we provided. Trees like durian, mango and lanzones start bearing fruits after 5 years. At one point we

adjusted the system to the farmers’ needs. Instead of discouraging them to grow corn, we now advice them to grow corn on a

small parcel, near to their house. But, once they earn income from the fruit trees, there is no point for the farmers to grow

72


corn anymore. From that point on, they can buy all the food they want and can stop growing corn. And with this income, they

can further develop their farms’.

In his view, DFS is a difficult to manage innovation, which needs close attention. He is eager to show

me the fields of the farmers who have completely shifted from growing corn to cultivation of fruit

trees. 8 out of 10 informants started to apply the DFS on their fields. The 2 who not are applying DFS

are the two native informants, whose indigenous cultural practices are not in line with the principles of

DFS (see paragraph 3.1.1.1).

The level on which DFS is being applied differs amongst the 8 informants who are presently

diversifying their farms. 4 farmers have completely shifted from corn as their main crop to growing of

fruit trees, while the remaining 4 still grow corn as their main crop, but started with diversifying on

small scale.

From my observations and the frames put forward by the farmers, it is clear that availability of labour

and resources and social aspects play a large role. The social aspects will be elaborated on in

paragraph 3.1.2.4. Availability of resources and labour are important aspects related to management at

present time. Farmers who own small pieces of land

(ranging from ¼ ha until 2 ha) have more difficulty to

shift to tree cultivation. They have little room left to

cultivate food crops, which should secure their food

supply during the time the trees are growing. In this

sense, less land literally means fewer possibilities to

start diversify their farm.

As Nelson Calipusan explains: ‘We own ¼ ha of land, but

still managed to shift from corn to banana and coconut trees. The

reasons why I could shift is that I worked on my cousin’s farm as a

labourer while my bananas were growing. I was lucky, because that

way my family and me had an income during this period. My oldest

son also helps out during the week days, so I can go to the seminars

while he works on the farm and feeds the animals’.

Raimundo Paradero shifted completely from corn to

banana cultivation (figure 18). Raimundo Paradero: ‘I

think it was 2001 when I stopped planting corn. We shifted from 2.4 ha of corn to 2 ha of Latundan banana. We also have 30

durian trees, 30 mango trees and 100 coconut trees. My wife’s brother is working in Japan and he borrowed us money

during the time that the bananas were not yet giving fruits. Further, we now have livestock: a goat and 3 chickens. We were

able to buy them from our first banana income’.

Figure 18: Harvesting Latundan bananas at

Raimundo Paradero’s farm.

73


These are two examples in which the availability of resources (e.g. land and money to cover the non-

productive period of banana trees) and labour (working as a labourer on another farm and household

members who help with cultivation and thus enable beneficiaries to joint the UDP seminars) becomes

clear.

Florencio Calipusan’s and Victor Delag’s farm belong to the largest in terms of land34. They both

changed their land use systems completely. Victor Delag: ‘For us it was not that difficult to switch to bananas

and fruit trees. First we planted half of the land (4,5 ha) with fruit trees, while we still had the security of corn on the other

part. Then, when the bananas started to bear fruits, we planted the rest of the land with diverse trees. Aside from banana we

have 10 different type of fruit trees (e.g. coconut, rambutan, mangosteen, mango), a variety of livestock for breeding and

herbs and vegetables for cooking’.

Victor Delag is aware that his position as a larger land owner is favourable to that of the smaller land

owners. Risk calculation is part of Victor Delag’s reasoning. They still had security from corn, in case

all would go wrong. The farms of the Calipusan family and the Delag family are considered as pioneer

farms. They were amongst the first who experimented with the innovations as promoted by UDP and

serve as examples for other farmers.

Although 4 out of 8 farmers have difficulty to apply the socio-techno innovations, the general modus

about this farming system is clear. Cultivating trees is easy. As Marlon Plandiz tells: ‘Although we have

difficulty to apply DFS on our farm, to grow trees is much easier then to grow corn. Trees grow by themselves; you just need

to maintain them’. Florencio Calipusan has a similar point of view: ‘Planting of trees is easy; you only have to

maintain them. So you can do it next to your other farm work’. By stating that growing of trees is easy, he refers

to it as being a side job, next to his regular farming system. He elaborated on this in one of our next

conversations. Florencio Calipusan: ‘I already have banana trees that we harvest every 15 days. The long term fruit

trees are not yet full grown. Now we just have to wait until the fruits grow. Then we become rich’. This frame reflects

an opinion I heard more often. ‘We wait until the fruits grow’. On one side this maybe reflects the

‘wait-and-see attitude of the farmers’, but more important it showed a hidden side-effect of tree

cultivation. While this farmer was referring to waiting, I wondered what they were doing during this

time. If tree cultivation is only about maintaining, then their time management should have changed

as well. Elaborating on this topic Florencio Calipusan mentioned: ‘In the mean time, I was able to buy another

plot of land and started to plant corn again’. This comment sheds a light on the farmer’s management

behaviour. He changed his cultivation patterns while he was triggered to do this by UDP, but the

different type of management allowed him to switch back to his previous cultivation practices. It

34 Both of cultivate 9 ha of land (half self owned and half rented). From the group of informants these are the largest land

owners.

74


turned out that the two ‘pioneer farmers’, who fully developed their farms as intended by the

communication worker, started to cultivate corn again on other areas. The reason for farmers to plant

corn out of basic need, as previously mentioned, is important here. Corn was and continues up till

now to be their staple food. They still feel that independence of food is essential to survival of the

household. This independency (or security) is kept in their own hands by the production of corn.

Yellow corn is produced in order to feed their livestock (and as DFS also stimulates keeping

livestock, this could stimulate farmers to grow yellow corn) and both white and yellow corn are still

used in the village as means of exchange. This questions whether they have faith in the market

system. The fruit trees they planted are not yet productive (except for bananas), accordingly the need

of security might derive from a lack of experiences with the market function.

The management frame that is put forward by Dondon is partly correct. Some parts of DFS are

difficult to apply. He however refers to the practical side of cultivation, while the farmers frame this

part as ‘easy to maintain’. The farmers who have difficulties to apply DFS merely refer to constraints

in terms of labour and resource availability. These aspects are completely ignored by the

communication worker. Thus, however similar their frames might appear, they are both referring to

different things. Socio-technological innovations bring along changes in time management, which is

interpreted as ‘now we only have to wait until the fruits grow’. The farmers, who are confronted with this

difference in management, react on it by referring to their previous cultivation experience. They start

to cultivate corn again, because of security in terms of food and means of exchange. This reaction is

certainly not inline with the communication worker’s frame and can be seen as an unintended side

effect of innovations.

3.1.2.2 Economical situations

In terms of market related thinking, there is little variation in frames. The perspectives on market

related thinking have clearly changed for farmers. Being confronted with a social-techno innovation

triggers farmers to think market related and to take market related aspects into consideration.

Analyses of two conversations with Mr Mataas and Raimundo Paradero visualise that farmers are

abandoning the subsistence based pattern of thinking. 4 key informants start to cultivate crops with the

purpose of selling them. 4 more isolated farmers, still produce corn for their subsistence need, but are

able to sell the fruits of banana trees for additional income.

Mr Mataas: ‘We only have 1 ha of land which is planted with corn. At this point I need corn to feed my family (3 young

children). The banana seedlings we received from UDP are bearing fruits already and we are selling those to the local buyer.

This gives us additional income’.

75


Raimundo Paradero: ‘Now I sell my bananas to a local trader. Dondon has access to traders and now we have as well.

The buyer comes to my field and picks the bananas up. I even apply the bagging technique from the lowlands, to receive a

better quality banana’.

The frame of Mr Mataas reveals potential patterns of market led thinking next to his subsistence

considerations, whereas the frame of Raimundo Paradero already reflects a complete market led

paradigm. This paradigm also manifests another development; it stimulates innovative behaviour. The

willingness to produce good quality bananas (and sell them for a higher price) stimulates him to

develop his cultivation method. Although this innovation was triggered from outside35, his aspiration

to innovate is clear. Apparently this behaviour is not an isolated case. Other farmers are developing

their new cultivation methods for similar reasons.

Nelson Calinisan: ‘The hedgerows we have to plant just take space and you don’t gain anything from them. So I thought

of a way to earn money out of them. Instead of bushes as hedgerow I planted pineapple. I can sell the fruits’.

Nelson Calinisan integrated the DFS system in such a way that it makes more sense to him. He found a

way of making the hedgerows economically valuable. This again points to stimulation of innovative

behaviour triggered by market led thinking. 3 other farmers copied these practices on their own farm.

The use of hedgerows is adapted in such a way that it fits better into the livelihood strategies of the

farmers. Nevertheless, this does reveal a conflict between markets related pattern of thoughts of the

farmers and the ecological goal of the communication worker.

In terms of income, the frame of the communication worker is completely in line with the frames of

the farmers. As Dondon Malayan puts it: ‘Before, the farmers only gained income after 4 months of corn cultivation.

Now the income is better spread’.

The farmers’ view on this: ‘With corn the inputs were high and the output was high (if you were able to sell your

surpluses), but you only had an income twice a year after the harvest period. The time in between was often difficult. Now

with bananas we gain income every 15 days. It is not necessarily a higher income, but it is more spread’.

That DFS is bringing gradual prosperity is brought up by Nelson Calinisan: ‘Now our income is maybe just

a little bit higher, but I have a goat and a chicken’.

To summarise, the DFS does trigger farmers to change their subsistence way of thinking to a market

led pattern of thoughts. Providing farmers access to a market plays an important role in this

development. Frames of the communication worker and the farmers are in line in terms that it at least

spreads the income. In terms of incorporation of market considerations, the frames are converging, yet

35 Conversations with the buyer revealed that they provided Raimundo the bags, because he did not have sufficient resources

to buy them himself.

76


not aligned. Although it is true that farmers start to think market led, their view is not completely the

same as that of the communication worker who expects them to sell their fruits on the market and buy

the staple food. The latter is not yet done by farmers, while they still grow corn as a security crop. This

might be out of old habits, no complete trust in the market yet or because the fruit trees are not yet

productive.

3.1.2.3 Ecological situations

The market considerations of the farmers do expose a conflict with the ecological objective of the

communication worker at present time.

The communication worker reacts as follows on Nelson Calinisan’s innovations of pineapple

hedgerows. Dondon: ‘This is not how it is intended. The purpose of the hedgerows is to keep the soil from moving when

it rains. Therefore it has to be a permanent crop. Pineapple is not a permanent crop and has to be planted again after its last

harvest. The function of the hedgerow will be lost. They shouldn’t do this’.

Clearly the economical objective of the farmers (4 out of 4 are applying it like this) conflicts with the

ecological reality of the communication worker. Nevertheless, the farmers do realise the necessity of

preservation of the soil. During a day on the farm of Marlon Plandiz, we experienced heavy rainfall.

This created mud slides that visually washed away the top layer of the soil. His reaction: ‘That is why we

all should make terraces and plant trees. The soil flushes away, destroying our corn harvest. I do see a difference with where

I planted the trees. When it rains like this, the soil doesn’t come down that easily. But we do need corn for our food’. Still,

his considerations are economical (change because the rain otherwise destroys the harvest) rather then

ecological.

Another dissonance in the ecological perspective of the communication worker and the farmers can be

detected. As analysed in paragraph 3.1.2.1, two of the farmers who developed their DFS farm to an

advanced level, started to grow corn again. The reason for restarting corn cultivation is based on

management considerations and past experience such as the essence of the household’s survival on

corn and lack in market trust. It reflects that they are not fully aware, do not understand or are not

taking the ecological aspects into consideration. Maybe, simply because the economical aspects and

need for survival of the household are considered to be more important. The frame of the

communication worker is obvious opposing this view: ‘they should stop growing corn, because it causes soil

erosion’.

Adjustment of cultural practices such as slash-and-burn agriculture did appear however. At present

time, none of the farmers are practicing this anymore, encouraged by the communication worker. As

Jennifer Guillas explains: ‘In the past we burned the corn field after the harvest. We had no guidelines and didn’t know

that it was causing the growth of stones in the earth. Now we know and we don’t apply this anymore, even though it would be

much easier’.

77


The ecological objective of the communication worker dissents on many parts with the management

and social situation of the farmers. Farmers take ecological considerations into account if they directly

benefit from them. Thus, when they see improvement in their individual livelihood of them.

3.1.2.4 Social situations

The social considerations that are put forward by the farmers and the communication worker are very

positive. DFS is perceived by the farmers as easier than corn and is a lesser burden.

Juna Plandiz explains: ‘DFS is easier to manage, you don’t need to clean the area from grasses like in corn, because,

there are no rats that want to attack your trees. That gives us women more time to take care of our children, while we do not

have to weed that much anymore’.

She reveals a gender sensitive frame, while DFS gives them more time for child care. Jennifer Guillas

also refers to her weeding in corn as a burden. At present time, they have planted trees but also still

have corn. Even though she has to weed the corn, the total corn area has become less and she is

grateful for this. 5 out of 8 farmers refer to the shade that is provided by the leaves of the trees.

Raimundo Paradero elaborates: ‘we are not exposed to the strong sun light anymore. The leaves provide us shade to

work in’.

Also Dondon, the communication worker refers to social aspects of tree cultivation: ‘It is much easier to

maintain and you have more time to relax’. He refers this to his own farm work for his father-in-law. The time

which he refers to is actually not perceived as relaxing time by 6 out of 8 farmers. They use it for other

farming activities, like cultivation of corn

Although social considerations play a role in the present situation, they are not considered as decisive

in terms of technology adoption. Not by the farmers and not by communication worker. The most

decisive considerations for the farmers are economical ones (better spread income, future prospect of

gaining more). They social aspects that come with it are perceived as positive advantages of the socio-

technological innovation. The frames of all stakeholders represent the same perspective.

Still, I would like to elaborate on this topic. During my observations, I noticed that most of the daily

activities of the farmers are organised around corn cultivation. While farmers have shifted to cultivate

trees and diversify their farms, corn still plays an important role in their daily reality. For example in

the life of the Calipusan family. Rosa Calipusan sleeps outside during the days that their corn has to

78


dry36. For drying, the corn is spread out on the concrete floor outside of the school building. They pay

1 Php per day for this. Depending on the weather conditions, it takes 3 to 5 days to dry. Then the next

load can be dried. During these periods (4 weeks on a row, 2 x per year) the household is organised

according to this pattern. She watches the corn day and night, until it is dry and can be put into bags

for storage. When Rosa is not there, one of her cousins will watch the corn. Eating, sleeping, farming

and all other activities are shaped and organised around corn cultivation. Life in the barangay is

organised around corn cultivation (up to today goods are being exchanged for white and yellow corn).

Remarkably, none of the informants raised questions about the social impact of the DFS on the daily

life in the barangay!


This subparagraph analyses the future aspiration of the informants with DFS. Again, the frames are

divided into management, market related, ecological and socially related frames. Future aspirations

seemed not that comprehensive, as all interviewees would like to fully diversify their farms. The

farmers’ aspirations mainly include management and economic considerations, to reach social and

economical prosperity. The communication worker’s aspiration is clearly threefold (management,

economic and ecological) and in line with the goals of UDP.

3.1.3.1 Management aspirations

In terms of management, the frames of the farmers are evident. They would like to diversify their

farms fully and comprehensively.

Maryjoy explains: ‘We want to shift completely from corn to all kind of fruit trees. Until today, we only managed to grow

some banana and fruit trees, but our main crop is still corn. I hope this will change in future and that we have mango, durian,

lanzones, bananas and rubber trees. No more growing and harvesting of corn’.

The communications worker’s frame is also clear: ‘If you come back here in 10 years, there will be no more corn,

but only bananas and fruit orchards’. His management aspirations reflect a flourishing fruit based barangay.

In terms of socio-technological innovations, most of the farmers have their own aspirations; big plans

or smaller goals, depending on their present individual situation. Bobby Calipusan, as son of a large

farmer, tells me his future aspirations while we walk on his father’s land.

Bobby Calipusan: ‘I would like to develop this area fully with fruit trees. First I plant rubber on the very steep slopes,

then coconut trees and banana trees on the minor slopes. In the area near the stream, I will develop a fish pond, to breed

tilapia. There is no fish pond present in the barangay, so I will be the first one to sell fish. And there on the flat slopes I will

grow my corn, to feed my family and my livestock’.

36 She is afraid of their harvest being stolen from them when the corn is left unattended.

79


Remarkably, Bobby Calipusan is a high school teacher who works at a school in the municipality of

Laak. He aspires a life as a farmer above that of a teacher and would like to take over his fathers farm

when possible (the moment his father retires). He would like to differentiate himself from the other

farmers by setting up a fish pond. Still, in his plans he incorporates one part of the land for corn

cultivation. His frame regarding diversifying is similar to that of the communication worker, but it

differs in the sense that he still wants to cultivate corn (on small scale) to feed his family. This need to

cultivate corn, even though they would have a fully diversified farm, is present in 6 of 10 informants’

perspective. However, they do not deliberately call it an aspiration, but perceive it more as a static

entity: ‘without corn we cannot survive’. This perception can be considered as cultural issue. Future frames

of farmers and communication worker vary thus slightly in terms of management.

3.1.3.2 Economic aspirations

Economic aspirations with DFS are market related for the communication worker and for the

interviewed farmers. Farmers take market related aspect in consideration for their future aspirations.

As shown in the previous paragraph, farmers are not only showing market led paradigms; they also

aspire to find niche markets. One example is given above, by the statement of Bobby Calipusan

(development of a fish pond), two other examples are given below.

Nelson Calinisan: ‘I would like to have a larger amount of livestock next to my fruit trees. With the blessings of above I

hope to develop a poultry. I can sell the eggs here in Kilagding and even in other villages’.

Marlon Plandiz: ‘I hope I can abandon my corn based existence and have a lot of fruit trees. Our problem is that our land

is far from the main road. I know from experience that buyers who come all the way up here will give me a bad price for the

fruits. I do not plan to sell my bananas to traders, but would like to process them into pastries and sell them in the barangay’.

Both Nelson Calinisan and Marlon Plandiz aspire to find the ‘holes’ in the market and differentiate

themselves in this way from the other farmers. Victor Delag who already developed a ‘model’ DFS

farm, is questioning the future marketing possibilities in terms of sales.

Victor Delag: ‘I am worried about the selling of the fruits. If we all start cultivating the same fruits, which we do not eat

ourselves, the market might be full. I wonder what future my kids will have than’.

He is the only farmer (1 out of 8) who questions the marketing possibilities of the fruits in future,

while all other farmers and the communication worker do not take this into consideration.

Another overheard argument is that DFS will bring the farmers economic security and stability. 8 out

of 8 farmers refer to this aspect in one way or another.

80


Jennifer Guillas : ‘I would like to have a stable income. The fruit trees are our pension and the income for our kids when

they are older’.

She refers to aspiring a stable income and security for future. At present time, the fruits trees they have

planted are not yet productive and might not be for years. In her perception, the fruits will be her

future security and their kids will be able to completely benefit from them. The reference made

towards pension security is not new. These exact words are used by the communication worker.

Dondon: ‘The fruit orchards that are planted by the farmers now do not give them a higher income at the moment, but they

will have a higher income once they bear the fruits. This may take 10 years maybe, but they should consider it as a pension

fun for them and their kids’.

The argumentation used by the communication worker, ‘The prospect of future economic security’ is

persuasive. Applying DFS does not give direct benefits for farmers in terms of a higher income. At

present time the income will be spread more equal over the year. This helps them with their short term

planning. Having a pension for future, might not correlate completely with the farmers’ short term

horizon. This argument is nevertheless taken into consideration by the farmers because it also refers to

the ability to secure their children’s future. Philippinos’ family values are important issues and

touching upon this topic in terms of economic security triggers farmers to think about future

prosperity. Frames of the farmers always incorporate family aspects as if to justify their actions (if it

does not give direct benefit).

Marlon Plandiz tells: ‘In the beginning, my wife and brothers did not want me to diversify my crops. They found it to

dangerous. They told me that I should take care of my family. But I explained them, that these trees will not give us a better

life, but that they will give our kids a better life. Then can benefit from it and in this way I will be able to feed the, also in

future. ‘

This frame reflects that economic security for the next generation is considered to be an important

aspect in DFS. Farmers (who already started to apply DFS) show willingness to accept short term

risks, in order to achieve future economic benefits. The considerations they take into account

concerning income stability and security align with the frame of Dondon, the communication worker. I

even would like to argue that their future view is influenced by the persuasive frame of the

communication worker.

3.1.3.3 Ecological aspirations

In terms of ecological considerations for future, the frame of Dondon, the communication worker

reflects his environmental concerns.

81


Dondon Malayan: ‘I hope that in 10 years all the slopes will be planted with trees. We will have a healthy environment

and the slopes will be protected from soil erosion. Hopefully, in years to come, forests will return to the uplands of Laak’.

He frames the environmental aspects as important issues. His hopes reflect an ideology, on which he

elaborates. Dondon: ‘For most of the farmers, it is more important to have income security, than to live in a healthy

environment. I know their first interest is their families security, but I do hope I can show them the importance of the nature

that surrounds them’. Here he touches upon a critical factor. His frame represents understanding for the

farmers’ point of view, but aspires to create ecological awareness in future. Indirectly he implies that

this awareness is not there at present time. Or not as much as he would like it to be. Arguably, he

noticed the absence of ecological aspirations in the farmers’ frames. Non of the key informants ( 0 out

of 6) takes ecological aspects into consideration when framing their future. Looking at this critically, I

would argue that they either do not understand the ecological aspects or find them of lesser

importance.

Frames of the farmers and communication worker are diametrically opposed. Frames of the farmers do

not reflect any ecological considerations. They do not confirm nor contradict the frame of the

communication worker, which leads me to conclude that there is a misfit of DFS with the farmers

livelihood strategies, that might have crucial implications for future.

3.1.3.4 Social aspirations

Social considerations in future are merely pointed to the wellbeing of the farm families. This can be

directly linked to the economic stability that farmers hope to gain.

Majority of the future social considerations are individually directed (related to their own family).

Especially the farmers with young children hope to send all of their children to school and let them

become knowledgeable.

As Mr Mataas aspires: ‘I never went to school, because my parents didn’t have money for it and I had to work on the

farm. I would like to be able to send my kids to school, maybe even let them study in Tagum city. With the love of god, we can

achieve this’.

Flora Calipusan tells: ‘Our children are already adults and we were able to send them to school by working hard. I

hope that they will be able to send their children to school as well. Hopefully, our shift from corn to diversified farming

helps them to achieve the same’. All these frames point to individual development of the household

members.

The frame of the communication worker has a broader perspective, but is content wise reflecting the

82


same: ‘I hope that DFS will change the lives of the people here in Kilagding. That they will have a better life; easier than

they have had until now’. He aspires development in terms of a better life for the people in Kilagding. He

recognises their burden and wishes for an easier life.

One of the farmers has a similar view. Marlon Plandiz: ‘I hope that all of the people in Kilagding can benefit

from UDP. That we get out of poverty and can enjoy our lives’.

Future social frames refer to development of the region which will improve their difficult situation.

They call for an easy life which people can enjoy. Future frames incorporate social aspects that refer to

development of families and the people in Kilagding. Improvement of their social situation is part of

all stakeholders’ frames. Addressing poverty improvement implies that they are not confident with

their present situation and would like to change this.

3.1.4 Analytical reflections on frames of DFS in Kilagding

Analysis of the frames through time, show the considerable impact of DFS on the informants’ patterns

of thinking. Comparing the farmers’ marginal experiences with DFS (at least from their perspective)

and the dominance of the corn based land use systems in the past with today’s situation, an absolute

shift is visible. Half of the interviewees shifted from a corn based- to a fruit tree based land use

pattern. Analysis of frames in past, present and future concerning DFS show that a lot has changed

through time. In the past, farmers were not familiar with DFS as an innovation. At present time,

farmers have gained knowledge on DFS and value it as a positive development of their farm. Even

informants who experience practical difficulty in the transition from corn to DFS display a

willingness to change. Present and future frames from farmers vis-à-vis communication worker are

seemingly coherent, in the sense that all would like to develop their farming system with DFS. Yet,

the frames between communication worker and farmers depict on profound underlying differences.

The communication worker does not acknowledge the importance of labour and resource availability

for farmers’ ability to change. He thereby underestimates the difference in chances for different types

of farmers (e.g. family size and land availability) to develop their farm. Future is framed rather

similar; there is no obvious variation in frames. Diversifying the farms is aspired by communication

worker and farmers. One deviation is crucial however, the survival strategy of households to maintain

a corn field. Most of the farmers want to continue cultivating corn for their own consumption (old

habits) and they do not fully trust the market system in fruits yet, possibly because the fruit trees (long

term trees) are not yet productive.

Market related patterns of thinking coincided with a subsistence based economy. Surpluses in corn that

were and still are used as a means of exchange (barter trade), display presence of sub trade systems.

The latter is not in line with the communication worker’s frame, who argued that all market related

83


considerations of the present situation are triggered by introduction of DFS. Regardless the difference

between the farmers’ view and the view of the communication worker, frames from the farmers

display a tremendous tendency to go from subsistence based thinking towards a more market led

economy. Frames between farmers and communication worker converge over time, yet, arguably they

do not align in the present situation. The communication worker expects the farmers to act completely

market driven, whereas farmers still hold on to the security of their staple crop and the majority of

them still rely (partly) on their barter trade. They do not have trust in the market yet, possibly because

the fruit trees are not yet productive. Presumably, frames will align when the long term crops bear

fruits and if the market system proofs to be reliable for the farmers.

The dynamics of ecological considerations are apparent when they are compared in past, present and

future. Difference in perceptions between farmers and the communication worker cause or obstruct

development of a sustainable innovation on the long term, seen from the perspective of UDP.

Ecological awareness changed from past to present, revealing that farmers now understand the impact

of their cultural practices on the environment. Yet, directly opposing the goal of the communication

worker that both ecological and economical goals are important, ecological considerations are only

taken into account by farmers when they do not interfere with the present situation or future

economical goals of the farmers. For the communication worker, the ecological goal is valued as

equally important as the economic goal, but in his view economic development should be derived

while taking ecological aspects into account. The fact that future aspirations of farmers do not include

any ecological considerations, pinpoint that these are not valued (or not understood) as that important

as the communication worker would like them to be. This causes a dissonance in the view between

the communication worker and the farmers. Frames on the social dimension of DFS diverge slightly

over in past, present and future between the farmers and the communication worker. In general, the

social dimension of DFS is conceived as subordinate to management, economical aspects (and for the

communication worker also ecological aspects). None of the informants questioned the long term

impact of DFS on the daily life in the barangay, which until today is shaped and organised around

corn cultivation.

To conclude, frames do not only vary between farmers and communication worker, but also show a

divergence in between the group of farmers. Yet, overall frames show a tendency and willingness to

change despite apparent restrictions. Traditions changed (and continue to change) dramatically due to

the introduction of DFS and farmers seem to aspire having fruit trees for a stable and higher future

income. The case study is evidence that introduction of DFS as a farmer option which fitted their

aspirations of long term secure income is possible. Paradoxically, the ecological goal of UDP to create

a sustainable and environmentally friendly farming system in which corn production is abandoned,

interferes with the farmers’ livelihood strategies (survival of household on corn) and is subordinate to

84


85

the economical considerations (of farmers). The sustainability of DFS as an innovation as it is intended

by UDP (to abandon corn production and focus completely on mid and long term crops) can be

questioned. Only combinations of corn (cultural aspects) and long term fruit trees (DFS) seem a

possible win-win option for both parties.

3.2 The case study of NEH in Kinamayan: - Frames on cultivation of Cavendish bananas -

Figure 19: Photo of Cavendish fields in the lowland

area of Kinamayan

The lowlands have been inhabited by migrant settlers since WWII in search for work at the

agricultural plantations. The arrival of the agribusiness companies in the 1960 catalysed mono

cropping agriculture and turned the fertile lowlands where abaca’ (hemp), coconut, rice and coffee

were grown37 into large plantations of irrigated rice and Cavendish banana. Today, the sight of

Kinamayan (figure 19) and its surroundings depicts large mono cropping areas where either Cavendish

bananas or rice is cultivated as cash crop. A

group of farmers in Kinamayan started to

cultivate Cavendish bananas, triggered by the

intervention of NEH. These farmers are not

involved in the plantation structure but are

entrepreneurs. They have ownership over their

farm management (crops, knowledge and cultural

practices), economical, ecological and social

situation. In the eyes of the communication

worker (and NEH), they do not always produce

good quality bananas, because of incorrect

cultural practices. In other words, they do not

always follow his advice, as he puts it. Yet, farmers may have a complete different opinion on which

cultural practices are ‘correct’ and whether they produce good quality bananas. Looking at the past

experiences of farmers and the communication worker with Cavendish cultivation will enable me to

compare this with their present situation and future aspirations. This enables me to analyse how

Cavendish cultivation is perceived through time and which variations occur between the farmers’

views and that of the communication worker. The four theoretical aspects (farm management,

economic, ecologic and social thinking) in which socio-technological innovation are considered

enabled me to determine that ecological and social aspects were and are not valued as important. This

will be further elaborated in paragraph 3.2.4.

NEH stimulates individual farmers to start cultivating Cavendish bananas out of economical reasons

37 These land use systems were already based on the colonial feudal system, in which a land lord owns the land and gains the

income, while the tenants (or labourers) cultivated it (Viloria and van Rij, oral com, 2006).


(for the company itself and for the farmers). From their point of view it is possible for individual

farmers to produce for the international market and in this way reach economic prosperity. The

farmers in this study are united in a cooperative called Liberty to collectively sell their products to

NEH.


The past experiences of the informants are split into a threefold: management, economical, and social

experiences.38 Cultivation of Cavendish bananas is a fairly new development in Kinamayan’s

agricultural history. Although large areas around Kinamayan have been cultivated with Cavendish

bananas since the 1980s, this ‘barangay’ only turned into a Cavendish productive region in the late

nineties. Until that time, irrigated rice was the main crop for the majority of the farmers in Kinamayan.

Only one of the informants had previously worked on a Cavendish plantation, while all others did not

have any experience with Cavendish cultivation until they shifted from rice to bananas. The farmers

and communication worker frame Cavendish cultivation as a management and economical innovation:

a shift in crops to acquire a better economical position.

3.2.1.1 Management experiences

Experiences in terms of management point to the type of crops and cultural practices that farmers used

in the past. In this case study the organisation of the farm household and the off-farm activities both

play an important role.

As a former rice producing area, 9 out of 9 farmers interviewed on this topic have experiences with

irrigated rice cultivation. Only one of the informants (1 out of 9) had previously worked as labourer39

on an established Cavendish plantation.

Antony Sumile tells: ‘My parents migrated from Cebu in 1974. They started to cultivated irrigated rice. I learned to

plant and harvest rice from my father and continued with it when I inherited the land. I also had some fruit trees for our own

consumption and we had our own Tilapia in the water of the rice fields’.

The informants who cultivated rice as a main cash crop, showed that rice cultivation provided them an

income via sales and that the harvest was partly used for their own consumption. Rice is the staple in

the lowland areas and farmers were providing themselves with their basic food. Land use systems were

mainly to produce rice and were diversified with fruit trees to supplement their basic needs. 2 of the 9

38 The fourth aspect of ecology did not play a role in the past for the informants. 39 Labourer refers to people who cultivate the land, but do not own it. They don’t have ownership over either land or

management nor do they benefit from the generated income out of the crops. They receive a daily salary, paid by the

landowner.

86


farmers interviewed on this topic stated that ¼ of the annual rice harvest was used for own

consumption40, while ¾ was used as cash crops.

The complexity of the farmers’ management situation in the past is shown by a remark of Antonio

Flores: ‘I do not have experience with growing of Cavendish bananas, because before we were growing rice. Our 1.13 ha of

land was fully planted with rice. We owned a ‘carabow’ (ox) for harvesting the rice and for preparing the land again after

harvest. We had pigs and chickens for sale and for our own consumption three Cardava (native banana) trees. Next to

cultivating rice I used to be a carpenter for half of the week’.

Land use patterns were complex; a mix of off-farm and on-farm activities for cash and own needs.

During the conversation with the farmers, it turned out that 8 out of 9 farmers interviewed on this topic

were engaged in off-farm labour next to their on-farm activities. For the informants the off-farm

activities ranged from being a ‘Jeepney’ driver, a carpenter, a ‘Purok’ leader to an electrician.

Households were managed according to this division in activities. Evidently rice played a central role

in the farm households’ past, but not the only role.

The communication worker is aware of the farmers’ lack of experience with Cavendish cultivation.

Maloy tells: ‘Farmers here in Kinamayan have never worked with Cavendish before, because they were all planting rice.

Rice is a lazy crop if you compare it to bananas. It doesn’t need daily attention so you can relax a lot in between. I never

planted rice myself while my dad started with planting Cavendish 25 years ago when the first agribusiness companies came

to Mindanao. I learned to cultivate Cavendish from a young age’.

With this statement he acknowledges that farmers lack experience because they were growing other

crops in the past. With his reference to ‘rice is a lazy crop’ he refers to the difference in time investment

for the farmer when cultivating rice or Cavendish bananas. He judges the differences in time spend on

the crops as negative. From his point of view, the farmers are ‘lazy’ because they do not spend enough

time on Cavendish bananas. In his perception, this is one of the reasons why farmers are not producing

a good quality banana. One of the farmers explains the investment of time in a different way.

Leonora Jadraque: ‘We plant and harvest rice twice a year.41 The difficult part of rice is the preparation of the land

40 This was estimated by the farmers, while they could not (or would not) show me data (records) to confirm

these statements. 41 A cropping cycle of rice takes 5 months from land preparation to harvest. During the first month (in May and November)

the land is prepared and the seedlings are planted. The following three months the rice grows, while the farmers weed, apply

fertilizers and spray pesticides. It appeared to be common practice to spray pesticides only when bugs are visible. The last

month is used for harvesting the rice. Then the land has to rest for 1 month before it can be prepared for planting again. This

information is based on 6 farming calendars which were composed together with the key informants.

87


before planting. Then you plant and wait until the rice grows. You don’t have to be there every day when the rice is growing.

During this time we can relax a bit more and do other things. We weeded the field only when it was necessary and spraying

only when bugs were visible. My husband was already a Jeepney driver at that time and he was only on our fields three days

a week. I did the weeding mostly, while he did the spraying’.

This view of Mrs Leonora Jadraque in terms of cultural practices is common among the informants. 8

out of 9 interviewees filled the gaps in that occurred during the rice cycle with off farm activities. Rice

is managed differently through time and not all periods are labour intensive. For this reason farmers

were also engaged in off- farm labour. This will be elaborated on in paragraph 3.2.1.2. Application of

fertilizers and pesticides is not bound to a fixed schedule, but applied when ought to be necessary (for

the farmer to detect).

The frames of the communication worker and common frame of the farmers deviate with reference to

time investment that is required to produce Cavendish bananas. The communication worker does not

incorporate the off-farm labour that is part of the farmers’ experiences. From his perspective, rice is a

‘lazy crop’, while the farmers interpret this differently. They arranged their activities according to the

difference in labour intensity during the rice cycles and filled these gaps with off-farm activities.

Frames of the communication worker and the farmer divert, while the frames within the farmers group

are convergent.

3.2.1.2 Economical experiences

Economical experiences are considered in terms of market related thinking. The frame of the

communication worker is consisted with the dominant frame of the farmers. Only little deviation is

visible regarding these frames.

The communication worker says: ‘In the past all farmers here were producing rice for the national market and for

their own daily needs. Yet, it was not a subsistence-based economy, because most of them were selling their rice and trading

with buyers on the market. They did have fruit trees for their own supply, but also were buying parts of their food supplies in

sari-sari stores and on the local market. Rice was their main source of income until recently’. With this frame he refers

to the market related mindset of the farmers in the past, their ability to sell and produce for the local

market, while they also supply themselves with their staple food. From his point of view, farmers

were already taking market considerations into account.

Farmers confirm that they were taking market related aspect into account in the past. For 9 out of 9

farmers interviewed on this topic, rice used to be their main source of income. It was not specifically

cultivated for subsistence of the families, but mainly to gain income from sale. Mario Dandoy reflects

on this: ‘We used only little of our rice for our own need. I tried to harvest as early as possible and sell the rice to the

highest bidder on the market. During boom periods prices dropped, that’s why we tried to sell earlier’. This is the

88


common picture of farmers’ strategic and market related thinking. Selling for the highest price and

avoidance of boom periods show a competitive pattern of thinking. The only difference between the

frames of the communication worker and the farmers is the elaboration on income. Farmers’ main

income indeed came from rice cultivation, but off-farm labour also played an important role in the

household economy. As 8 out of 9 farmers interviewed on this topic were engaged in off-farm labour,

their income was spread in the sense that it came from different sources and activities. Key informants

that shared this information explained that almost 1/3rd of their total income came from off- farm

labour.

Frames of the farmers and the communication worker with regard to market aspects that were taken

into account in the past converge. Yet, a slight dissonance is shown in the frame about their income,

while the communication does not take the off- farm labour into account (or he is not aware of it),

whereas the farmers income is for 1/3rd derived from off-farm activities.

3.2.1.3 Social experiences

The past experiences of communication worker and farmers mainly dealt with market and

management thinking rather than social thinking. Only a few farmers considered social aspect when

referring to past experience with socio-technological innovations.

The farmers referred to social considerations only when they compared them to the changed present

situation. Time and physical burdens of cultivating rice were taken for granted and were not an issue

in the past. Only 2 out of 6 farmers interviewed on this topic made remarks to social issues that played

a role in rice cultivation. Ms Dingle tells: ‘Working in the rice fields was hard compared to the banana fields;

especially during planting and harvesting we were exposed to the sun all day’. She touches upon this topic because

she can compare it with her present situation in which she works under the leaves of the banana trees.

This might have changed her perception on the social aspects of her work, but in the past it did not

play a role. Other considerations reflect difference in the time availability between rice and bananas.

Farmers used this time not only to deploy off-farm labour, but also to relax. With relaxing they

referred to visiting friends and family and meet other villages in the ‘Purok’ centres.

To sum up, the social considerations that were brought up by the farmers (the communication worker

didn’t consider any at all) reflect on activities they engage in during their ‘relaxing’ time and the

burden of being exposed to sun all day. They do not frame them as an issue, while they were part of

every day life.


The present situation is the reality in which the informants find themselves today (at the time of this

89


study). Frames articulate the present day perceptions on Cavendish cultivation as presented by the

farmers and the communication worker. The frames are analysed in the three different domains as

acquired by theory: management, economical and social thinking. The fourth domain, ecological

considerations, turned out not to be an issue at all in the present situation and is therefore left out in

this analysis (a reference to this is made in paragraph 3.2.3.1 and under footnote 44).

Fieldwork in the area indicates that all informants (9 out of 9 interviewed on this topic) shifted from

irrigated rice to Cavendish cultivation, with support of NEH and the farmer cooperative Liberty. This

support was offered on financial and technical level. On financial level the farmers received loans

(outang) from the cooperative (who has outstanding loans by the Land bank and by NEH) and on

technical level they received advice on best cultural practices from NEH. The received loans were

intended to prepare the land for rain fed Cavendish banana42 and to invest in seedlings. Yet NEH and

the cooperative failed to incorporate trainings on planning and use of the loans. It turns out, that the

most of the farmers did not invest the entire budget on farm development but also on personal

consumption and development (e.g. a TV, a motor cycle, sending children to school). This has

implications on today’s situation.

3.2.2.1 Management situations

In terms of management, all of the informants shifted from irrigated rice to Cavendish bananas.

Majority of the interviewed farmers shifted in 2003. This had a considerable impact on their land use

system.

Mario Dandoy explains: ‘We shifted completely to banana cultivation with our family land. We have got 9 ha of land,

which we own with seven brothers and sisters. The land is equally divided between us, but we manage it as one area and

divide the income from banana. The fruit trees we had in the past have been cut down, because we needed the area for

bananas. So we don’t have our own rice or our fruits anymore. The Cavendish bananas are only for sale, we don’t eat them

ourselves because they are tasteless. If the quality of the bananas is not good enough for sale we feed them to the pigs’.

Antony Sumile tells the following: ‘At the moment we have planted our whole area with Cavendish bananas. Only

few of the fruit trees are left and we do not have Tilapia anymore, because it is difficult to breed fish if you have no more

water from the rice fields. Now we buy rice at the market, because we can’t provided it ourselves anymore. That is a

42 During the shift from irrigated rice to rain fed Cavendish attention has to be paid to the preparation of the land. As this is a

cost effective procedure, the cooperative supports the farmers by lending them money. To transform one hectare of irrigated

land to useable land for Cavendish cultivation a total amount of Php 100,000.00 (€ 1,412.00) is necessary. This includes

establishment of drainage cannels (Php 42,000.00/ ha), land preparation (Php 28,000.00/ ha) and seedlings (Php 35,000.00/

ha) (NEH internal comm., 2006). The gross monthly income per household (av. of 6 members) in Kinamayan is estimated to

be in between Php 8,000.00 and Php 27,500.00 (€ 107.00 and € 369.00) at the time of writing (Philippine NSO consensus

report, 2000; key informants, oral comm., 2006).

90


significant change in our household’.

Mario Dandoy and Antony Sumile reflect on a common change in their household. They are not

producing their own staple food anymore and the former multi cropping systems (rice with fruit trees

and fish) have been replaced by a complete mono cropping system. Out of 6 key informants who

responded on this topic, only 1 still has an area where she cultivates rice. This area is however not

located in Kinamayan, but in another village, where rice is still the dominant crop.

Farmers have only recently shifted from rice to bananas and quality problems occur. According to the

communication worker the farmers do not produce good quality bananas because they lack

management skills for this HEIA system.

Maloy, the communication worker refers to the following: ‘The farmers only think in cash receipt and output:

the more I plant, the more I harvest, the more I earn. They do not understand that the income is dependent on the quality of

the crop. And quality you only receive by taking good care of the plants. The Cavendish bananas need daily attention and

you need to maintain and weed the area properly. Cultivation of Cavendish is really easy as long as you cycle properly43.

The farmers are just not working enough, they are lazy. They do not realise that it is not rice that they are growing’.

He frames the framers as unable to produce good quality fruits. From his point of view, it is easy to

cultivate bananas, as long as you put in enough effort in it. In his opinion, the farmers do not put

enough effort into the management of their land because they are lazy. This statement refers to the fact

that the farmers are not used to have daily activities in the area.

The farmers frame the level of difficulty as opposite of the communication worker, but amongst the

key informants is also a variation in how they manage this new crop. 6 out of 9 farmers interviewed on

this topic claim to have difficulty with the management of Cavendish bananas. They either refer to the

difference in time management (compared to rice) or to the difficulty of disease control in these mono

cropping areas.

In terms of time management, Cavendish bananas need daily attention as mentioned by the

communication worker. This is a substantial difference compared to the rice practices. All of the

43 With cycling the communication worker is referring to the cropping cycle of the Cavendish banana. The total cycle is 9

months, in which different stage can be determined (e.g. planting, selection of suckers (followers), shooting of the fruits and

harvesting). When applied properly it is possible to harvest fruits every 15 days continuously from the moment the first plants

bear fruits. During the last part of the cycle (after the shooting of the banana heart) a protocol describes best practices, e.g.

when to spray pesticides, apply fertilizers, when to bag the fruits (bags are used to protect the fruits from the strongest sun

light and they contain pesticides inside for protection of bugs) and exactly what day to harvest them.

91


farmer respondents referred to this in one way or another. Apparently, an adaptation of the

household’s organisation is necessary to be able to cultivate Cavendish bananas (to cultivate it as is

suggested by the communication worker). Mr Andrecito Juarez puts it as follows: ‘I am the only one who

works on our land. Working in banana is different than working in rice. Bananas need every day attention, in order to

produce good fruits. When we still had rice I could relax for two weeks, then go back to the farm for a few days, then relax

again. During these periods I did gardening and I was a carpenter. I helped to build the Purok centres and a bodega. This

gave us extra income. At the moment I can’t do this anymore because I spend all my time in the bananas’.

Mr Juarez rearranged his on- and off-farm activities in order to cultivate bananas on a daily basis.

This is an example where the farmer abandoned most of his off-farm activities. Most of the farmers (5

out of 9) did not adjust their off-farm activities in this way, but either choose to pay less attention to

the fruits or arrange labourers to do the actual farm work. Paying less attention to the fruits results

directly in a lower quality of the bananas, while working with labourers has an impact on the

information exchange process (paragraph 5.2). Mrs Leonora Jadraque replies: ‘My husband still works as a

Jeepney driver every other day. He doesn’t have time to go to the banana field every day. That’s why I do the work when he

is not there, which is not very common for a woman. Also the spraying of pesticides and de injection of the banana heart I do

myself. Besides, we were able to hire a labourer who helps us to cycle our schedule on time’.

She emphasises on the change in their household as an organisation. While her husband can not or will

not abandon his off-farm labour, she replaces his on-farm activities on the days that he is not available.

Next to this, they hired outside labour to help them out on their farm. 4 out of 9 informants changed

their farming organisation in this way, which enables them to proceed with their off-farm activities.

Farmers are managers of their farm and the present situation shows that diversity in supervision takes

place (Vellema, 2002). Half of the key informants have become supervisors over the labourers and

decide themselves how much time they spend on the land and how to interact with their labourers. The

labourers are mainly youngsters (boys between 16 and 20 years old), who have their first agricultural

experience and paid job on these fields. Some of the senior labourers have previously worked on the

banana plantations from Dole or Chiquita. Working with labourers has a consequence for the

dissemination of the socio-technological innovations (referred to in paragraph 5.2).

3 out of 6 farmers interviewed on this topic also refer to the difficulty to control diseases in this mono

cropping area. Moko disease (bacterial disease), Bunchy top (BBTV; a viral disease) and black

Sigatoka (fungal disease) are widely spread in the Philippine banana areas (Ferreira et al., 1997). They

are difficult to prevent and maybe even more arduous to eradicate once they have spread. The

difficulty of disease control and the effect these diseases have on the life of the farmers is tremendous.

During a farm visit I speak to Mrs Flores about their highly Moko infected land (figure 20).

92


Mrs Flores: ‘We have 1.13 ha of land, all planted with

Cavendish. Now half of it is infected with Moko disease

and we have no resources to eradicate it. Diseases in

bananas are so difficult to control and they spread so

easily. When we started with bananas in 2003 I was very

active on the land. The area was very clean and well

maintained because I worked daily on it and so was my

husband. But now I am depressed and tired of it. Our

land is so infected with Moko that it drives me crazy. We

can hardly harvest fruits anymore. I am not motivated to

work so I just wait until the area gets so under

maintained that I can’t stand it anymore. Then I only do

the highly necessary and stop again. That’s the result of

our situatio

Figure 20: Residue from eradication of Moko infected

banana trees n’.

The effect of the infected land is clearly visible in the daily life of this farmer. She points to the

difficulty of disease control in mono cropping areas and how this affects her motivation to put effort

into the management of her crops.

At this point, I would like to elaborate on the reason for farmers to shift from rice to bananas. The

message given by NEH and the communication worker was that farmers shifted because bananas were

more profitable than rice cultivation. This appeared to be true for a couple of farmers who indeed

shifted out of economical reasons. During my fieldwork I noticed that a lot of small farmers (> 2 ha of

land) referred to a ‘forced’ shift from rice to bananas. After studying a map of the area it became clear

that a fourfold of large land owners started to cultivate Cavendish. Their area (together 60 ha) lays

scattered throughout the arable land of Kinamayan. The transformation of this large area into non

irrigated land caused a disturbance in the water flow to the neighbouring rice fields. The large land

owners refused to repair or invest in re-routing of the water canals. The smaller farmers did not have

sufficient resources to establish new water canals and a request for support from the local authorities

has been turned down. Result is that the smaller rice farmers were cut off from water to irrigate their

fields and they were ‘forced’ to shift to Cavendish cultivation.

Frames of the farmers concerning cultivation of bananas are convergent in terms that they find it

difficult to manage this crop. Reasons why it is understood as difficult differ and are mainly based on

how off-and on-farm labour is arranged. The organisation of activities deviates from farmer to farmer.

3 of the 6 key informants work with outside labour to manage the farm, whereas 3 others have either

abandoned their off-farm activities (1 of them) or they do not pay daily attention to their land. The

farmers frame time management of bananas as problematic, but do not consider themselves as lazy

because they have other occupations next to their farm. These are remainders of the organisation of

93


households during rice cultivation. The frame of the communication worker is diametrically opposed

to the dominant frames of the farmers. In his perception, bananas are easy to manage, as long as you

pay attention to them. He frames the farmers’ behaviour as lazy and doesn’t consider the necessary

reorganisation of households in on- and off-farm activities.

3.2.2.2 Economical situations

The daily reality of the farmers has changed from selling rice for the national market to selling bananas

for the international market. Frames on the economical situation have changed as well. The

communication worker frames the economic position of the farmers as improved, while the dominant

view of the farmers is that it has changed only slightly. They also have to deal with debts and loans,

which was not an issue in the past. Farmers feel that their economical situation has deteriorated.

The perception of Maloy, the communication worker: ‘Farmers are now producing bananas for the

international market and are not producing their own staple crop anymore. That makes them global producers. They now

consider the quality and the cosmetic of the banana as important factors. Or at least they should. They sell the bananas via

the cooperative, which gives them security in terms of price per box. The income of the farmers now comes from bananas.

While they started just three years ago, most of them probably notice an increase of the income already. As soon as they will

produce more and better quality bananas, it will become much more profitable than rice’.

The farmers indeed do take more and more market related aspects into account. They are aware that

they are producing for the international market and that the bananas should have a good quality.

Arguably, what they find good quality is not the same high level fruits as is demanded by the

international market (and by NEH). Only 2 out of 8 farmers interviewed on this topic are aware of the

global network they are in and the market demands of it. As Antony Sumile says: ‘We try to produce high

standard fruits without bruises or spots. Only then we can compete on a global level. I want to produce good quality fruits

and I know what is required in terms of ISO 9001’.

His reference to ISO standards shows his competitive and market related pattern of thinking. The two

farmers who refer to the global market competition are on the same level as the communication worker

in terms of taking market considerations into account. A more common but very essential point in

terms of quality is taken into account by Mrs Flores. Her perception on quality and market related

thinking is: ‘It doesn’t matter what the quality of our fruits is. We have the safety of a fixed price per box if we sell them at

the coop. But if the quality is not good enough, we can still sell the bananas outside of the coop. There are other companies

who also buy a lesser quality’. A consequence of this is that they do not have to put all effort into producing

high standard bananas, while they can always sell their fruits. Reviewing their profitability, Mr

Andrecito Juarez says: ‘Bananas supposed to be much more profitable than rice, they told us. Our income has increased

a little bit and it is better spread then before (now we gain income every 15 days), but we also have outang (loans) now,

which we didn’t have before. We budget on everything: food, fertilizers and so on. I even buy chemicals in the illegal circuit

outside of the coop, because I do not want my outang (loan) to become bigger there’.

94


4 of the 8 informants perceive their economic situation negative. Mrs Flores and Mr Placido tell: ‘Before, our economic position was much better. We had an income from rice and had our own staple food. Now we have to

buy rice and I have outang everywhere, even at the sari-sari store. Rice is becoming a scarce good on our table, because it is

too expensive to buy’.

These views show that in the perception of the farmers, the economic position has not increased, but

decreased instead. They now face high loans which they have to pay off, which wasn’t the case in the

past. This even drives them into illegal circuits where chemicals and fertilizers are sold against low

prices, but no guarantee is given whether these contain the substances that are depicted on the label.

This development is a possible thread for NEH, while they have no control anymore over the used

chemicals in the bananas they sell.

In summary, the frames of the communication worker in terms of market related thinking and

production of high quality fruit is only in line with the pattern of 2 interviewed farmers. Half of the

informants (4 out of 8) are negative concerning their economic situation. Income development is only

seen gradually and farmers lack the ability to produce high quality fruits, mainly because of their

debts. The dominant negative perception of the farmers is not aligned with the positivist frame of the

communication worker. From my perspective, based on information from the communication worker

and from discussions I had with experts (from NEH) on Cavendish bananas, it theoretically should be

possible for small scale farmers to produce high quality Cavendish bananas and gain income equal or

higher than the former revenue of rice plus off- farm activities. Yet, this will only be possible when

farmers start to see Cavendish as an innovation that is positive on the long run.

3.2.2.3 Social situations

Social considerations do not play a major role in the present situation, according to the communication

worker. He perceives the socio-technological innovation only in management and economic aspects

and does not refer to any social considerations. 3 out of 6 farmers interviewed on this topic refer to

social situations in terms of their worsened social position in terms of time to relax and loss of face.

Mr Juarez explains the lack of time to relax: ‘When we still had rice, I had more time to visit family and friends.

That changed. Now we have only little time left to relax’. The time availability obstructs some of the farmers in

the social activities they were engaged in while the many debts cause social exclusion. Mrs Flores

tells: ‘I am sometimes scared to go to a sari-sari store or to a Purok meeting point, while everybody knows that I have so

much outang. I do not dare to show my face there, because I am not able to pay of the debts we have’. The farmers that

did take social considerations into account were mostly negative about their social position. Only one

of them perceived Cavendish cultivation as positive while she said: ‘I really enjoy working in bananas.

Bananas are like flowers, so it’s comparable to gardening’.

95



This subparagraph analyses the future perceptions of informants with Cavendish cultivation. The

frames are divided in threefold: management, economical and (on minor scale) social related thinking.

Again ecological considerations are not referred to or do not play a role for the communication worker

or the farmers. Future aspirations of the farmers and the communication worker are influenced by the

situation in which they find themselves nowadays. Farmers have difficulties making future plans,

while the communication worker has a clear perspective.

3.2.3.1 Management aspirations

Future management perspectives vary highly between the communication worker and the farmers.

Arguably, they diametrically oppose each other. Maloy, the communication worker has a clear

objective for future. He says: ‘I hope that this region will be as well developed as are the regions where Dole and

Chiquita have their plantations. I hope farmers will follow our advice and than produce good quality bananas’. This

frame shows that he wants the region to become comparable with the already established banana

regions. From his perspective, farmers can achieve this by producing qualitatively competitive

bananas. They do however have to follow the agricultural advice that is being given to them by him

and they have to specialise!

In terms of management considerations, frames of the farmers are deviating. Farm development ideas

are constrained by the present management and economical situation. Out of 10 interviewed farmers

interviewed on this topic only 4 have optimistic future plans with Cavendish bananas. They want to

produce a good quality banana and with the income from that further develop their farms.

Mr Antony Sumile explains his future aspirations: ‘On our land I would like to develop a correct population of

banana trees, which give me the optimal quality of products. That way I can become competitive with other farmers on the

market. Further, I would like to diversify our farm with a fish pond. In earlier days when we still had rice it was easy to breed

Tilapia, because they could just survive in the water of the rice field. Now, the water supply for a fish pond could be an

obstruction and I will have to experiment whether the aerial spray has an effect on the fish (it might contaminated the

water)’.44

44 Aerial spray (containing fungicides) is used in Cavendish areas as a means to prevent Black Sigatoka (a fungal disease caused by Mycosphaerella fijiensis) from spreading (Washington et al., 1998). In Kinamayan, airplanes spray the fields every Thursday (arranged via the cooperative). Health issues for humans, animals and the environment did not play a role in the frames of the communication worker or the farmers. The risks are taken for granted and belong to this cultivation method. Nobody in Kinamayan questioned health or environmental consequences of the exorbitant use of fungicides, chemical fertilizers and pesticides. From NEH, little information has been given to farmers concerning effects of these chemicals (aerial spray and pesticides that are applied manually). The production protocol from NEH does elaborate on this topic by giving instructions on use of protective clothing, wearing a mask and rubber boots when applying pesticides but in practice these instructions are not followed by farmers nor does the communication worker pay attention to them. Referring to this during my observations, the communication worker replied that it is not of any importance whether farmers pay attention to this. The issue at stake was the quality of the bananas and not the environmental aspects. Reactions of farmers (I observed that they did not use any protective clothing) were that the spray was not

96


Mr Sumile aspires to become more competitive, which is actually a market related aspect. His

reference to development other aspects of his farm represent a common aspiration for this farmer

group. The ones that want to develop their farms do not only want to develop their banana production,

but also other facets of their farm. These include:

- development of a poultry for fighting cocks (additional income)

- development of a fruit orchard (additional income)

- development of a sari- sari store (additional income)

In short, the frames show they aim at developing multi farming systems, which are not only based on

Cavendish cultivation. This depicts on a large difference between the frame of communication and the

farmers frames. They communication worker wants them to specialise on Cavendish production and

be available for 100% on this. The farmers aspire to develop a multi farming system, which is not

completely dependent on Cavendish cultivation. The future plans of the other 6 interviewees are

blurred. They all show a similar pattern of thinking, which indicate they would prefer to go back to

rice cultivation. Mr Antonio Flores contributes: ‘If had an option I would go back to growing rice, but we are

surrounded by bananas now’ and Mr Juarez says: ‘Rice is good. If I could go back to rice, then I would’.

One of the other interviewees explains the following: ‘I do not have a future plan with bananas. I hope I will be

able to buy a piece of land somewhere else and start to grow rice again’. These frames show the impact of the

forced shift to Cavendish bananas and a negative view on the management of this crop. The dominant

perspective to shift back to rice and the situation that disables them to do this, is a bitter reality for

farmers and NEH.

There is a strong deviation in future management frames of farmers. Half of them show willingness to

develop their farms into multi-farming systems, while the other half has a blurred future view with

Cavendish cultivation. Farmers that do want to develop are driven to shift from mono cropping (back)

to a multi-farming system. In this way, they are not only depended on Cavendish. This shows that

farmer do not yet completely have trust Cavendish cultivation as their only source of income. They do

not want to be completely dependent on it at the tie of writing. The frame of the communication

worker opposes this array of frames; he would like the area to become comparable and competitive

dangerous; that they were resistant to it or that wearing of such clothes was simply to warm. Another reason was that boots are too slippery on the soils and might cause them to fall. Than they would spill the expensive chemicals and they rather not risk this. The silence of NEH and the farmers around this environmental and health issue calls for a more profound and transparent arena in which information around this topic can be exchanged. Unfortunately, this lies beyond the scope of this study, but it certainly is a challenge for future development in this area.

97


with the existing banana bourgeoisie. His frame does not incorporate diversification of farms, nor does

he have awareness of farmers wanting to shift back to rice. In this sense, the frames of the

communication worker and farmers are diametrically opposed and display little room for convergence.

From my point of view, farmers do not have trust in a specialised production system yet, because debts

are restricting them momentarily to see advantages of Cavendish production. Another factor is the risk

of diseases, which farmers have to incorporate. Disease control, as analysed before is seen as the most

difficult aspect of Cavendish cultivation.

3.2.3.2 Economical aspirations

Frames on economical aspirations divert highly between communication worker and farmers. As

Maloy refers to maximum yield, the farmers’ frames touch upon different aspects, which are the

outcome of their present economical situation. ‘High yield’ and ‘maximum boxes per hectare per year’

as referred to by the communication worker are not part of the frames of the farmers. Important in

farmers’ considerations is finding solutions to pay off their debts and gain a better economical

position.

Arguments given include: ‘I just want to be able to survive and want to feed my family’, ‘I have no future view except

that I just want to get rid of my outang’ and ‘we hope to get a better economical position to get rid of the loans’. The line

of argumentation connotes their hope to pay of the debts and do not include considerations of

competitive thinking or thinking in terms of quality of fruits. The patterns of thinking between the

communication worker and the farmers diverge highly, causing a difficulty in the communication

between them.

3.2.3.3 Social aspirations

Social aspects in future perceptions turned out to be scarce in the frames of the communication worker

and the farmers. Blurred by their negative perception of the present day entourage, farmers do not put

up any hopes for future. The communication worker does neither. Majority of the future social

aspirations are individual or family related. Some general remarks as: ‘I hope to be able to feed my family’,

‘have a good life’ and ‘to stay healthy’ were acknowledged but real aspirations were difficult to find.

The lack of social aspirations is evident for the negative and difficult situation in which the informants

find themselves at the moment. Mr Dingle refers to his religion and says: ‘If God wants us to send our

children to school or he wants us to have a motorcycle, then he will make sure we do. We just have to wait and see’. With

this statement he argues that the future is not in his own hands anymore and it reflects the wait and see

attitude of the Philippine farmer.

98


3.2.4 Analytical reflection on frames of Cavendish cultivation in Kinamayan

Cavendish cultivation is mainly perceived (by communication worker and farmers) as a technical

innovation to increase economical prosperity. Its introduction had an immense impact on the

management and economical situation of farmers in Kinamayan.

Past multi farming systems (irrigated rice and fruit trees, off farm occupation) have changed to merely

mono cropping systems. Farmers past systems of mixed on- and off-farm activities are causing

difficulties in today’s management of Cavendish bananas. Strictly speaking, to make Cavendish

cultivation equally profitable to the former household revenue of rice cultivation and off-farm

activities, a re-organisation of the households’ on- and off farm activities is necessary. This re-

arrangement is not recognised by the communication worker, which creates his negative frame of

farmers’ management capabilities (too little time investment from his point of view). Future

management aspirations diverge highly between the communication worker and the farmers. The

communication worker on one side focuses on specialisation and development of the Cavendish

bananas while farmers on the other side focus on development of a diversified farming system with

off-farm employment (which is not only dependent on bananas) or aspire to shift back to rice as their

main crop. Either way, the dominant perspective of the farmers is not coherent with the frame of the

communication worker and both show little room for convergence. This divergence is stimulated by

the present economical situation of farmers and the high risks of pests in Cavendish cultivation.

Although farmers did consider market related elements (competitive thinking) in the past, the shift to

Cavendish bananas did not trigger their awareness of participation in the global market, even though

this has been discussed with them during a seminar given by NEH. Only a minority of farmers and the

communication worker align in this sense: they are aware of the necessity to produce high quality

fruits. In terms of income the perceptions of farmers and the communication worker are opposing each

other. From the communication workers point of view, the farmers’ income must have increased in

comparison with the past. However he does not incorporate the off-farm income farmers used to have.

Majority of the farmers see only a little increase in their income, but they frame their economic

position as decreased because of their debts. This situation causes blurred future perspectives in terms

of development on management, economical and social level. While farmers focus on ways to pay of

their debts in future, the communication worker thinks in terms of reaching maximum yield. Frames

between communication worker and the majority of the farmers are diverging over time (in future),

caused by the negative perception of the economical position of farmers.

The data derived from interviews and observations show that the local context of the informants and

their agricultural environment is focussed on management and market related thinking rather then on

ecological and social patterns of thinking. Ecology and environmental issues do not play a role here.

99


Land degradation is part and parcel of mono cropping and is taken for granted by the informants.

Nutrient deficiencies of the soil are not conceived as a problematic situation but as a daily situation

that can be avoided by adding chemical fertilizers. For the farmers and the communication worker,

ecological aspects are equal to soil nutrients. The soil nutrients are supplement with chemical

fertilizers in order to make it fertile enough to grow large areas of bananas. From my point of view,

this is taken for granted in this HEIA environment. Both the communication worker and the farmers

do not value any ecological issue as problematic. Accordingly, the key informants and communication

worker hardly refer to ecological of Cavendish cultivation.

Social considerations do not play a role in the frame of the communication worker. He focuses on the

technical and economical aspects of this innovation. Farmers perceive their social position as

worsened over time, while there is less time to relax and debts are rising. Abundance of social

considerations in future aspirations reflect the difficult situation in which farmer find themselves at the

time of writing.

100

Chapter 4: Perceptions on relation farmer- comunication worker

4. Perceptions on relation farmer-communication worker

This chapter elaborates on the farmer-communication worker relations. The frames of the key

informants are analysed to be able to answer the second research question: ‘In what way do farmers

and communication workers perceive their relationship?’ Perceptions towards relationships are

analysed in terms of past experiences with their relation, the present perspective on their relation and

what they aspire for future concerning their relation. Within these concepts, special attention will be

given to frames concerning: trust, power and relational distance, as identified by Dewulf (Dewulf et

al., 2005).

The structure of this chapter is similar to that of chapter 3. In paragraph 4.1, the relational frames of

the informants in barangay Kilagding (UDP) will be analysed and in paragraph 4.2, the same will be

done for barangay Kinamayan (NEH).

Reflecting on the sensitivity of the topic in the perceptions of the key informants, this chapter is

biased. It is biased in the way that the frames of the informants might not be completely honest.

Reason for this was the presence of the communication workers during interviews and conversations.

Their attendance was unavoidably because of translation difficulties. Another issue is that their trust in

me, as an outsider, was not yet developed enough. The fear of saying something ‘wrong’ to me was

clearly noticeable and they did not want to place the communication workers in a negative daylight.

From this point of view, this frames analysed in this chapter are biased. Nevertheless, they depict on

interesting aspects that the informants consider to be important in the farmer –communication worker

relationship.

4.1 The case of UDP in Kilagding: - perceptions on the relationship between beneficiaries and

communication worker -


During the fieldwork it became clear that in the past not only the relationship between the farmers and

the communication worker played a role in acceptance of the DFS innovation, but also the acceptance

of UDP as an outside intervening organisation. Considerations about UDP were based on trust. Out of

8 farmers, 7 took similar aspects into consideration.

Rosa Calipusan: ‘In the beginning we hesitated. UDP was handing out free seedlings. There were rumours that we first

get seedlings for free and when they start bearing fruits, UDP would come and claim the harvest’.

101


This consideration of trust (in UDP as an organization and in new crops, new technology) can be

determined as the issue at stake in the time when UDP made its first appearance in Kilagding. The

farmers that accepted them after a while had varying reasons for that. They vary from trust due to

family connections, acceptance of the purpose of the programme to the wait-and-see attitude of

farmers.

Nelson Calinisan explains: ‘I started to think about the purpose of UDP for coming here and realised that they were

here for a good cause. The programme is set up by our own government and Europe so it must be ok. Then I started to trust

them and accepted the seedlings they gave us’. Nelson Calinisan started to rethink the purpose of the

programme and trusted it. Also because the two parties that are involved in funding the programme

seemed important to him.

Marlon Plandiz’s perspective reflects a known attitude of Philippine farmers; the wait-and-see

attitude. He says: ‘I saw that my neighbours were accepting them and planting the seedlings and then I did the same’.

This frame turned out to be dominant within the farmers group. Most of the farmers copy cultural

practices of others, when they show added value compared to their own practices. This frame was also

put forward by Dondon Malayan. From his point of view, the majority of the farmers were waiting for

the results of the others, who did start planting the seedlings. In this sense, frames of the

communication worker and dominant frames of the farmers in terms of trust in UDP as an organisation

are aligned.

Prevailing the relationship with the farmers, the communication worker’s past experience is

characterised by his own efforts to gain trust from the farmers. He reflects on it as follows.

Dondon Malayan: ‘I started to work here in Kilagding in 2001. My wife is born here and then it is logic that you go and

live here. I was young and did not have much experience as the farmers here. That was what made it difficult to start building

a network here. It took me at least 8 months to get accepted and gain trust from the beneficiaries. As much as possible I tried

to be on their lands early morning to see what they were cultivating and which kind of problems occurred. It was important

to show them that I was interested in their lives, so we ate, drank and talked a lot outside of the official meetings. I think I had

a lot of knowledge which was important for them. But before I could share this I had to gain their trust’.

He framed himself as being less experienced in cultivation of crops than the farmers, but having more

knowledge on DFS methods. His awareness of the necessity of a trustworthy relationship, made him

reframe his self perception, from a superior position (more knowledge on DFS) to an equal or even an

inferior position. He was aware that he needed the support of the farmers to accomplish his (and

UDP’s) goals and acted upon this. From his point of view, he gained trust and got accepted by the

farmers in a time span of 8 months. For the farmers the emphasis of their past relationship also relies

102

Chapter 4: Perceptions on relation farmer-communication worker

on trust with the communication worker. None of the farmers perceived him as untrustworthy and all

of them frame their past experience with him as positive. In terms of trust, frames of farmers are

coherent with the communication workers frame. But reasons why to trust him differ amongst the

informants. They are based on:

- family ties (1 out of 6 informants)

- dependency on knowledge (3 out of 6 informants)

- dependency on access to resources (1 out of 6 informants)

- identification with him (1 out of 6 informants)

These indicate that not only trust was an important issue, but also relational distance and power.

These aspects will be elaborated on by showing what each of the informant put forward when talking

about their past experience with the relationship. Florencio and Rosa Calipusan explain the

importance of the family ties: ‘We trusted him from the beginning when he started to work here, because he is

married to my cousin’. This implies that he receives support and trust based on family network, thus on

the proximity of a relationship.

3 of the 6 interviewed farmers refer to knowledge as an important aspect of trust. Victor Delag tells: ‘Dondon and I met in 2001. He invited me for the UDP programme to become a pioneer DFS farmer. He clearly had a lot of

plans and knowledge on methods of cultivation and the environment. He helped me in the field to contour the area, which is

the most difficult part of establishing your DFS farm’. Knowledge plays an important role here. Victor

appreciates Dondon’s help because he framed his level of knowledge on DFS as superior to his. It also

reflects the power relations e.g. farmers framed themselves as inferior to the communication worker in

terms of knowledge. This inferiority is confirmed by the dependency on access to resources.

Raimundo Paradero frame is a good example of this. He says: ‘We received free seedlings from UDP via

Dondon and without those I could have never shifted from corn to bananas’.

The relational distance as an aspect of the past relationship is referred to by Nelson Calinisan: ‘His

father-in-law also has a farm. Dondon is developing this as a DFS farm during his weekends’. To put it bluntly; he can

identify himself with Dondon and respects his efforts to develop a farm even in his ‘spare’ time. In the

eyes of the farmer, this is a respected attitude.

In summary, the frames concerning their relational experience are in first instance based on trust in

UDP as an organisation. The next stage45 is documented by the relational experiences between the

45 These stages of trust (trust in UDP and trust in the relation communication worker-farmer) are not necessarily

follow-up stages but can be ongoing simultaneously.

103


communication worker and the farmers. Trust and power are characterising these frames. The

communication worker was aware from the start that he needed trust from the farmers to be able to

persuade them to change. In terms of power, he framed himself as superior in terms of knowledge, but

inferior in terms of experience with agriculture. This centred his perception to an equal relationship.

He framed his relationship with the farmers as trustworthy because of the effort he put in. The farmers

on the other hand, frame their experience with the relationship as trustworthy, but the power frame

differs. They frame their past relations as unequal. This inequality mainly derived from the fact that

the communication worker had more knowledge on the DFS methods. Hence, frames on the

relationship communication worker-farmer are for the mere part based on trust and were conceived as

trustworthy by all stakeholders. On the other hand, contemplation of power in the relationship differs

between the stakeholders. According to the communication worker, power (in terms of knowledge and

in terms of experience) was balanced, while the farmers conceptualised themselves as inferior (while

they only considered knowledge on DFS).


At present time, the frames towards trust in the relationships have not changed. What did become more

evident in both the farmers’ and the communication workers’ frame is the importance of relational

proximity and the ability to identify your self with the other.

Dondon Malayan: ‘I am glad to live in Kilagding. They see me and my family and we go to church together. That creates

a thorough relationship. I know from my colleague who lives outside of his working barangay, that he has more difficulty to

gain trust. People do not know him and he does not know them’. The emphasis in his present frame lies on trust

the relation proximity between the farmers and himself. Mutual interdependency ponders to be central

in the present relationship, while also the farmers’ frames depict on this.

Raimundo Paradero: ‘I trust Dondon, while he has access to sources outside of our reach. Dondon is a great help and he

gives us advice on how to plant and cultivate. He gives us support whenever we need it. Dondon and I discuss about

problems I have with the quality of my bananas and try to find solutions. But decisions I first discuss with my wife and family’

With this statement, he shows a mutual interdependency in terms of knowledge (discuss on problems

and try to find solutions). Although he still shows a certain dependency upon sources that Dondon has

access to, but an independency is also visible in the fact that he refers to making his own decisions.


Future aspirations on the relationship between farmers and the communication worker converge to

equality in terms of knowledge, access and trust.

As Florencio Calipusan explains: ‘I hope Dondon will still be here to support us in future. And I expect that we will

104


support each other with sharing of knowledge’. His frame coincides with the frame of the other farmers, which

indicate to more confidence with DFS and a more independent relationship in future. His reference to

‘sharing of knowledge’ shows he hopes to gain equality in terms of knowledge, but also in trust and

having access to resources.

The communication worker sees there relationship in future in a similar light: ‘Once they have all

established their DFS farms, they should be able to manage their own farms and then our contacts will be a little bit less. I

hope that at that point, I can start a new FTG in a new barangay’. His frame doesn’t only refer to more

independency and complete trust. It also depicts to a more close relationship between him and the

beneficiaries personally. In his perspective, at that point his job is done and he aspires to disseminate

DFS in another barangay.

4.1.4 Analytical reflections: convergent frames on relation farmer-communication worker in

Kilagding

Past, present and future frames allow me to analyse the perception on the relationship between the

farmers and the communication worker and its development over time. The past relationship is based

on development of trust for all stakeholders. In first instance, trust in UDP as an organisation and in

second instance trust in the communication worker as individual and as a representative of UDP (from

the perspective of the farmers). The relationship was perceived as trustworthy, yet a variation in

contemplation of power depicts on a possible dissonance. At the time of study, farmers perceive their

relationship as dependent (in terms of knowledge and access to resources) on the communication

worker, while the communication worker perceives it as interdependent. Relational proximity is

identified as an important characteristic of today’s situation. Future aspects of the relationship are

framed as equal and interdependent in terms of knowledge, access and trust. The analyses of frames

reveal the importance of trust, power (in terms of access and knowledge) and relational proximity

(characterisation of oneself with the other) and show convergence in frames towards an equal

relationship.

4.2 The case of NEH in Kinamayan: - perceptions on the relationship between farmers and

communication worker –


Frames on the relationship between the farmers and the communication worker in the past are shaped

mainly around the relationship between NEH and the farmers. In a HEIA environment, where NEH

buys the bananas from the farmers, an important consideration was trust, but the relationship was also

dependant on the economic nature of their relationship. Especially in the past, when farmers where

not yet familiar with NEH, this dependence played an important role. NEH was (and is) paying the

farmers for the quality of their goods. Farmers have the power to produce their own quality of

105


bananas, but this final quality test is done by NEH. NEH decides based on their own standard what

the quality of the produced banana is. Their system incorporates 3 different quality types (A, B and C;

from high to low quality) depending on the cosmetics of the banana (the amount of bruises and black

spots present on the bananas). NEH determines the category and whether fruits are acceptable or not

(and thus the payment that the farmer receives). In this sense the farmers are dependent on the

judgement of NEH, but can influence this by the quality of their production. This dependency and the

distant relationship (NEH as a customer can not directly interfere with the farmers’ management;

farmers make their own decisions) constructed boundaries and clearly determined the role of both

parties in the relationship. In this sense, the past relationship was not in first instance based on trust,

but on economical interdependency (NEH as organisation is dependent on their suppliers and the

farmers are dependent on NEH as buyer).

Mario Dandoy explains that trust in NEH as an organisation was established later: ‘NEH is much more than

only a buyer. We noticed this in the past when also the technicians became involved in giving us advice on how to cultivate

our bananas. If we had problems of any kind, we could ask them. When I realised that they were helping us, I started to trust

them’. In his perception, that reflects a common frame of the farmers, NEH started to gain trust as an

organisation once they stepped out of the supplier-customer relationship, by giving technical support

to farmers. Off course, NEH benefited from this relation by getting insight in and maybe influence on

the farmers’ cultural practices.

The individual relationship between farmers and communication worker was shaped by the previously

mentioned role division. While the present communication worker (Maloy) was not yet present at that

time (he has been assigned to Kinamayan 6 months ago at the time of conducting the study), it was not

possible to specifically reflect on the relationship between the farmers and the present communication

worker. One of the farmers did reflect on his experience with a past communication worker in this

area.

Cinon Sumile: ‘I only take advice when I see that it works no matter from whom. I only trust myself. That is the result

from my experience with a previous communication worker. In the past I took advice from him about fruit care. Later I saw

his farm and it was a mess! Trees were infected with Sigatoka and the area was not maintained. How can I take advice from

somebody who doesn’t know how to take care of his own farm’?

Cinon Sumile elaborates on the importance of trust and skills. He learned to distrust advice from the

communication worker and from anybody else. According to the present communication worker, this

resulted in farmers becoming ‘stubborn, which makes it difficult for him to gain trust from the farmers

in the present situation.

To sum up, the relationship between communication worker and the farmers in the past was based on

106


individual trust (or in this case distrust) between a farmer and a communication worker. The

impression left by the previous communication worker (farmers perceived him as untrustworthy) is of

influence on new communication worker. Most important fact is that the individual relationships

between farmers and communication worker were determined by the interdependent economic nature

of the relationship between NEH and the farmers (supplier-customer). This relational distance is

predetermined (but not completely fixed) by the difference between NEH and the farmers.

4.2.2 Present situation

Data gathered on present frames of farmers show that the relationship between communication worker

and farmers is perceived as positive. Out of 6 farmers interviewed on this topic, 5 are content with the

new communication worker. They trust his knowledge on Cavendish cultivation. Maloy, the

communication worker (figure 21) is more sceptical about their relationship.

His considerations: ‘I only work in Kinamayan for 6 months now.

Before I used to work in La Libertad, where I am living with my family. I

do not know the area neither the people here that well yet. I do have a lot

of knowledge and experience with growing of Cavendish. I learned this

from my dad. He has a large banana farm and is well know in the area,

also here people know him. Farmers here trust me because of my dad. I

try to show that I indeed have knowledge on Cavendish cultivation and

that the farmers can learn from me. First I have to make friends here and

become more familiar with the area. Then the rest will come by itself’.

In his perception, the relationship with the farmers still has

to be established while it is based on trust in his father rather

than trust in him. He emphasises the importance of trust and

his personal background (well known and trustworthy

family), because he learned by experience that farmers are

able to identify with him. He frames himself as superior to

the farmers in terms of knowledge on Cavendish cultivation.

Yet, he refers to the process of gaining trust from the farmers and becoming familiar with the area,

which has priority for him. During observations I noticed that he was not aware of the off-farm

activities of the farmers. He was surprised by the outcomes of the interviews and explained that this

was new to him. During our field walks and farm visits, I noticed that he was never probing when

farmers did not give him satisfactory answers. Maybe he felt that he first had to get to know the

farmers more profound, before they can be on the same line.

Figure 21: Maloy, the communication

worker

The farmers already have confidence and trust in their relationship with the communication worker.

107


The following three farmers argue that this trust is based on:

- knowledge of Cavendish cultivation

- experience with growing Cavendish

- family network

Antony Sumile refers to knowledge on Cavendish cultivation: ‘Maloy knows a lot about fruit care. He

observes and gives immediate advice. The other communication worker only observed and did not say anything. I didn’t

trust him as much as I trust Maloy’. Skills and experience are important for Mr Dingle: ‘Maloy helps us how to

maintain and handle fruits in a good way. He has a lot of knowledge and has experience on his fathers farm’, while

Mario Dandoy perceives his family network and knowledge as important: ‘Maloy knows what’s best for the

fruit care operation. He learned from his dad and his dad is a respected banana farmer. I know from friends in La Libertad

that his dad does very well. I trust Maloy because he has the technical knowledge, more than me’.

These frames are evident for the fact that trust has become the most important factor in the present day

situation. Farmers and the communication worker all perceive their relationship as trustworthy, but

reasons for this trust differ slightly. The communication worker is not that confident in his new

situation yet.

There is a dissonance in this data, while the majority of the farmers have trust in the knowledge and

skills of the communication worker, even though they do not aspire to completely specialise to

Cavendish bananas or to follow the advice that is given to them. A small amount of farmers might

perceive themselves as incapable of cultivating good quality bananas, but the main is probably that the

answers from the farmers are biased. The communication worker was present during most of the

interviews (for translation) and the nature of the Philippinos not to have critique on anybody openly

plays an important role. Thus, maybe the trust was not yet established from the farmers side, but

because of the chosen methodology and short period of conducting fieldwork was not able to elaborate

on this topic any further.


Looking into future perspectives of the relationship, 6 out of 6 interviewed farmers on this topic aspire

a trustworthy relationship, but in terms of knowledge on Cavendish cultivation they show dependency

on the communication worker. Mr Flores: ‘I hope that in future Maloy will keep helping us by giving advice, while

we have little knowledge on this crop’ and Mr Dingle: ‘I hope that in future they will help us to get a bigger production so

we are able to pay of our outang’ both refer to the dependency on knowledge of Cavendish cultivation. They

have trust in the communication workers knowledge, but do not completely want to be dependent on

Cavendish only (as analysed in paragraph 3.2.4). Again a dissonance in data is present, while farmers

state they aspire complete trust and still would like to receive his advice although the majority aspire a

less intensive production system. During my observation in the field it became clear that there is a

rather negative atmosphere amongst the farmers who are involved in this project. From the farmers

108


point of view debts and the risk of diseases drives them to not relay completely on Cavendish

cultivation solely.

The communication worker aspires to gain the following: ‘I hope that the farmers gain complete trust in me and

that they will respect my knowledge and can learn from me’. He aims at a shift in trust based on his own

knowledge rather then on the respect of his father’s prestige. Still, his perception on trust and

dependency in terms of knowledge align with that of the farmers. He does have a clear message that he

wants the farmers to invest more time in the bananas, but he does not ask why they are not able or

willing to do this.

None of the informants refers to relational distance (or proximity) as a characteristic of the future

relation. Presumably, because it is determined by the customer-supplier environment in which the

farmers and NEH are situated.

4.2.4 Analytical reflections on relation frames in Kinamayan

Analysis of frames on the relationship through time shows that trust and economic dependency play an

important role in this context, whereas relation proximity does not. Perceptions of the relationship

between farmers and communication worker have been predetermined by the role division that is

imbedded in the economical relationship between NEH and the farmers (customer-supplier).

Stakeholders experience their past relationship as dependent on this economical relationship. In the

present and future perceptions, the relationship is based on trust and dependency. Farmers gained trust

in the communication worker because of his family ties and his level of knowledge on Cavendish

cultivation. Unlike the farmers, the communication worker’s frame does not yet have full confidence

in his relationship with the farmers, while trust seems to be based on his family ties rather than on his

knowledge. Frames of the farmers and the communication worker converge in future to a trustworthy

relationship; nevertheless both frame it as dependent in terms of knowledge on Cavendish. Both

stakeholder (group)s frame the communication worker as superior in terms of knowledge on

Cavendish cultivation and the farmers as inferior. Arguably, actors do not seek equality because of the

economic nature of this relationship.

There is a clear dissonance in the presentation of this data. The majority of the farmers have trust in

the knowledge and skills of the communication worker, even though they do not aspire to completely

specialise to Cavendish bananas or to follow the advice that is given to them. Reasons for this are the

presence of the communication worker during the interviews and the nature of the Philippinos not to

have critique on anybody openly. Thus, trust in the communication worker might not have been

established yet from the farmers’ side, but because of the chosen methodology and short period of

conducting fieldwork was not able to elaborate on this topic any further. The dissonance in future

109


frames concerning the farmers aspiration to have complete trust although the majority of them aspire a

less intensive production system can be explained by the negative atmosphere amongst the farmers.

From the farmers point of view debts and the risk of diseases drives them to not relay completely on

Cavendish cultivation solely, but still as this is at the moment their only source of income, they

incorporate all advice that is given to them.

110

Chapter 5: Perceptions on process of innovation

5. Perceptions on the process of innovation

The last analytical chapter delineates on the frames of the actual process of innovation. With this

analysis, the last research question: ‘To what extend do frames regarding the innovation process vary?’

will be answered. To analyse the frames of farmers and communication worker on the process of

information exchange, we again will look at the past experience, present situation and future

perspectives of informants. As derived from the conceptual framework, the innovation process is

based on three stages (Leeuwis, 2003; Douthwaite, 2003; Van Paassen, written com., 2006):

(1) Exchange of knowledge and joint experimenting to develop an innovation within a specific

context

(2) Up-scaling of the innovation or institutional embedding to arrange collaboration with input

suppliers, marketing, infrastructure etc., according to the needs of the innovation

(3) Dissemination of this innovation within a similar region

Diffusion of innovations does not only occur via the formal pathway (as intended by UDP or NEH),

but also via informal pathways. The communication workers mainly stay on the formal pathway while

farmers are also influenced by the informal pathway (this thesis). This chapter mainly focuses on the

formal process of information exchange system. Where relevant, references will be made to the

informal exchange system.

This chapter is structured similarly to chapter 3 and 4. Paragraph 5.1 analyses the process frames of

the informants in barangay Kilagding (UDP) and paragraph 5.2, analyses the frames of the informants

in barangay Kinamayan (NEH). These paragraphs will be subdivided into four subparagraphs: past

experiences, present situations, future aspirations and analytical reflections on the frames.

5.1 The case of UDP in Kilagding: - frames on the ‘learning site’ and F2F extension -

The theoretical innovations process as described in the previous paragraph (points (1), (2) and (3)) is

in practice not as clearly divided as in theory and the processes are interwoven with each other. In this

case study, the innovation process on grass-root level focuses only on: (1) exchange of knowledge and

joint experimenting and (3) dissemination of this innovation within a similar region.

Up-scaling of innovations (2) does not play a role at grass root level, as observed during the fieldwork.

Hence, the up-scaling that takes place on the level between UDP and the LGU will not be analysed in

this paragraph.

In Kilagding, exchange of knowledge and joint experimenting is based on FPR principles. The farmers

111

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ and communication worker exchange knowledge during seminars that are given once a week on

Thursday morning. For the seminars a so called ‘learning site’ has been set up (figure 22). The

learning site (LS) is located at the land of one of the beneficiaries from UDP. It consists of an area for

lectures and discussion, with benches, a table

and a black board. A small part of the land is

used for cultivation of banana, coconut trees

and pineapples. They have set up a nursing area

for banana seedlings and are experimenting

with vermiculture (production of organic

fertiliser with waste materials from the banana

and coconut trees in combination with African

earthworms). Further there is a small Pajag

(owned and inhabited by the Calipusan family)

which can be used during special occasions to

prepare food (not during normal seminars).

Goats, chickens and pigs on the learning site, are owned by Florencio Calipusan and used for

education purposes. The area serves as a DFS model farm. The areas used by the farmers and

communication worker are build with UDP funding and its organisation is the responsibility of the

communication worker. The weekly meetings are facilitated by the communication worker, who sets

the topic of the week. These range from banana cultivation, to experiments with vermiculture, to

vegetable growing, livestock keeping and use of waste materials. The communication worker sets the

agenda and determines which topics or questions from farmers are dealt with. Demonstrations are

given by the communication worker himself, rather than done by the farmers. In practice, this refers to

a top-down exchange of knowledge (but still there is room for farmers to give input), which is not in

line with the basic principle of FPR. The group of beneficiaries that attend seminars is called the

Farmers Training Group (FTG). It consists of 11 farmers who are facilitated by the communication

worker to diversify their farms. Aside from attending seminars to obtain and exchange knowledge, the

purpose of forming this group is to disseminate DFS to other farmers. This dissemination is based on

farmer-to-farmer (F2F) extension, which conceptually derives from the copying behaviour of actors.

From my observations it became clear that F2F extension was arranged and coordinated by the

communication worker. During the weekly meetings at the learning site attention was paid to the

initiative of individual farmers to spread the innovation. The FTG members are obliged to put their

goals and plans on paper (when and to whom will I teach about the DFS) and during the meetings they

are asked to report on their progress.

Figure 22: Picture of Kilagding’s learning site

In practice, the dynamics of the innovations process between the farmers and the communication

worker are shaped around exchange of knowledge & joint experimenting to develop the DFS (1) and

112


to disseminate DFS to other farmers (3). The farmers appeared not to make explicit distinctions

between the process of knowledge exchange and the dissemination of the innovations, which causes

some confusion. In my analysis I attempted to separate them as much as possible.

5.1.1 Past experience

Frames on past experiences are split in experiences with the exchange of knowledge and joint

experimenting and experience with dissemination of innovations. Starting with frames of the

informants on knowledge exchange, the majority of the farmers did not perceive their knowledge on

tree growing (if they had any) which they inherited from their family as a part of knowledge exchange

(paragraph 3.1.1.1). Neither did the communication worker.

As Jennifer Guillas tells: ‘I am a city girl, born in Cagayan de Oro. We moved here 6 years ago, because my dad was ill

and needed fresh air. We were able to buy a plot of land here, because my family-in-law is living here. In the beginning I had

difficulty to adapt here because I didn’t know anything about farming and working in the sun is very hot. My brother-in-law

taught me how to weed and now I really like it. My husband has experience with planting of corn, but that’s it. That’s why we

hardly survive here. Everything we learned about diversifying crops comes from Dondon’.

Jennifer Guillas doesn’t have an agricultural background and was forced to learn everything at a late

age (she was 22 years old when she migrated to Kilagding). She learned how to weed from her family-

in-law46, but she does not consciously consider this as a form knowledge exchange. Meanwhile, she

emphasises on the knowledge about multi cropping, which he gained from the communication worker.

The perceived knowledge exchange system was that of meetings and seminars given by UDP.

Farmers’ frames on this system reflect a common view. They joined the seminars and meetings from

UDP and the FTG to learn and to gain knowledge on the DFS.

Raimundo Paradero: ‘The seminars and meetings were really helpful. I learned from sharing technology with other

farmers and from the demonstrations on the learning site’ and Jennifer Guillas are examples of this: ‘I joined to

learn about planting of trees and it helped me a lot’

Dondon, the communication worker has a similar frame: ‘Farmers do not have experience with exchange of

knowledge and they didn’t have experience with DFS. We set up the FTG and held seminars and demonstration on tree

cultivation and methods to diversify the farm. In the beginning they were reluctant to join. But when the first results were

visible they started to get interested. We needed farmers who wanted to become pioneers and luckily we found two (Mr

46 Weeding is considered to be a female task in the barangay of Kilagding. That is one of the outcomes of the farming

calendars which I made with the interviewees. A farming calendar is a tool to gain information about the type of crops that

farmers grow and it gives an overview of the annual crop rotation. It also gives an overview of all on- and off farm activities

from a family. Next to that, it shows how tasks are differentiated and divided amongst family members.

113

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ Calipusan and Mr Delag). We started with them in 2001 and slowly the other farmers followed in 2002, 2003 and 2004’.

Dissemination of DFS to spread innovations within a similar region was interpreted by Dondon as: ‘Farmers did not have past experience with extension services and they experienced this for the first time when we invited

them to join the FTG’. This shows his awareness of the lack of experience farmers had with extension

services. It appeared that only one farmer (1 out of 10) had experience with a form of extension

(similar to UDP) in the past.

In summary, frames of all informants convert to a common perception that there was no experience

with an extension service and no experience with exchange of knowledge and joint experimenting.

None of the stakeholders relate their knowledge exchange in informal pathway (e.g. family) as a

system of exchange. Their first experience with UDP as an extension service and exchange system is

seen in a positive light, where farmers learn from the communication worker and from each other.

5.1.2 Present situation

Present perspectives on knowledge exchange and dissemination have changed slightly in comparison

with the past. Still the process of knowledge exchange is seen as positive but attendance of FTG

meetings and seminars appears to be difficult sometimes, due to a lack of time availability. Frames on

the dissemination of the DFS, reveal that the farmers slowly start to spread the practice of DFS and are

aware of their position as individual ‘spreader’. Arguably, they only spread the practice (e.g. ‘I am

showing my neighbour how to cultivate bananas’) rather then the knowledge or goal behind the DFS.

The seminars and experiments on the learning site are visited whenever possible by the farmers and

are appreciated with regard to farm development. 7 out of 7 informants, perceive the present FTG

meetings and seminars as a positive learning process, as the noticed by Raimundo Paradero.

Raimundo Paradero: ‘On the learning site we exchange information and share how we cultivate our land with the other

FTG members. DFS is a technology from UDP, but we learn here how to manage and apply this on our own farm’.

The process of knowledge exchange is perceived as positive, yet the majority of the farmers are

constrained in the attendance of the meetings. Nelson Calinisan explains these constraints with the

statement below.

Nelson Calinisan: ‘When I have time, I go to the meetings, because I want to learn and gain more knowledge. My son

does the work on the farm in the mean time, in that way I can attend. What I learn during our experiments, I pass on to my

son and we apply this on our farm. For example the vermiculture: we breed the earthworms on the learning site and I took

some home. Now we try to make our own organic fertiliser so we can use it for our bananas’.

He specifically refers to time as a constraining factor and how he solved this problem by letting his son

114


work on the farm. The emphasis on passing on knowledge to his son and applying what he learned on

his own farm show his eagerness to learn. For Rosa and Florencio Calipusan, time neither is a

constraining factor, as the learning site is situated on their land and they have a brother-in-law who

manages the farm in the mean time. For 4 of the 7 informants availability of time is a major restriction.

Both Jennifer Guillas and Mr Mataas refer to this.

Jennifer Guillas: ‘I do not always attend the meetings because I don’t have time. My husband works on the land and I

have to take care of our children’. Mr Mataas reflects: ‘I am not here often while it is a long way to walk from my farm

to here. Another problem is food. We have to bring our own food and when I don’t have any I don’t go because then I feel

ashamed’.

The latter does not only refer to time availability as a constraint, but also pin points the importance of

equality. He feels ashamed of having no food when he compares himself with the other farmers who

are able to bring food. The other farmers see and accept these time and equality constraints, while the

communication worker interprets these as symptoms of ‘non willingness’ to learn. He says: ‘When we

organise a fieldtrip or a special seminar I always ask Nelson and Florencio to join, while they are here most often. The other

farmers do not attend always and apparently aren’t that eager to learn’. His position towards not attending does

not leave room for dialogue or acceptance of constraining factors. It even results in favouritism for the

farmers that do have the ability to attend. This favouritism results in direct exclusion of obtaining

knowledge for the farmers who have a less active attitude or are not capable of attending more often.

In practice this means that the larger and older farmers (with more resources available) who have

established their DFS farms already have more opportunities to develop than the others.

Looking at dissemination of innovations, all of the informants understand to concept of extension and

slowly start to spread it themselves. This view aligns to that of the communication worker. Dondon

Malayan’s frame: ‘At this time we arrived at the point that the FTG members start spreading the DFS themselves and

are a group that extend the technology to other farmers’.

Nelson Calipusan: ‘We as the FTG group learn and experiment together and therefore we can help other farmers to

improve their farms as well. We are a bridge between UDP and the other farmers in the village’. He frames the FTG as

the link between UDP and the other farmers. With referring to non-beneficiaries he shows his

understanding that the goal of the FTG is to disseminate DFS to other farmers. The next two quotes

will show in what way two of the FTG members attempt to spread the DFS. Raimundo Paradero: ‘I

show my brothers and sisters how to plant and cultivate bananas. Because my trees are already productive, I give them

seedlings, so they can start as well’.

Marlon Plandiz: ‘My neighbour doesn’t have time to go to the learning site so I discuss with him what we do and show

him how to plant banana‘.

115

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ These two statements were given during a FTG meeting when the communication worker discussed

with the group what they achieved and what their activities were to spread the DFS. This immediately

reveals two relevant problems in this approach. First, what is being discussed during these meetings is

not checked in the field. Hence, whether farmers actually do what they say remains a question. In

Philippine culture, it is very impolite to say no and loss of face is to be avoided at all times. The

probability to admit that they did not ‘fulfil’ the goals is almost nil due to this cultural aspect. A

second problem is that they spread the practice of cultivating bananas rather then the knowledge

behind the DFS. If the knowledge behind the systems is not being transferred, what will remain of it in

the end?

Also the farmers’ perception of being a mean of extension as a group is not completely clear for all,

while the FTG shows signs of dependence on the communication worker. Mr Mataas mentions: ‘When

Dondon is not here we do not meet with the FTG. He comes up with the topics we discuss’. The feeling of

interdependency that the communication worker aimed at is not present in the frame of the FTG

members.

In the present situation frames towards exchange of knowledge are still positive from the farmers’

perspective. Due to the neglect of the time constraint of farmers, the communication worker’s frame is

still positive but result in favouritism which leads to exclusion of the young, smallest and poorest

farmers. In terms of dissemination of DFS, the frames vary between the stakeholders. While the

individual members do start spreading the practice of the innovations, the perception of being

independent as a FTG group is yet to come. The communication worker on his side concludes that the

F2F extension has started and that the members of the FTG are aware of their role. Further he is not or

does not pay attention to what the farmers are spreading (knowledge behind the DFS, the practice of

fruit tree cultivation or both). The frames of the communication worker and the farmers divert highly

in this respect.

5.1.3 Future aspiration

In the reflections on the future of the exchange and dissemination process it becomes evident that

there is a difference in perception between the farmers and the communication worker. Concerning

the exchange process, only little future aspirations exist, because no clear distinction is made between

the actual process of knowledge exchange and the dissemination of the innovation. Only Raimundo

Paradero hopes that in future more information given during seminars will be available on leaflets in

the Visaya Language instead of English. He also hopes that outside expertise47 which is sometimes

47 Outside expertise refers to experts that are send by UDP to give extra input and monitor the ecological

progress. Mostly these are experts from European origin and do not speak the local language.

116


used to support experiments and exchange of knowledge can conduct in the native dialect.

The frames on the FTG group as a mean of extension differ. The farmer group does not reflect

independency but rather dependency on the communication worker. They do not perceive themselves

as ‘the extension group’ in which the communication worker places them.

Dondon Malayan: ‘The FTG group and the learning site should be on their own then. I hope they will be able to sustain

and organise themselves and spread the DFS in the Kilagding. I will not be there anymore because the LGU wants me to

start working in other villages and in that way spread the DFS. Unfortunately I will not have time for them anymore then’. The communication worker hopes that in (near) future the FTG will be able to stand on their own. His

plans (enforced by his employee, the LGU) do not picture himself in the existing exchange system.

For the farmers, 5 out of 7 look at it from a different angle. They do not aspire to be completely

independent but rather rely on Dondon as leading and organising person. Florencio Calipusan’s view: ‘Dondon must have plans for the FTG in future, because he leads us. He will find a way how we can stimulate other farmers

and barangays to shift to DFS’.

The divergence of future frames between communication worker and the farmer informants on the

dissemination of DFS are immense. The communication worker assumes the FTG to become a

completely independent ‘mean’ to further spread the innovation (where he doesn’t make a distinction

between spreading of the practice and spreading of the knowledge behind the innovation). He assumes

farmers to set up their own programme and planning, whereas for the farmers the future role of the

FTG is bound to the communication worker’s ideas.

5.1.4 Analytical reflection on process frames in Kilagding

Frame development on the innovation process is divided in knowledge exchange & joint

experimenting (on the learning site) and dissemination of innovations (via the FTG). These different

processes however, are conceived as one by farmers and communication worker. Experience with

knowledge exchange is framed as ‘no experience’ by all stakeholders, leading me to conclude that

knowledge (on tree cultivation) gained via informal pathways is not consciously perceived as

knowledge exchange. Today’s view shows a positive attitude towards seminars at the learning site,

but farmers experience constraints due to time availability. The communication worker’s view, which

leaves no space for acceptance of these time constraints, leads to exclusion of small, young and

resource poor farmers. Frames on exchange of knowledge and joint experimenting are abundant in

future perspectives, maybe because actors are unaware of the distinction between exchange of

knowledge and dissemination of innovations. During the seminars and interviews I observed that both

the communication worker and the farmers do not make an explicit distinction between exchange of

knowledge & joint experimenting and the dissemination of the innovation. These two processes

turned out to be interweaved and were perceived as one, namely: ‘the extension process’.

117

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ The goal of the FTG as a ‘means of extension’ is understood, yet frames vary on the level of

independency of the FTG. The gap between the view of the communication worker (frames FTG as

independent group) and the farmers (frame FTG as dependent on communication worker) is distinct

in future perspectives. The frames in terms of dependency diverge over time, indicating that farmers

might not understand the future purpose of the FTG or have little confidence in their functioning as an

independent extension group. No explicit attention is paid to what farmer are spreading (practice of

tree cultivation, knowledge behind DFS or both) which might have the consequence that farmers only

spread the ‘trick’, while not understanding the background of the innovation. This is a potential gap

that can constrain the sustainability of the socio-technological innovation and the dissemination of

DFS on the long term.

5.2 The case of NEH in Kinamayan: - frames on T&V extension -

The theoretical innovation process described as: (1) exchange of knowledge and joint experimenting to

develop an innovation within a specific context, (2) up-scaling of the innovation or institutional

embedding and (3) dissemination of this innovation within a similar region, represents a much broader

process than is applied at grass-root level in Kinamayan. Observations and conversations portray that

the innovation process in Kinamayan is based on (3) dissemination of innovations only.

HEIA cultivation methods (best practices) are developed within laboratory settings. According to a

researcher from NEH: ‘There is nothing to be experimented anymore in Cavendish cultivation, it has all been done’.

Cavendish cultivation is developed a laboratory environment and is disseminated as a fixed package to

non-laboratory conditions. Assumption in Green revolution technologies was that these practices are

similar to that under laboratory conditions. This might be true when inputs and resources are available

for farmers. In reality, farmers decide which practices work out best for them, according to their own

management,

economical and social

situation. At the time

of writing this thesis a

demonstration field

(figure 23) has been

developed by NEH.

Aim of this area is to

start up a process of

knowledge exchange

and joint experimenting between farmers and communication workers, complementary to the present

dissemination process. Results from this demo-farm were not available yet at the time of conducting

this study, as the area was newly planted and not yet in use. Observations show an initial mistake in

Figure 23: Road sign to demo-farm and view of newly planted demo-farm

118


the set-up of this ‘model farm’. The NEH production team planted the Cavendish seedlings, decided

which varieties to show, which planting distance and what experiments to show, without consultation

or incorporation of the farmers’ ideas. This set-up has little potential for exchanging knowledge and no

room for joint experimenting. The aim of setting up a demonstration farm for joint experimenting will

in this way become nothing more than a ‘showcase’ of best practices (from a prospect of NEH).

Up-scaling and institutionalising of innovations (2) does not take place at grass root level between

farmers and communication workers, but takes place at a higher level between NEH and the

cooperative. This scope of this study is focussed on processes at grass root level, thus the up-scaling

process is not incorporated in the analysis of farmers’ and communication workers’ frames. Farmers

do complain about their high debts and poor economic situation and partly perceive it as the tasks of

NEH to help them out of this. NEH does not give financial support anymore, because they found out

that the farmers did not spend all of the loans on farm development (Cavendish)

In practice, the innovation process in Kinamayan is constructed around the dynamics of dissemination

of innovations (3). The dissemination process of Cavendish as a socio-techno innovation is based on

Training and Visit extension (T&V) which is arranged by NEH together with Liberty Cooperative.

The system consists of two types of information exchange: seminars (training) and farm walks (visit).

The trainings take place at the cooperative where a blackboard and chairs are available. Seminars are

mainly theoretical explanations of topics that are chosen by NEH and Liberty (as observed during

fieldwork). They are aimed at showing ‘best practices’, how to achieve high yields and more important

(from the perspective of NEH) good quality bananas. The structure and communication is linear and

directed in one-way from communication worker to farmer.

Farm walks consist of weekly field visits from the communication worker to the farmer’s fields. The

communication worker reviews the fields (cultivation practices like cleaning of the area, correct

appliance of chemicals and presence of diseases) and quality of the bananas. A survey list is used

during these walks, to evaluate the areas and record observations. This information is used by the

cooperative and the communication worker to give feed-back to the farmers.


Experiences with dissemination of innovations are coherent, when referring to gaining of knowledge.

None of the informants had experience with an extension organisation like NEH. Farmers were

previously engaged in rice cultivation in a market led economy and did not have any previous

knowledge on Cavendish cultivation. The view of Mario Dandoy mirrors a common view: ‘In the past I

did not have experience with growing of Cavendish bananas. I learned everything via seminars and trainings we received

from the communication worker’. This view is acknowledged by the communication worker who tells:

119

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ ‘Farmers here had no previous knowledge on Cavendish. They learned via our seminars and trainings how to plant, cultivate

and harvest them’.

Arguably, NEH and the cooperative were not the only source of information for the farmers. 5 of the 8

informants explain that they also gained knowledge from outside advisors. This is not recognised by

the communication worker. Mrs Flores elaborates on this topic: ‘In the beginning when we started to plant the

advisors weren’t here that often. Our neighbour, who started to plant already showed us the proper planting distance and

lend us a measuring tool, but after the first harvest we noticed that we planted to close to each other. Our fruits were only

small and not growing. Only the trees on the side of the plot were giving big fruits. We were wondering why. Now we know

that we planted to close together, but at that time, we had no knowledge and there was no proper advice. So we trusted our

neighbour. That was obviously wrong’

Mrs Flores frames her previous knowledge as nil and emphasises on the fact that there the advice they

received was minor in the beginning. For this reason she took advice from a more experienced

neighbour. It also pinpoints the farmers’ necessity of advice at that point in time and shows a gap in

amount of advice given by the communication worker. The gap was filled with advice via informal

pathways. The 5 informants used advice from more experienced neighbours, relatives or friends, who

were employed on the established corporate farms (e.g. Marsman, Dole and Stamphilco).

Frames in terms of past experience with extension services are aligned. None of the farmers had any

previous experience with it. The knowledge gap that existed in the eyes of the farmers is not

recognised by the communication worker. He does not recognise that farmers also took other advice

into account due to a lack of information from the side of NEH. With this he also fails to recognise a

underlying reason of farmers to use different cultivation methods.


The present situation depicts more variation in frames between the farmers and in between the farmers

and the communication worker. Maloy, the communication worker reflects in general (not specified to

seminars or farm walks) on the present situation as follows: ‘The advice we give to the farmers is good. I have

knowledge and experience. They simply don’t do what I tell them, they do not listen. I know that some farmers cannot follow

my advice because they are reducing their costs. But they should reduce on something else, not on costs for inputs for

bananas’ .In his perception, the information he gives is good. He does not reflect on the system in which

this information is disseminated. He redirects any misinterpretations back to the farmers. It is not his

fault, not the systems fault, but the farmers are to blame that they are not following up the advice

given. The statement: ‘They should reduce on something else’ shows he is aware of the economical

restrictions of some farmers, but he doesn’t recognise this as a legitimate reason. From his perspective,

it is not up to him to make the advice better applicable for more farmers, but up to the farmers to

reorganise (or redistribute) their finances in such a way that they can apply his advice. The frame of

the communication worker pictures the inflexibility of the system (and his attitude), which leaves little

120


room for different interpretations and touches upon an authoritarian environment with linear one-way

communication and flow of knowledge.

The communication worker frames the farm walks as follows: ‘I discuss what I see with the farmers in the field

and give them direct advice’. Mr Dingle reflects on the farm walks: ‘They visit us when ever they want, not upon

request. Sometimes I don’t see them. But when I have a problem, I go to him and ask him what to do. He coaches us’. Given

the fact that this farmer interprets the communication worker as a coach, he emphasises on farmer lead

consultancy. Farmers are managers of their own farm and make their own decisions. They incorporate

and respect advice from the communication worker as outside ‘intervener’, but arguable do not always

agree with his ‘best practices’ or are restricted to take over his advice.

The seminars that are given at the coop are conceived as very useful by all the interviewed farmers. 7

out of 9 interviewees attend the given seminars regularly (they state that they attend 80%). The two

who do not attend are restricted by time. Paragraph 3.2 elaborated on the heterogeneity in farm

management between the farmers, in terms of working with labourers. The diversity of supervision is

not integrated in the original design of the dissemination system. This system assumes that the farmers

would cultivate the land themselves (Liberty cooperative, oral com., 2006). The problem that derives

from it is noticed by Antony Sumile: ‘Seminars are given when they think that they need to give us information. Then

we receive a letter from the cooperative that we have to attend. These letters never contain a topic. Then I go there myself,

because I don’t know whether it would be useful to send my labourer’.

The seminars are directed to the farm owners, who might not be working on the land themselves. They

have to transfer the given information to their labourers. This can be interpreted as a second layer of

information flow, which is not taken into account by NEH or the communication worker. The problem

will not be solved by adding a topic to the invitation letters, while some farmers find it a waist of time

to send their labourers (‘they get paid to work’) to seminars. This complexity causes an optional

‘misdirection’ of information, which makes exchange more complex. This is not recognised by the

communication worker thus far.

Elaborating on this, I observed another possible gap in the dissemination process. The seminars were

often attended by female farmers (often the wives of small farmers who had no time to join

themselves). In terms of gender participation, I initially perceived this equal distribution as a positive

aspect. Yet, this gender participation causes more complexity in the exchange process as most of the

women do not actively cultivate the land themselves (or have other tasks then their male counterparts).

In general, the farmers (men and women) will communicate the important practices of what they learn

during seminars to the persons who actually cultivate the land. Arguably, they will not disseminate the

121

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ knowledge behind the practice. As the communication worker does not pay specific attention to what

farmers disseminate, the quality and sustainability of this T&V system is questionable.

Frames of the farmers and the communication worker diametrically oppose each other. The farmers

perceive the seminars as useful and the majority claim to follow the advice of given, while the

communication worker frames their follow-up as low. Frames of both farmers and communication

worker depict on a top-down exchange system, with little room for active participation of farmers.


Future aspirations of farmers show they hope to receive information from the communication worker.

The communication worker says the following: ‘I wouldn’t do it differently. I still hope I can give them advice in

future and that I can be of help to them. I just hope they will follow my advice’

Farmers conceive the support gives as positive and would like to keep receiving it in future. Mr Juarez:

‘I hope that NEH will keep on giving us advice. We still have too little knowledge on this crop’ frames their knowledge

as dependent on that of the communication worker. From the farmer respondents, no suggestions were

given for changes in the T&V process. On one hand this might indicate their trust in the T&V system,

but on the other hand it might reflect that they are not familiar with other possibilities (while they do

not have previous experience). From my point of view, it points out that the farmers conceive

themselves as entrepreneurs who ask for and incorporate outside advice (coming from a

communication worker, a neighbour or a relative) when they need it. In this respect, it might not be of

significance in which way advice is given as long as have access to it.

5.2.4 Analytical reflections on process frames in Kinamayan

The innovation process on grass root level in Kinamayan is based on the dissemination of knowledge.

Up-scaling and knowledge & experimenting take place on other levels respectively between NEH and

the cooperative and in a laboratory environment. The frames of the informants concerning the process

of innovation remain on the level of dissemination of knowledge via farm walks and seminars. In the

analysis, quotes and remarks refer only to the seminars and farm walks, showing that farmers have not

been exposed to joint experimenting & knowledge exchange by NEH.

Frames between stakeholders align when considering the past. Farmers did not have any experience

with dissemination of innovations or extension (as it is called in the local context) and were first

confronted with an intervening service when they changed from rice to bananas. Farmers frame advice

they received from the communication worker during the first period as ‘too little’ and filled this gap

with advice via informal pathways. This pathway is overlooked (or neglected) by the communication

worker, therefore failing to recognise possible reasons for the varying cultivation methods of farmers.

122


From past to present, a significant change took place in the frames. They diametrically oppose each

other. The majority of the farmers are confident and positive about the information exchange, while

the communication worker is sceptical. He interprets non adoption of advice (regardless the reason) as

negative, but does not question whether it is due to the process of information exchange. Only one of

the key informants recognises the misdirection of audience in the seminars. The exchange system

(both seminars and field walks) is intrinsically designed to deal with one dimensional communication;

directly with farmers who cultivated the land themselves. Diversity of supervision and a gender bias

cause a complexity which it not incorporated in the system at present time and neither in the frame of

the communication worker.

Convergence of frames occur in future. Farmers and communication worker hope to receive and give

support on Cavendish cultivation and no changes in the system of exchange are suggested. What

remains is a linear intervention model, where farmers seem dependent on the advice from intervening

parties (whether from communication worker or other people).

123

Chapter 6: Conclusions and recommendations

6. Conclusions and recommendations

In the dynamic and changing context of farm development, this study approached the complexity of

agricultural innovations at grass root level in the South of the Republic of the Philippines. With the

sustainability of socio-techno innovations as focal point, I analysed variations in perceptions of

farmers and communication workers regarding the content of innovations, the relation between the

farmers and communication worker and the process of innovation. In this study, the perceptions on

socio-techno innovations have been examined though the eyes of farmers and communication workers

in ‘barangay’ Kilagding and ‘barangay’ Kinamayan (provinces of Compostela Valley and Davao del

Norte, the Island of Mindanao).

With the considerations of Röling (1997) in mind that ‘a shift in knowledge and most important a shift

in peoples mindset has to occur that provides willingness and trust to change’, I studied the diversity in

perceptions on innovations that exist between two stakeholder groups on grass root level: farmers and

communication workers. Their perceptions have been explored by using a conceptual framework

based on the ‘cognitive framing theory’ conceptualized by Aarts and van Woerkum (2005) as:

‘constructing and combining of cognitive building blocks in previous experiences, present objectives

and future aspirations concerning the issue at stake, actors involved and the process that takes place’.

This led to an approach to disentangle the past experiences, present situation and future aspirations of

farmers and communication workers on DFS (in the case study of UDP) and Cavendish cultivation (in

the case study of NEH). Three main research questions derived from this framework, namely:

(1) To what extend do frames of farmers vis-à-vis communication workers on socio-

technological innovations vary?

(2) In what way do farmers and communication workers perceive their relationship?

(3) To what extend do frames regarding the process of innovations vary?

These questions are answered by comparing perceptions of farmers and communication workers on

local level and disentangling variations in them.

6.1 Frames in the local context of Kilagding (UDP) and Kinamayan (NEH)

6.1.1 Convergence of frames in Kilagding

Analyses of the development of frames on DFS through time show the impact of communicative

intervention on the informants’ patterns of thinking and on their livelihood strategies.

Analyses of frames on DFS as a socio-technological innovation show that there is a variation of

perceptions between the communication workers and the farmers. Also within the group of farmers,

125

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ frames vary. Generally speaking, the frames of the interviewed farmers converge over time (past,

present and future) because they aspire a similar future, namely to develop a farming system in which

fruit trees play a central role. Underlying reasons in which these frames are constructed differ

according to the farmers’ household situation, their access to resources and labour availability. DFS is

mainly perceived (by communication worker and farmers) as an innovation that changes management

and market related thinking. Ecological considerations were valued as very important in the perception

of the communication worker, but not in the perceptions of the farmers. Farmers only take ecological

considerations into account in their present frames, but they are abundant in future aspirations. This is

evident that for farmers, ecological aspects play a minor role in the construction of their frames on

DFS.. Social considerations are perceived as positive incidental circumstances by both the farmers and

the communication worker, but are framed as subordinate to the management and economical

considerations of farmers (and for the communication worker also as subordinate to ecological

aspects).

The impact of the introduction of DFS is evident considering the fact that less than a decade ago all of

the key informants were cultivating corn; mainly for their own subsistence need and they were

unaware of the environmental impact of their cultural practices. The reality of farmers in Kilagding

changed visibly, due to a change in their mindset or a least by a willingness and trust (in DFS as an

innovation and in UDP as an organisation). Despite restrictions (in access to resources, labour

availability and composition of the household) the majority of the beneficiaries started to change or

aspires to change their corn based land use system to a diversified system in which fruit trees play a

central role. This perception aligns with the view of the communication worker. DFS triggers farmers

to change their subsistence way of thinking towards a more market led cognition. Yet, it did not

change as the communication worker intended. Although, it is true that farmers started to take more

market considerations into account, it is not similar to the level on which the communication worker

expects them to be. He expects them to sell their fruits on the market and buy their staple food. The

latter is not yet done by farmers, while they still grow corn as a security crop. This might be out of old

habits (past experience), no complete trust in the market yet or because the fruit trees are not yet

productive. Departing from these variations in frames, I would like to argue, that introduction of a

farming innovation that fits to the local context of farmers is possible. At least, as long as it fits to the

farmers’ aspirations of long term secure income. DFS as an innovation appears to be intrinsically

flexible (farmers are able to adapt the system to their own situation), which paradoxically causes

ambiguity of perceptions between the communication worker and the (dominant view of) farmers. The

ecological goal of the communication worker (decreasing soil erosion) does not fit to the farmers’

livelihood strategies (survival of household on corn, due to the past experience). The fact that future

aspirations of farmers do not include any ecological considerations, pinpoints that these are not valued

(or not understood) as that important as the communication worker would like them to be. This causes

126


a dissonance in the view between the communication worker and the farmers.

Decreasing soil erosion is thus subordinate to the present and future economical considerations of

farmers. The economical drivers are leading (still producing corn next to fruit trees) and ecological

thinking is only incorporated as long as it does not interfere with the farmers’ economic goals. The

sustainability of DFS as an innovation as it is intended by UDP (to abandon corn production and focus

completely on mid and long term crops) can be questioned. Only combinations of corn (cultural

aspects) and long term fruit trees (DFS) seem a possible win-win option for both parties. Yet, then an

adjustment of the initial ecological goal of UDP is necessary.

The relationship between the communication worker and farmers is perceived as trustworthy. In first

instance trust in UDP as an organisation and in second instance trust in the communication worker as

individual and as a representative of UDP are important aspects for farmers. Frames depict on

differences in the level of dependency in the present situation and the future aspiration between the

communication worker and the farmers. The frame of the communication worker develops from

having a superior position in the relationship (in terms of knowledge on DFS and access to resources)

to an equally dependent relationship in future. In the dominant frame of the farmers an equal

relationship is aspired for future, but signs of dependency on the communication worker remain

visible. The dependency that constitutes these frames can be interpreted as differences in power

(although neither farmers nor the communication worker used the word power) in which there exists a

difference in authority, expertise and resources that the farmers do not posses yet (Gray, 2003).

Relational proximity proved to be of lesser importance than trust and dependency (power) and starts to

play a role after the trust is established. Hence, I argue that the farmer-communication worker

relationship is dependent on trust in the organisation behind the communication worker (UDP). When

trust in this organisation is absent, it will be difficult to establish a trustworthy relationship between

the farmer and the communication worker. Concluding, I would like to argue that trust in the DFS as

an innovation, is mutually dependent on trust in the individual relationship between farmers-extension

workers and on trust in UDP as an organisation.

The innovation process, described as (1) joint experimenting & knowledge exchange, (2) up-scaling &

institutionalising and (3) dissemination in a similar region takes places at different levels. In the local

context of Kilagding, only the 1st and 3rd processes take place on grass root level. Knowledge exchange

and joint experimenting take place on the ‘learning site’ and farmers and the communication worker

show a positive attitude towards the seminars and meetings that are held there. Experience of

knowledge exchange via informal pathways (family) is not consciously perceived as knowledge

exchange by farmers or by the communication worker. Farmers experience constraints in attendance of

seminars, due to a lack of time. The communication worker’s view varies highly in this respect. He

does acknowledge these constraints, but does not perceive them as valid reasons for absence.

127

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ Divergence of frames between farmers and communication worker in the present situation lead to

favouritism of large, resource full farmers and to exclusion of small, young and resource poor farmers.

Abundance of future aspirations in frames of both communication worker and farmers depict an

unawareness of the distinction between exchange of knowledge and dissemination of innovations.

In terms of dissemination of innovations, the goal of the FTG as a ‘means of extension’ is understood

by both the communication worker and the farmers, but frames between the farmers and the

communication worker vary on the level of independency. The gap between the view of the

communication worker (who frames the FTG as an independent group) and the farmers (who frame

the FTG as dependent on the communication worker) is distinct in future perceptions. This indicates

that farmers might not fully understand the future purpose of the FTG as intended by the

communication worker (they do understand their task to spread the DFS, but do not understand the

level of independency that is expected from them as a group). Frames make me assume that they have

little confidence in their functioning as an independent group. From the communication worker’s side,

no explicit attention is paid to what farmer are spreading (practice of DFS, knowledge behind DFS or

both). A consequence is that farmers only spread the ‘practice’ and not the background of it. This is a

potential gap that can constrain the sustainability of the DFS on the long term.

6.1.2 Ambiguity of frames in Kinamayan

Analyses of frames on Cavendish cultivation through time show the impact of intervention on the

informants’ patterns of thinking and on their livelihood strategies. Cavendish cultivation is mainly

perceived (by communication worker and farmers) as a technical innovation to increase the farmers’

economical situation. Its introduction had an immense impact on the management and economical

considerations of farmers in Kinamayan. The majority of the farmers and the communication worker

do not pay specific attention to ecological or social thinking (they are not aware or they do not care)

and perceive these as rather static entities. Still, from my point of view, Cavendish as innovation does

not only influence market and management consideration, its impact is also reflected (negatively) in

social patterns of thinking.

Content wise, frames between farmers and the communication worker on Cavendish cultivation as an

innovation diverge highly. Cavendish cultivation forced farmers to abandon their rice cultivation;

therewith changing the nature of their mixed on -and off farm households (in terms of management

and income). To make Cavendish cultivation equally profitable to the former household revenue of

rice cultivation and off-farm activities, a re-organisation of the households’ on- and off farm activities

is necessary. This re-arrangement is not recognised by the communication worker, which creates his

negative frame of farmers’ management capabilities (too little time investment from his point of view).

This divergence increases in future frames where the communication worker on one side focuses on

128


specialisation and development of the Cavendish cultivation and the farmers on the other side, who

focus on development of a multi farming system with off farm employment (not only dependent on

bananas) or aspire to go back to rice. Either way, the dominant perspective of the farmers is not

coherent with the frame of the communication worker. Both sides show little room for convergence.

This divergence is stimulated by the present economical situation of farmers and the high risks of pests

in Cavendish cultivation. This divergence becomes more evident when reviewing the development of

economical considerations that are taken into account by farmers and the communication worker. Only

a minority of the farmers align with the communication worker’s frame by showing their

understanding of producing high quality fruits. While the communication worker’s future aspiration

has maximum yield as focal point, farmers focus on paying of their debts as main future consideration.

In the perception of the communication worker, incomes must have increased. This view is

diametrically opposed to the farmers perception of reality; they frame their economical situation as

decreased (because of debts), if compared to the past. This economical perspective blocks

development of future aspirations. Abundance of social considerations reflects the difficult situation in

which farmers find themselves nowadays.

Analysis of frames on the relation through time shows that trust and dependency play an important

role in this context, whereas relation proximity is of lesser importance. Perceptions on the relationship

between farmers and communication worker have been predetermined by the role division (power in

terms of access to resources and expertise on Cavendish bananas) that is imbedded in the economical

relationship between NEH and the farmers (customer-supplier). From the past to the present situation

the individual relationship between farmers and communication worker were valued as more important

for both farmers and the communication worker. Main aspects for farmers to gain trust in the

communication worker are his knowledge on Cavendish bananas and his family ties. Unlike the

farmers, the communication worker does not display full confidence in their relationship, while trust

seems to be based on his family ties rather than his knowledge. Future views show a convergence from

both sides to a trustworthy relationship, however they still depicts on unequality in terms of

dependency. Both stakeholders frame the communication worker as superior in terms of expertise on

Cavendish bananas and the farmers as inferior. Arguably, actors do not seek equality because of the

preset boundaries (supplier-customer) of this relation. The dissonance in the presentation of this data

(the majority of the farmers have trust in the knowledge and skills of the communication worker even

though they do not aspire to completely specialise to Cavendish bananas) could be caused different

aspects. First, the presence of the communication worker during the interviews and the nature of the

Philippinos not to have critique on anybody openly have biased this data. The dissonance in future

frames concerning the farmers aspiration to have complete trust although the majority of them aspire a

less intensive production system can be caused by the negative atmosphere that I observed amongst

the farmers. From the farmers point of view debts and the risk of diseases drives them to not relay

129

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ completely on Cavendish cultivation solely, but still as this is at the moment their only source of

income, they incorporate all advice that is given to them.

The innovation process on grass root level in Kinamayan is based on the dissemination of knowledge.

Up-scaling and knowledge & experimenting take place on other levels respectively between NEH and

the cooperative and in a laboratory environment. The exchange system is perceived as one-directional

by communication worker and farmers at present time. Agenda’s, topics of seminars and farm walks

do not included active participation of the farmers. The communication worker does not recognise the

farmers’ drive to gain advice via informal channels (via relatives, neighbours and friends), which is

one of the reasons for the differences in cultural practices. Farmers, who do incorporate the advice of

the communication worker when it is applicable to them, frame themselves as ‘obeying’, which is

diametrically opposed to the communication worker’s frame of farmers as ‘not following’ his advice.

Neither communication worker nor the majority of the farmers recognise that there is a misdirection of

information in the system. Analysis of the exchange system (both seminars and field walks) proved

that it is intrinsically designed for communication in one dimension; directly from communication

worker to farmers who cultivated the land themselves. Diversity of supervision (Vellema, 2002) and a

gender bias cause a complexity in communication which is not incorporated in the system at present

time. Due to the fact that no future suggestions have been made for improvement of either seminars or

field walks I argue that both parties are content with the linear intervention model because they are not

familiar with other options. From the communication workers side, farmers should simply follow his

advice. From the farmers’ side, they seem dependent on the advice from intervening parties, but the

decision making power and determining of best practices stays in their own hands. The intentions of

this exchange system (with farmers as followers and NEH who assume they can influence cultural

practices) are not in line with the farmers’ strategy of information gathering (gaining information via

formal and informal pathways). Farmers reveal themselves as entrepreneurs, who incorporate advice

only when it fits to their present economical and management situation. Overall, Cavendish cultivation

as an innovation is perceived as negative by farmers (apart from exceptions) and as positive by the

communication worker.

In this case study the ambiguity of perspectives is evident. Frames do not only vary to a large extend,

they sometimes diametrically oppose each other, which leaves little room for dialogue (from all sides).

The situation could to turn into a deadlock, when the communication worker is reluctant to put himself

into the position of the farmers. The sustainability of this socio-technological innovation as it is

intended by NEH (to create a specialised high input farming system that fits to the farmers livelihood

strategy) is not yet established. To create a win-win situation for farmers and communication worker a

change in cognitions on both sides is necessary; to take in, make room for and evaluate different

opinions, which can lead to a change in perception on Cavendish cultivation and lead to a process of

130


joint sense making.

6.2 Complexity of innovations; perceptions on local level and consequences for science

6.2.1 Unequal spread of technical practices

Bluntly speaking, the term ‘farmer’ refers to male or female actors in this study whose household is

organised around farming activities. In this study, I often referenced to the term ‘farmers’ as if it is a

homogeneous group. During my fieldwork I concluded that it is not a homogeneous group. One of the

outcomes of my analysis it that frames do not only vary between communication worker and farmers.

Also in between the group of farmers, variations in perceptions exist, pointing out the heterogenic

nature of these actors. Multiple actors with different backgrounds, education and experiences assumes

that they have different cognitive structures which determine how they interpret new experiences

(Schut, 2006). Still, when analysing the variations in perceptions, dominant frames can be detected

within the interviewed group of farmers. Conditions which shape these cognitions differ from farmer

to farmer individually, but as derived from both case studies, development of a dominant frame

indicates development of a certain pattern of thinking. The communication workers tend to associate

themselves with farmers who are on the same wavelength, which in the case study of UDP, leads to

favouritism of the ‘progressive farmers’ and exclusion of small, young farmers who have less

resources or time available. This event is called the ‘progressive farmer bias as a self-reinforcing

process’ (Leeuwis, 2004: 137). Communication workers tend to focus on those farmers who fit best to

their own preferred model of farm development. Whether there is a minority or majority of farmers

whose frames are align with that of the communication worker, these farmers will be forwarded as

‘progressive, advanced, or innovative’. Communication workers in participatory environments who

are seeking for frames (in terms of the content of the innovation, but also in terms of the relationship

and the process of innovation) that align with their own perception will therefore reinforce the process

of the ‘progressive farmers bias’ and will pay less attention to the needs and problems of the

‘excluded’ farmer. In the case study of UDP these progressive farmers are put forward, expecting that

they will be able to spread the innovations automatically. Especially in the case study of UDP where

favouritism is very obvious and a special group is formed to disseminate DFS, assumptions that this is

an automatic process proved wrong. I will go one step further than Leeuwis, who argues that

‘progressive farmers (who adopted innovations) can not be expected to actively support dissemination’

(Leeuwis, 2004: 138) by arguing that even if they are actively involved in dissemination of

innovations, it does not guarantee sustainability of the innovation (defined in paragraph 2.2 as a means

to ensure continued use and development of innovations so that farmers are capable of maintaining it

at a certain level, in which ecological, social and economic demands are satisfied). Supported by my

case studies, farmers (aware or unaware of their role as ‘spreader’) rather spread the ‘practice’ than the

knowledge behind the innovation. Thus, I argue that unequal spread of technical practices, which are

131

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ caused by the heterogenic nature of actors cognitions and enforced by the progressive farmer bias, is

an obstructing factor for the sustainability of innovations.

6.2.2 Innovations require institutional changes

Another important issue in sustainability of innovations is the segmented nature of the ‘spreader’

(gender, tribe, religion, status) and the collective nature of innovations (Leeuwis, 2004). The latter

opposes the traditional diffusion theory that innovations are rather individual phenomena. Changing

the mindset of individual farmers to create willingness and trust to change (Röling, 1997) should be

put in a broader perspective, because development is not only dependent on individual changes in

mindset, it also involves simultaneous and co-ordinated changes by a variety of actors (male farmers,

female farmers, buyers, barangay captains, suppliers, etc). Different levels of change are necessary, in

which different actors adopt interconnected sub-divisions of innovations (Leeuwis, 2004). To achieve

this, the perception of reality from the involved actors should be reframed. Arguably, the sustainability

of innovations is an interconnected process of collective and individual phenomena (reframing) that

take place at multiple levels and between different actors and is based on trust in the innovations itself

as well as trust in the communication worker and the process of innovation.

Perceptions on innovations are in this thesis analysed by variations in frames on grass root level,

between farmers and communication workers. Important aspects are conceptualised by past

experiences, present situation and future aspiration related to (1) the content of the innovation, (2) the

relationship between farmers and communications worker and (3) the process of innovation. The case

studies show that it should be possible to introduce socio-technological innovations that fit to the

farmers’ livelihood strategy if the design of the innovation is flexible. Farmers individually adapt,

change and reinvent innovations (or adopt partly) according to their own situation (this thesis).

Examples of this can be seen in the case study of UDP, where farmers still grow corn next fruits trees

to overcome risks and the adjustment of the hedgerows with no economic value into pineapple

hedgerows with economic value. In the case of NEH, farmers aspire to develop their present mono

cropping systems into a multi cropping system to overcome risks. To create win-win situations (for

UDP: farmers economical survival strategy vs. the ecological goals of UDP) (for NEH: management

and economical goal of farmers vs. the quality goal of NEH) the multi–layered character of

innovations has to be acknowledged and adjustment of goals from intervening parties is necessary. If

innovations do not fit to the aspired livelihood strategy of the farmer, they might fall back to their

previous frame of reference, which is shaped by their cognitions on past experience, present situation

and their future aspiration. When a lack of trust in the innovation and organisation and a lack of

flexibility appear, an apparent change in mindset (and thus reframing) of actors does not occur.

In both case studies, multiple frames of reference between farmers and in between farmers and the

132


communication worker were divergent on one hand and convergent on the other hand. The meaning of

the innovations, the relationship between farmers and the communication workers and the process of

innovation was perceived differently by different stakeholders; based on their past experience, present

situation and future aspirations. ‘Ambiguity or divergence of frames create an opportunity for change,

while it triggers joint sense making’ (and thus reframing) leads Dewulf to conclude that ‘innovations

need ambiguity of frames to happen’ (Dewulf, et al., 2005). I do not completely agree with this

statement. Heterogeneity of frames (and thus heterogeneity of actors) is necessary to create a change,

but when frames of farmers and communication workers are diametrically opposed (as occurred in the

case study of NEH) a dead lock situation can appear, leaving no room for mutual understanding. Based

on analysis from both of the case studies, I argue that innovations need a level of heterogeneity

(ambiguity) in frames, yet patterns of thinking should display opportunities for convergence over time.

A change in patterns of thinking is one factor (but not the only one) that has the potential to catalyse

innovations on local level. A first step to create convergence is make actors aware of the differences in

their frames and the cause of these differences (Van Paassen, written com, 2006). When this diversity

is visible an opportunity for convergence can be discussed. Communication workers should have the

ability to put themselves in the situation of the farmers and try to understand why they act the way

they do (e.g. continue to grow corn, continue their off farm employment, relaying on the knowledge

and power from the communication worker). The risks of farmers should be placed explicitly in the

knowledge frame of NEH and UDP as organisations. During my stay in the Philippines I experienced

the ‘yes/no’ hierarchy, which restricts actors to probe. This cultural aspect (being satisfied with an

answer even though it is not understood) has to be overcome to learn actors how to probe. The

presentation of my initial results at NEH (with presence of communication workers, production staff

and executive directors) that their advice is not always feasible to the individual farmers, because they

have a different perception to that of the communication worker, caused at first a silence and later

interest and room for discussion. It became clear that the frames of the farmers were never made

explicit and were not part of the organisation’s frame of reference. The presentation made these frames

and the differences in frames explicit within the organisation and caused actors to listen and to start

thinking themselves about their approach and their relationship with the farmers. The presentation

triggered the communication workers to start discussing together with the farmers how the

demonstration field can become more than a showcase of ‘best practices in Cavendish cultivation and

how the relationship between NEH and the farmers can be improved.

During fieldwork I experienced that cognitions on the content of the innovations are thought through

by farmers and that they can easily make these explicit. The cognitions on the relationship between the

farmers and the communication worker and the innovation process were difficult for the informants to

explain. Assuming that both farmers and the communication worker never discussed this openly, it

appeared that these cognitions are less obvious. Absence of opinions about the process of innovation

133

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ and the relationships makes me assume that this was the first time that actors were asked to make these

cognitions explicit. This eludes me to conclude that the frames on the relationship, which should

converge towards a trustworthy and interdependent relation, were in first instance not explicitly valued

as important for the sustainability of the innovations by communication worker or farmers. Neither did

they discuss and analyse the innovations process and the expectations of farmers within this process.

6.2.3 The role of science

I started to question one aspect of science, namely the connection between theoretical science and

applied science. On academic level, perceptions on innovations have changed. They changed from

linear, one-dimensional (based on the positivist paradigm) to multi-dimensional and participatory

(based on the constructivist paradigm). This change occurred already during the 90s and theories,

design of innovations and intervention methods gradually changed coherently. Yet, on local level

(even in a participatory based intervention program as UDP, let alone the linear intervention

programme of NEH) innovations are mostly framed as one-dimensional by the involved actors. They

fail to see (or programmes fail transparency) innovations as more than a ‘technology’. The gap

between applied science on local level and theoretical science is immense. In laymen terms; what is

the aim of developing theories and concepts, if they fail to reach grass root level? In a discussion with

the communication worker of UDP, he specifically referred to the difference in language between

external scientists and himself. From my perspective, this gap would be an interesting point of entry

for further research.

6.3 Theoretical considerations on frames

Final, I would like to reflect on the use of ‘framing’ as a main framework for this study. Frames as

described by Gray (2003) are a tool to interpret, shape and organise the world around us.

Operationalising frames into three time dimensions gave me the opportunity to analyse actors’

cognitions and see their development through the tree dimensions of time. Frames are perceptions that

people put forward in a certain context. They display what an actor would like to achieve. Yet, frames

are neither solid nor static entities. They might be based on actors’ cognitions, but frames can also be

used (consciously or unconsciously) to situate one as ‘socially responsible’. In other words, they show

what the audience wants them to show and this is not necessarily their own frame. This touches upon a

discrepancy in the framing theory. There is ambivalence in what people say they do and what people

actually do.

Frames focus on cognitions and do not include tacit knowledge. Framing as a theory deals with

‘espoused theory’ or ‘Weltanschauungen based on values that people believe their behaviour is based

on’ (Argyris & Schon in Anderson, 1994). This theory differs from the ‘theory in use’ in which the

world view is based on values of actors as implied by their behaviour (Argyris & Schon in Anderson,

134


1994). According to Argyris, it is not merely a difference in what actors say and what they do, but it is

a difference in theories that are applied (espoused vs. in use). Most actors are unaware of their theory

in use and are thus unaware of the difference between their appliance of espoused theory and theory in

use. Framing enabled me to disentangle frames of farmers and communication workers on

innovations. Reflecting on the work of Argyris, perceptions of actors are shaped by espoused theory,

as well as theory in-use. In this sense, framing only enabled me to discover half of the actors

‘Weltanschauungen’. In some parts of my analysis I referred to my own observations, to complement

or contradict the frames of the informants. Combinations of framing and theory in us would therefore

have given me a more complete overview of the actors’ perceptions.

The stakeholders in this study have been divided into two groups: the communication workers on one

side and the farmers on the other side. In these case studies, the perceptions of multiple farmers have

been compared with the perception of one communication worker. When analysing variations in

frames, I find it reasonable to question the validity of these ‘unequal’ comparisons. In the local context

it is valid, because there is only one communication worker present. The choice of taking Kinamayan

and Kilagding as case studies, restricted me to involve more communication workers. The method and

outcome are valid for the context in which they are used. In general, the scope of this study should be

seen as a method to analyse variations and ambiguity of frames. To get a complete overview of the

variations in perceptions, the frames at higher level of UPD and NEH can be analysed with a similar

method. Leeuwis (2004) asked why field workers see more difficulty with using participatory

approaches than their supervisors do. These differences can be made explicit using a framing theory.

Analysis of frames on multiple levels (from grass root to executive level) can be used as a method to

indicate conflicts or obstructions between cooperating actors. This will also reveal why, how and

where links to the scientific debate are made. The added value of framing as a theoretical framework is

to make differences in perceptions visible and explicit. By discussing and analysing these differences

with the involved actors a mutual understanding of problems and joint sense making can appear, which

can lead to a mutual problem definition. At this point a convergence of frames will enable actors to

solve the conflicts together.

The added value of using framing in this study is that it allowed me to make knowledge explicit.

Asking questions regarding past, present and future perceptions obliged actors to think about their

perceptions. Farmers and communication workers did not discuss openly about their relationship and

the innovation process before. Assuming this is the main reason why ideas about future relationships

and what kind of process could be more useful did not directly come up, it did trigger them to think

about these specific issues. The influence of obliging farmers and communication workers to make

this knowledge explicit was seen in a later stadium (after my fieldwork). In the case of NEH, the

communication workers started to communicate and determine in cooperation with the farmers about

135

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ possible win-win options for the establishment of the demonstration farm and how to strengthen and

improve their relationship. Thus, framing can be used as a method to make variations in frames

explicit for all stakeholders and these variations can be the lead towards mutual understanding in

agricultural innovation systems.

Shortly, I would like to come back to the title of this thesis: ‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’.

I chose it as the title because, it reflects on the wait & see attitude of the Philippine farmer that I

observed during the fieldwork. More important maybe, the quote signifies that ‘reality’ is not always

what it seems, because it refers to the perception of a farmer that ‘waiting’ referred to other activities

he was engaged in, like growing corn or having off farm employment. These perceptions were not

visible until their frame was made explicit.

136

Pitfalls in research

Pitfalls in research

Strictly speaking, I did not experience serious limitations during the research in the provinces of

Davao del Norte and Compostela valley. Yet, reflecting on the process of this study, I have to

acknowledge that there are some limiting factors that have affected the outcomes of this study. These

shortcomings are related to:

(1) selection of the research places

(2) selection of the informants

(3) type of informants

(4) use of translators

The selection process of Kinamayan and Kilagding as places for the case studies is done in

cooperation with researchers of NEH and UDP. In the case of UDP, whose programme is scattered

over approximately 120 ‘barangays’ in South Mindanao, choice was restricted because of safety issues

(presence of militant groups like NPA) and a language barrier. The research place had to be relatively

safe and the local communication worker had to speak English (to avoid language problems).

Kilagding proved to be a place where farmers and the communication worker are active and mostly

positive. The development and spread of DFS can be considered as advanced, amongst others due to

their behaviour. Other villages, where DFS was just recently introduced could have given me a

complete different perspective. In the case study of NEH, choice was restricted to three villages.

Kinamayan was considered to be the safest place (least presence of NPA and little rivalry between the

different banana companies), but in the mean time also the least developed (rather new banana area).

Choice of one of the other villages, where farmers were more experienced with banana cultivation

would have changed the outcome of this case study.

Selection of informants was a limiting factor in Kilagding. The list of households was filtered by the

communication worker for supporters of NPA. Therefore the sample of informants was limited and

biased.

With regard to the type of informants; the scope of my research focussed on the dynamics of

innovation processes designed and triggered by UDP and NEH. The methodology I used involved and

focussed only on beneficiaries of these two organisations. I did not include perceptions of non-

beneficiaries, while their perspectives lay beyond the scope of this research. Yet, enclosure of their

views would have allowed me to go deeper into the analysis of spreading of innovations.

cxxxvii

‘...And now we wait until the fruits grow’ Use of translators was necessary due to the language barrier of the ‘bisaya’ dialect. Because of limited

resources it was not possible to use independent translators, which might have given me a more

objective view. The communication workers, who translated for me, have their own agenda and are

personally involved with key informants. A translator bias was therefore inevitable.

Despite these pitfalls and limitations, all actors involved with NEH or UDP have given me their full

cooperation and support. Arguably, this research might be biased, but its outcome does reveal the

dynamics of innovations and its processes in local context.

cxxxviii

Appendixes

Appendixes

Appendix 1 DFS model of a farm as promoted by UDP

cxxxix

Appendixes

Appendix 1 DFS model of a farm48

DFS farm model using different crops on different slopes

Simplified example of planting method in DFS

48 Figures derived from UDP intern presentation on Diversified Farming System, 2002, Davao city.

cxli

References

References

Articles and books

Aarts, N. and van M. Lieshout (2005) Buiten gebeurt het! Perspectieven van jongeren en immigranten

op openbare ruimtes in Nederland. Communicatiewetenschappen Wageningen, Agricultural

University Wageningen, Wageningen

Aarts, N., and C van Woerkum (1994) Wat heet natuur? De communicatie tussen overheid en boeren

over natuur en natuurbeleid. Landbouw Universiteit Wageningen, Wageningen

Aarts, N., and C van Woerkum (2002) Dealing with uncertainty in solving complex problems. In:

Wheelbarrows full of frogs, social learning in rural resource management, Leeuwis, C., and

R. Pyburn (2002), Koninklijke van Gorcum, Assen

Aarts, N., and C van Woerkum (2005) Frame construction in interaction. Unfinished draft paper for

the MOPAN Conference, June 2005, Wales

Anderson, L. (1994) Espoused theories and theory in use: bridging the gap. http://www.scu.edu.au

Visited on 27th of September 2006

Baron, R.S., and N. L. Kerr, (2003) Group process, group decision, group action. Open University

Press, Buckingham, Philadelphia, pp. 6- 11

Bernard, H. R. (1995) Research methods in anthropology. Alta Mira Press, London, Chapter 2, 4 and

14, pp. 19-50, pp. 94-101, pp.310- 331

Blumentritt, F. (1882) Versuch einer Ethnographie der Philippinen. In: Petermann’s Mitteilungen,

Vol 67, pp. 1-69

De Buck, A.J., I. van Rijn, N. Röling et al. (2001) Farmers’ reasons for changing or not changing to

more sustainable practices: an exploratory study of arable farming in the Netherlands. Journal

of agricultural education and extension, Vol. 7, no. 3, pp.153-166

Dewulf, A., M. Craps, R. Bouwen, et al. (2005) Integrated management of natural resources: dealing

with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water and science technology,

Vol 52, no. 6, pp. 115-124

Dewulf, A., B. Gray, L. Putnam, et al. (2005) Disentangling approaches to framing; mapping the

terrain. Theoretical paper for the IACM 2005 Conference

Eder, J. F. (1999) A generation later. Household strategies and economic change in the rural

Philippines. University of Hawaii Press, USA

Engel, P.G.H. (1997) The social organisation of innovation. A focus on stakeholder interaction.

Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam

Ferreira, S., E. Trujillo and D. Ogata (1997) Banana bunchy top virus. Plant Disease. Vol 12, p 1-4

College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTAHR), University of Hawaii

cxliii

‘…and now we wait until the fruits grow’ Goffman, E. (1974) Frame analysis: an essay on the organisation of experience. Harper Colophon,

New York

Gray, B. (2003) Framing of environmental disputes. In: Making sense of the intractable

environmental conflicts, Lewicki, R.J., B. Gray, and M. Elliot, Washington DC, Island press

Gray, B. (2004) Interactive seminar on power and partnerships. Sheets handout, IAC Wageningen

Hayami, Y. (1985) An ecological and historical perspective on agriculture development in South East

Asia. Paper prepared for the World Bank DECRG. Aoyama-Gakuin University, SIPEB,

Tokyo.

Jones, S. (2002) A framework for understanding on-farm environmental degradation and constraints

to the adoption of soil conservation measures: case studies from highland Tanzania and

Thailand. World development, vol. 30, No.9, pp. 1607-1620

Leeuwis, C., A. van den Ban (2004) Communication for rural innovation. Rethinking agricultural

extension. Blackwell Science Ltd. Oxford

Leeuwis, C., N. Röling and G. Bruin (1998) Can the farmer field school replace the T&V system of

extension in sub-Saharan Africa? Some answers from Zanzibar. Proceedings of the

15th International symposium of the Association for farming Systems Research Extension

‘Going beyond the farm Boundary’, Pretoria, 29 November to 4 December 1994

Long, N. (2001) Development Sociology, actor perspective, London and New York, Routledge.

Moris, J. (1991) Extension alternatives in tropical Africa. Overseas Development Institute, Regent's

College, Inner circle, Regent's Park, London

Neuvel, J. and N. Aarts (2004) Voorbij de leek, de wetenschapper en de moralist. Tijdschrift voor

Sociaal wetenschappelijk onderzoek van de Landbouw, Vol 19, No. 4, pp. 208-216

Ntifo-Siaw, E. and R. Aguna (1994) A comparative study of management effectiveness under the

Training and Visit and General Extension systems in Ghana. Journal of agricultural

education, Vol 35, No 4, pp.36-41

Olson, K.D. (2004) Farm management. Principles and strategies. Iowa state Press

Oxford Dictionary of English (2003), second edition, Oxford University Press

Poate, C.D., and P.F. Daplyn (1993) Data for agrarian development, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press. Chapter 2, 3 and 4, pp. 43-85

Rap, E and A. Boon (2004) Preparing exploratory research. A guideline for the design of a

research proposal for Maks students. Wageningen University

Reijntjes, C., B. Havertkort and A. Waters-Bayer (1992) Farming for the future. An introduction to

Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. ILEIA/ Macmillan Press LTD, London and

Basingstoke

Rogers, E.M. (1983) Diffusion of innovations, 1st edition, Free Press, New York

cxliv

References

Röling, N. (1997) The soft side of land: socio-economic sustainability of land use systems. Group

Communication and Innovations studies, Agricultural University Wageningen, the

Netherlands

Röling, N., and P.G.H. Engel (1992) The development of the concept of agricultural knowledge

information systems: implications for extension. In: W.M. Rivera & D.J. Gustafson (Eds.),

Agricultural extension: Worldwide Institutional evolution and forces for change .Elsevier

science publishing, New York

Röling, N., and F. de Jong (1998) Learning: shifting paradigms in education and extension studies.

The journal of agricultural education and extension, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.143-161

Rosales, G. L. (2004) Until the bell rings! Perspectives of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARB) on

sugarcane farming: La Carlota district, Negros Occidental, Philippines. MSC thesis of

management of agro- ecological knowledge and social change, Agricultural University

Wageningen, Wageningen

Schut, M. (2006) A house does not make a home. Challenging paradigms through farmer field

schools. MSc thesis, Communication and Innovation studies, Wageningen University.

Southwold, S. (2002) Methods and techniques of field research, Wageningen Agricultural University,

Wageningen, pp. 1-14

Steins, N. (2002) Understanding platform processes through Actor-Network Theory. In:

Wheelbarrows full of frogs, social learning in rural resource management, Leeuwis, C., and

R. Pyburn (2002), Koninklijke van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands.

Vaessen, J. and J. de Groot (2004) Evaluating training projects on low external input agriculture:

lessons from Guatemala. ODI, Agricultural Research and Extension Network, Agren Network

Paper, Vol 139, p. 1-11

Van den Ban, A.W. (1999) Agricultural development; opportunities and threats for farmers and

implications for extension organizations. The journal of agricultural education and extension,

1999, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 145-156

Van Huis, A., and F. Meerman (1997) Can we make IPM work for resource-poor farmers in sub-

Saharan Africa? International journal of pest management, Vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 313-320

Van Velsen, J. (1967) The extended- case method and situational analysis. In: Epstein, A.L., et al.,

The craft of social anthropology. London, Tavistock

Vellema, S. (2002) Making contract farming work? Society and technology in Philippine trans-

national agribusiness. PhD dissertation, Wageningen University

Viloria, B., P. Dashiel, W. van Rij and A. Tabbada (2005) A land use based agro forestry approach in

the uplands diversified farming systems. Paper for presentation to the 2nd National Agro

forestry Congress on 26.10.2005 at the Provincial Capitol Complex, Pili, Camarines Sur.

Washington, J., J. Cruz, F. Lopez, and M. Fajardo (1998) Infection studies of Mycosphaerella fijiensis

on Banana and the Control of Black Sigatoka with Chlorothalonil. In: Plant Disease,Vol 82, p.

cxlv


1185- 1190, ISK Biosciences Corporation, La Lima, Honduras

Yin, R.K. (1984) Case study research: design and methods. Sage, Beverly hills, Chapter 1, pp. 13- 26

Websites

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/framing/ Last visited on 15th of August 2006

http://www.cia.org Last visited on 16th of August 2006

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/Philipp.htm Visited on 10th of July 2006

http://www.nehphil.com/ Last visited on 30th of August 2006

http://www.nscb.gov.ph Visited on 2nd of September 2006

http://www.saveuplands.org Last visited on 30th of August 2006

cxlvi

Documents

New and now we wait until the fruits grow’saveuplands.org/05 Final thesis Hanneke Hermans.pdf · 2014. 10. 12. · Title : ‘…And now we wait until the fruits grow’ Subtitle