Summary
The decision-making process of the farmer in his production system requires the understanding of multiple interactions of the different components of the agro-ecosystem. Phytosanitary research needs to contribute to these understandings through participatory mechanisms where the researcher facilitates the necessary understanding and encourages favorable decisions. As part of the project Total elimination of the use of Methyl Bromide in soil treatments, substrates, warehouses and structures ”(Project No. MP / CUB / 04/133 in Cuban agriculture, a capacity development strategy was designed for the adoption of of integrated pest management as a replacement alternative in protected crops, which was governed by the principles of participatory action research.The methodological design was based on a model of construction and collective appropriation of knowledge that consisted of three key moments: process design, implementation and continuous improvement (systematization). In the design stage, diagnosis, training and on-site demonstration were identified as basic components for adopting an IPM model. Each of the key moments, in turn, has interrelated stages that involved producers and researchers in the construction of knowledge which allowed: a) to develop capacities in phytosanitary diagnosis, b) to elaborate and implement IPM models according to the needs of each productive site, c) decentralize phytosanitary decision making in vegetable producing units under protected conditions in the provinces of Havana, Ciego de Ávila,Cienfuegos, Villa Clara and Holguín. The total elimination of the use of the biocide was achieved 2 years after the project started, the chemical applications were significantly reduced and the biological alternative was implemented with high efficiency.
Introduction
The sustainability paradigm questions the traditional concept of agriculture, which addresses it exclusively from the productive point of view and focuses on the exploitation of agricultural systems. The need to make adjustments in conventional agriculture to favor environmentally and economically viable practices, as well as socially acceptable ones, guides the development of projects that give holistic answers to the problems that arise in the agricultural context.
The design of strategies for the integrated management of pests emerges as a solution, converted into a work philosophy of the producer that promotes the management of different practices (agro-technical, physical, chemical, biological, etc.) for the control of pests. From this point of view, capacity building becomes a key moment for any project that promotes the use of IPM.
From the perspective of the context-centric mode of knowledge generation (Souza et al 2000), the capacity building process can be understood as a systematic and planned effort to modify or develop knowledge, techniques and attitudes through experience, reflection, study or instruction. This process is not completed through a single training or training event, but requires social participation. Its essence is transformative because it is directed towards change and innovation and is only completed with the application of what has been learned in the context where it is required.
The need to know in depth how the technology adoption process occurs for this particular case, as well as to delve into the factors that drive or restrict the current development of the aforementioned experience, to generate lessons, was a challenge of this project.
Development
The work was based on the methodological principles of participatory action research. For this case it was prescribed: a) place the center of the changes in the agricultural producer and make him responsible for them; b) acknowledge the past history of the farming community regarding the problem of the use of methyl bromide for pest control; c) relate the change with the potentialities of the sites and not with their deficiencies and d) contextualize the work according to the social influences of the different production sites.
For the design and implementation of the capacity development strategy, the methodology for the construction and collective appropriation of knowledge was modified (Mato et al, 2001) where the moments in which the process is structured are identified and described (Figure 1.).
Figure 1. Stages and moments in which the process of construction and appropriation of knowledge is structured.
The modifications are related to the grouping of the stages in three moments: design, implementation and continuous improvement. The moments and stages are interrelated and only separated to guarantee the methodological organization of the process. Design: This moment allowed the facilitating team to identify the capacity development needs and evaluate the potential of the participants in the process. In addition, the organization of the same was agreed in terms of objectives, main contents and methods to be used. In the design, experiences were exchanged, criteria for individual and collective reflection were clarified, as well as the concepts that were used during the process were constructed or negotiated.In addition, the review of documents generated in previous stages by the project itself was used as a technique for the initial evaluation.
Implementation: allowed the demonstration of the capabilities developed in the context of its application. It involved the instrumentation of concepts in operational actions and the application of the built MIP model, after validation and experimentation in situ.
Continuous improvement: At this time, the systematization of the implementation of the proposals for the reconfiguration of the knowledge built from practical experience and the readjustment of the MIP models was carried out.
Group and personal communication methods were mainly used. The interaction of those involved was carried out through workshops conformed according to the purpose to be achieved in each stage and where the participants “learn-by-doing”. The following companies by province were taken as reference sites for this work:
Holguin:
Citrícola Jíquima Company
Wilfredo Pena Various Crops Company (Mayabe I grow houses)
Mambisa Division Farm (Rafael Freyre Grow Houses)
Ciego de Avila:
Citrícola Ceballos Company
Havana
Ceiba Citrus Company
Villa Clara:
El Yabú Various Crops Company
Hundred fires:
Horquita Various Crops Company.
The Central Project Team was formed, made up of researchers, technicians and selected producers who were responsible for executing the capacity development process for the adoption of IPM in protected crops. In addition, a network of facilitators was created, made up of representatives of the selected sites, who monitored the actions of the project. At the provincial level, the Provincial Plant Health Laboratories coordinated the work.
During the design of the process, initial workshops were held in order to sensitize managers of business groups and producers about the need to eliminate methyl bromide. The phytosanitary diagnosis was identified in consensus; demonstration - complementary on-site research, and training as basic components of IPM adoption as the key to success (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Basic components of adoption of a MIP model.
For the documentary review on the characteristics of the production of vegetables in protected crops in Cuba, it was identified that:
- It was introduced in 1994, at present it covers around 130 ha, with increasing development in the coming years (Casanova et al, 2007).Productions derived from this type of protected systems are mainly destined for export and the market. Tourism Technology constitutes an intensive form of production, under protected conditions Production units or systems are structured in cultivation houses The form of production is state-owned and the personnel that are linked to it are fundamentally technical. Temperature and humidity cause different harmful agents of the soil to have a significant impact, such as: nematodes, fungi and weeds. Methyl bromide is used as a soil sterilant to control the aforementioned phytosanitary problems.
The results of the participatory phytosanitary diagnosis were taken as a reference (Figure 3). It involved all the project's sites of action through participatory surveys and workshops where it was comprehensively evaluated what problems and potentials existed in the productive units, as well as other technical-productive factors that affect them. It reflects that during 2005 the situation was as follows: ignorance of phytosanitary problems, incidence levels in 22% of the production units refer to chemical measures 100%, with the use of methyl bromide, 92% did not use another control method (only chemical) 85% arbitrary applications of bromide in 46% of the units similarity in the control strategies in the productive units of the different parts of the country.
In the awareness workshops, as well as in initial exchanges with managers, resistance to the elimination of bromide was evidenced. It was alleged that it was impossible to maintain the productive levels achieved without the application of this substance. These results indicate:
- Indiscriminate use of methyl bromide as a phytosanitary control method Lack of knowledge of the causes of phytosanitary problems in protected cultivation systems Inadequate pest control strategy Lack of integrated pest management strategies alternatives to the use of methyl bromide Initial resistance to start the process of changing the phytosanitary strategy.
Figure 3. Organizational chart of the participatory phytosanitary diagnosis designed in the IPM adoption process.
Workshops were organized where researchers, specialists, executives, farmers and technicians from productive companies participated, with the aim of sensitizing those involved regarding the need to eliminate the use of methyl bromide and create or adopt new alternatives for phytosanitary management (Table 2).
As part of the negotiation of the capacity development process, researchers and producers jointly established its objectives:
- To contribute to the adoption of alternatives to the use of methyl bromide in the selected areas To form a network of facilitators that allows the decentralization of the contents To achieve talents trained in the integrated management of alternatives to methyl bromide To achieve the implementation of models of Integrated management where alternatives are harmoniously interrelated based on proposals from the producers themselves with the facilitation of the project.
Capacity development was conceptualized as the most important component of the adoption process of alternatives to methyl bromide (Figure 3). It was defined as an educational process, where communication and interaction prevail as the most important methodological elements, it is systematic and organized, through which knowledge and skills are formed, which contributes to improving the performance of those involved. It is established from a dialogue relationship between interlocutors and the valuation of local knowledge as a means to generate new knowledge.
In addition, an interrelated element was considered to be the phytosanitary diagnosis and the complementary in situ demonstration and research activity of those aspects of the technologies that had to be adjusted in the demonstration areas or reference sites of the project (Figure 3).
On the other hand, integrated pest management was conceptualized as a phytosanitary strategy.
During the course of the project, based on the conceptualization provided by Vázquez (2003), the central team begins to build the concept considering Integrated Pest Management as a work approach that supports decision-making by the farmer, in such a way to ensure the prevention and / or reduction of pests, through comprehensive monitoring of a set of technological and organizational alternatives, harmoniously structured depending on the specific characteristics of the production site.
This conceptualization implies giving greater importance to the role of the farmer in the management of the production system; considers IPM as an effective strategy to favor decision-making in the productive unit. Especially due to the characteristics of the production system in protected crops.
The reconceptualization of the MIP is part of the transformation process that occurred by the research team, starting with its implementation in the production units; which shows the flexibility of the selected methodology.
The central team carried out a review of the results of previous investigations, as well as practical experiences on the different alternatives for the control of phytosanitary problems in tropical horticultural crops in the open field or under protected conditions. These actions made it possible to select the available or transferable elements, which could be harmonized within a management model. They were:
- Agrotechnical alternatives Chemical alternatives Grafting technology Physical alternatives:
- Use of Solarization + biofumigation (biosolarization) Use of the solar collector to disinfect the substrate
- Biological alternatives Use of certified substrates Investor processes
For this reason, the content of the capacity development was organized in order to comply with these alternatives.
A total of 35 events were held with different objectives according to the evolution of the adoption process (Table 2.)
Table 2. Workshops held as part of the project execution process.
The development of capacities implied the organization of events with different purposes that stimulated the reflection of the participants on the alternatives to adopt depending on the characteristics of their territories. Production technicians (heads of houses, heads of modules) and technicians from the State Plant Health System, linked to companies or provincial plant health laboratories, participated in them. In addition, company executives participated, mainly in awareness and negotiation workshops. The researchers participated in all the activities carried out to guarantee the methodological technical support necessary for the implementation of the IPM (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Type of participants in capacity building events
The majority participation of production technicians and decision-makers at different levels, facilitated exchange, collective appropriation and decision-making regarding the needs of the territories. On the other hand, in each event the gradual sensitization of those involved with respect to each content was achieved.
Each event had progress presentation sessions, where participants selected according to the purpose presented the contents (experiences, research results or demonstrations, etc.). This was followed by a discussion session where the participants contributed criteria, reflections, suggestions or changes to the proposals and finally a negotiation session where group consensus was held. In each workshop agreements were negotiated that had to be fulfilled for a next meeting, thus establishing the commitment of the participants in the capacity development process.
In the implementation stage, all the validated alternatives were harmonized in a general IPM model. It was completed in validation workshops with the network of facilitators and other actors. Subsequently, it was contextualized depending on the specific characteristics of each of the productive units selected for its implementation.
According to Muiño et al. (2007), the application of IPM in protected cultivation houses presupposes the timely adoption of duly harmonized measures that help reduce the incidence, establishment and development of organisms harmful to crops within the facilities; together with those that avoid errors that may occur during the technological process in this production system. On this basis, the general MIP model proposal was outlined so that it would contemplate, from the fulfillment of the mandatory and quarantine measures, the selection of the areas and location of the houses, the selection and processing of substrates, technical-constructive assurance of the facilities, appropriate agrotechnics for each crop,diagnosis and timely signaling of harmful agents as well as decision-making for their management until harvest time. It was found that the capacities developed by the producers, technicians and specialists linked to the production process, in accordance with the knowledge of all the management elements and the characteristics of the production technology in question, allowed correct decision-making at all times. starting from the permanent evaluation of the phytosanitary status of each productive area.allowed a correct decision-making at all times from the permanent evaluation of the phytosanitary status of each productive area.allowed a correct decision-making at all times from the permanent evaluation of the phytosanitary status of each productive area.
The opening of the validated general model allowed contextualizing it to the characteristics of each production unit. Taking into account the elements provided by the diagnosis, the producers, with the support of the network of facilitators, concentrated on finding elements to apply the program in each context.
As part of the appropriation of the new style of work, the directors and specialists of the company, with the support of the technical team of the project, drew up their development and execution schedules of the MIP in the production units, approved with the participation of all stakeholders. technicians and managers of modules. The adjustment of the alternatives was achieved according to the levels of infestation of the sites. In this way, agrotechnical and biological measures were used in companies in the province of Holguín where phytosanitary problems were minor and physical and chemical ones when the degrees of infestation were higher (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Process for the implementation of alternatives to methyl bromide in protected crops (Holguín)
On the other hand, the province of Ciego de Ávila emphasized the use of agrotechnical alternatives combined with chemicals, due to the complexity of the infestations; in addition, grafting technology began to be used at this site (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Process for the implementation of alternatives to methyl bromide in protected crops (Ciego de Ávila)
The productive units of the Province of Havana, one of the highest BrM consumers, adopted agrotechnical alternatives to solve existing problems and prepare conditions to introduce other techniques (varietal improvement and grafting) and combine them with physical alternatives such as solarization and biological alternatives. proposed by the project, finally the use of chemical products was managed in those facilities where the infestations of edaphic pests were extremely high (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Process for the implementation of alternatives to BrM in protected crops (Havana).
The applications of chemical measurements (1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin) were carried out only in houses of crops that showed high levels of nematode infestation (Ex. Empresa Ceiba). In the cases where the diagnosis showed low levels of nematodes, biological measures (Trichoderma) were applied combined with other non-chemical alternatives (ex: companies in Holguín, Villa Clara and Cienfuegos). The Ceiba company managed to gradually increase the use of Trichoderma + HeberNem for low inoculums and 1,3 dichloropropene + chloropicrin was applied only in houses that were shown to exist with high levels of nematodes. In general, in this case, it was possible to considerably reduce the levels of infestation in the houses.
The adjustment of the alternatives to the conditions of each productive unit indicates the level of appropriation of capabilities by those involved in the project. In addition, the capacities developed by the production technicians and technicians of the National Plant Health System linked to the production process, allowed the correct decision-making at all times from the permanent evaluation of the phytosanitary status of the productive areas.
The capacity development process in this way contributed until 2006 to eliminate more than 80% of the use of methyl bromide in protected crops and by 2007 the total substitution was carried out.
As part of the continuous improvement of the capacity development process, ongoing evaluation events were designed where the participants had to evaluate the results obtained, as well as the elements that hinder or favor the good evolution of the project. These events, developed particularly during the years 2007 and 2008, contributed to the participants taking part in a process, taking responsibility for it and making the necessary adjustments.
The participants themselves in the ongoing evaluation events indicate the following among the relevant results of the process (Figure 8):
Figure 8. Results of the capacity development process (consensus) under the perception of the participants.
The project team carried out an ongoing evaluation exercise of the actions as part of the systematization, in which the members of the central team and representatives of one of the selected companies participated: Cítricos Ceiba. As shown in figure 8, the capacity development strategy for the adoption of integrated pest management as an alternative to the use of methyl bromide in protected crops achieved changes in the ways of thinking and acting of the participants and facilitated the innovation process phytosanitary.
The evaluation of processes or systematization in capacity building constitutes a current challenge. There are usually difficulties in recognizing how capacity building contributes to the improvement of other processes (organizational, management, etc.), and even to causing changes in individual performance. This occurs many times due to the impossibility of evaluating with "objective" or quantitative criteria from the positivist point of view, qualitative phenomena or "soft" processes.
Conventional planning and evaluation methods assume that a final product or service or output is obtained that is distributed to users or potential adopters who have a passive role and then longer-term adoption programs are assumed. Morgan (2000) considers that better ways of analyzing and monitoring aspects of capabilities are needed that look at the “how” and “why” rather than “what”. For example, you need to look at factors that shape the results rather than the results themselves. Performance measurement needs to be supplemented with broader methods of analysis and more time spent on “when” and “for whom” aspects as well as better communication methods on capacity issues.
It argues that more is needed about how the learning process takes place (or does not take place) at different levels. More insight into how networks or "communities of practice" work and about "institutions" such as laws, commitment, capacity building.
In this case, the evaluation not only describes the results of a certain capacity development process, but also provides elements for the sustainability of the capacities created in terms of: main actors involved, their attitudes, other associated processes, beneficiaries, among others. others. The research must also make contributions about the limits or potentialities of the capacity development process, in a critical and committed way by the local participants. On the other hand, the evaluation was interpreted not only as a moment of analysis of the results of the process, but also as an evaluation of its impacts. Taschereau argues that impact evaluation is an activity aimed at influencing the development of policies and institutions,shape the design and implementation of future interventions and improve the management of training and development programs (Taschereau, 1998).
This position is defended by other authors, who argue that evaluations must transcend methodological aspects, fulfillment of objectives or logistics to emphasize the applicability of what has been learned and its importance to generate changes at other levels (Castañeda, 2002).
Systematization under a constructivist approach constitutes a process of social interaction for the interpretation and evaluation of capacity building efforts. The protagonists of this process meet in spaces created for reflection and negotiation about their perceptions, narratives and interpretations to generate lessons that provoke future improvements.
Under this conceptualization, systematization becomes an evaluation that, due to its interactive dimension, generates an educational effect on the way of thinking and acting of individuals and groups. Systematizing then means evaluating in a critical, interpretive and interactive way, so that perceptions can be transformed throughout the process. The systematization process is continuous and is not limited only to the self-analysis workshop (Mato et al, 2004).
Conclusions
A methodological strategy for the development of capacities was validated for the adoption of Integrated Pest Management as an alternative to the use of methyl bromide in protected crops that allows to involve producers and researchers in the construction of knowledge and decentralize phytosanitary decision-making in the productive units.
A network of project facilitators was created and trained to coordinate the implementation of the adoption process.
The methodology used contributed to adopting contextualized management models according to the characteristics of the sites in productive entities of the Holguín, Ciego de Ávila, Villa Clara, Cienfuegos and Havana provinces, which can be used for the adoption of IPM in other contexts productive.
Bibliographic references.
1. Casanova, A., Olimpia Gómez, FR Pupo, M. Hernández, Marisa Chailloux, T. Depestre, JC Hernández, V. Moreno, María León, A. Igarza, Carmen Duarte, Irene Jiménez, R. Santos, A. Navarro, Aleyda Marrero, Hortencia Cardoza, F. Piñeiro, N. Arozarena, Luisa Villarino, María I. Hernández, E. Martínez, M. Martínez, Berta Lina Muiño, Blanca Bernal, H. Martínez, Julia M. Salgado, A. Socorro, F. Cañet, J. Fí, Alicia Rodríguez and A. Ozuna. Manual for the protected production of vegetables. Second edition. Maracay Aragua state. Venezuela, 138 pp, 2007.
2. Castañeda, Delio I. "Training or organizational learning?". In: www.gestionhumana.com May, 2002.
3. Mato, MA, J. Santamaría, J. De Souza Silva, J. and J. Cheaz. The management dimension in the construction of institutional sustainability. Innovation for Institutional Sustainability Series. San José, Costa Rica: ISNAR Project “New Paradigm”, 2001.
4. Mato, María Adriana; Albina Maestrey, Adriana Ballester, JA González, Berta Lina Muiño and L. Vazquez. (2004). Capacity building in the National System of Agricultural Science and Technological Innovation in Cuba. The case of the Plant Health Research Institute (INISAV). New Paradigm Network. ISNAR,. San Jose Costa Rica. 38p.
5. Morgan, Peter. Intervention in: Conclusions of the preparatory workshop of the ECD Project. Hague. March 2000.
6. Muiño, Berta Lina. Integrated Pest Management Systems as an alternative to the use of Methyl Bromide in the production of protected crops, flowers and Ornamentals. In: Agroecological Pest Management in the Production System. Memories of the Workshop Course. Havana city. May 21-25, 2007. ISBN 978-959-7194-11-8.
7. Salazar L, J de Souza, J Cheaz and S. Torres. The dimension of participation in the construction of institutional sustainability. Innovation series for institutional sustainability. ISNAR-New Paradigm Project. San Jose Costa Rica. P. 160p. 2001
8. Souza Silva, J and J. Cheaz. "Generation of knowledge and construction of theories in institutional capacity development projects." San José: ISNAR Project "New Paradigm", 2000.
9. Taschereau, Suzanne. Evaluating the impact of Training and Institutional Development Programs. A Collaborative Approach. EDI. Learning Resources Series. Washington DC: Economic Development Institute of the World Bank. 85 pp. 1998.
10. Vázquez, LL Integrated Pest Management. Questions and answers for farmers and extension workers (Havana) Ed. CIDISAV. 566p. 2003.
Download the original file
