On the fara-net comes this interesting post from Francois Lategan:

‘I always find it quite interesting to read about the way we speak about the (lack of) progress (?) in the way Africa performs its agriculture and the possible reasons why things do not change (quick) enough for our liking. We tend to forget that when we deal with agriculture we deal with livelihoods. We deal with established systems of social stability that have over time taken up the role of a very important economic sector where performed at a large enough scale at a sufficiently effective level securing increased and excess production output. It is true that agriculture is viewed as a very important potential catalyst and vector that could not only mitigate but even break the cycles of poverty in which a multiple of communities across the world are caught up in.

‘I must say, however, that I fund it disconcerting to see how the sometimes disappointing rate at which agricultural production and production systems change to secure increased harvests, is discussed in terms of “success” or “failure”. Agriculture is about people and people make decisions – sometimes conducive for “desired change” and sometimes against it – at all levels and intensity of production. It is out of place to conceptualize this phenomenon in terms of (sometimes very subjective assessments of) normative criteria “success” and “failure”. We simply do not have all the perspectives to entertain such verdicts.

‘I would argue that we start viewing farmers and their activities (and the outcomes thereof) rather in terms of their dynamic potential for achieving the potential output set by the agricultural potential of the land. Farmers do this through the use of a variety of production methods and systems – the efficiency and effectiveness of which has very often never been definitively fathomed. Uncertainty associated with the production environment and the social context, subjective risk assessments and variable risk discounting decisions often lead to subjective “alternative” production patterns with variable production outcomes.

‘To view the protocols of this very subjective process and its outcomes in terms of “success” and “failure” is like judging the taste of honey by the colour of the bee. Let us be a bit more discerning and slower with the absoluteness of our often sterile and ill-equipped opinions. A closer association with the conditions under which these farming activities are performed and a greater understanding (and appreciation) for the commitment to these activities should lead us to reflect on farmers and the way they perform agricultural not in terms of success or failure but rather in terms of their ability to steer as close as possible to unlocking the potential of the soil.

‘This reasoning might not do much for changing the often clinical opinions about farmers and their (often reduced) achievement of externally set agricultural production norms and standards. But maybe our voices will change our thinking. Let us rather start reflecting on production targets in terms of “degrees of achievement”. Agricultural change is not an incident but a process drawing its momentum from the commitment of farmers. Farmers (even African farmers) do not fail. They do what they need to do when they must do it. And they need our positive encouragement and support.’

Francois Lategan
Director: School of Agriculture and Agribusiness, Faculty of Science and Agriculture, University of Fort Hare

Read more at faranet at the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA).