AN EVALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL ADOPTION BY NGÖBE FARMERS
IN CHALITE, PANAMÁ
By:
Russell Slatton
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FORESTRY
MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
2004
The thesis “An Evaluation of Agricultural Adoption by Ngöbe Farmers in Chalite,
Panamá “ is hereby approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FORESTRY.
School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science
Signatures:
Advisor:_______________________________________
Blair D. Orr
Dean:________________________________________
Margaret R. Gale
Date:
_________________________________
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………...
iv
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………….……….......
vii
PREFACE………………………………………………………………………......
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………...
x
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION……………………………………………........
1
CHAPTER 2 - Background........................................................................................
Panamá at a Glance………………………………………………………....
Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé and Bocas del Toro (Nö-Kribo)…………………..
Chalite…………………………………………………………………........
4
4
15
25
CHAPTER 3 - TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LITERATURE REVIEW ………...
37
CHAPTER 4 - METHODOLOGY............................................................................
Stage I……………………………………………………………………….
Stage II……………………………………………………………………...
48
48
51
CHAPTER 5 - CHALITE AND PATRONATO DE NUTRICIÓN
Local Farm Systems………………………………………………………...
The Patronato Farm …………………………………………………….......
59
59
74
CHAPTER 6 - ADOPTION OF AGRICULTUAL TECHNOLOGIES IN
CHALITE.........................................................................................
99
Adoption of Individual Agricultural Technologies……….………………...... 99
Adoption Overview………..………………………………………………..
121
CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
GO SMALL OR THEY WILL GO FISHING...................................
126
LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………………..
132
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.
Map of Central America………………………………………….……
5
FIGURE 2.
General map of Panamá………….…………………………...……….. 11
FIGURE 3.
Comarca regions map …………………………………………...……
FIGURE 4.
Political Map of the comarca …………. ………………………..……. 21
FIGURE 5
Guariviara Region, Panamá ……………………………………....…… 26
FIGURE 6.
Sketch map of Chalite, Panamá ……………………………………….. 27
FIGURE 7.
Little meris (women) wearing nagwas …………………………….….. 29
FIGURE 8.
Teachers at the school………... ……………………………………….. 30
FIGURE 9.
Our boat carrying supplies upriver ……………………..…………….. 31
19
FIGURE 10. A kept path to the river……... ………………………………………... 32
FIGURE 11. Rancho in the back of a house………………………………..……….. 34
FIGURE 12. Water tank of Chalite…….. ………………...………………………… 34
FIGURE 13. Slash and mulch system for corn ……………………………………... 36
FIGURE 14. Household of the farmer ………….……………………………….…
61
FIGURE 15. Farmer selling pifa ………………………………………………..….. 63
FIGURE 16. Farm with bananas and trees overhead ……………………………….. 66
FIGURE 17. Border between two farms …………………..………………………… 66
FIGURE 18. Woman using a shovel to dig up ñame (yam) ………………………… 67
FIGURE 19. Totuma palm on fire at edge of new area to plant rice ………………... 69
FIGURE 20. Woman winnowing rice …………………………………………..…... 70
FIGURE 21. Slash and burn hillside farming ……...……………………………….. 71
FIGURE 22. Rainfall and agricultural calendar of Bocas del Toro …………..…….. 72
iv
FIGURE 23. Kate and I standing in the farm overlooking Chalite …………...…….. 77
FIGURE 24. Sketch map of the Patronato Farm program in Chalite ………..…….... 79
FIGURE 25. Men learning how to use an A-frame in Alto Guayabo ………..…….. 81
FIGURE 26. Experiment with canavalia intercropped with rice ………………..….. 82
FIGURE 27. Rhizobium nodules found on canavalia roots ………………..……….. 83
FIGURE 28. View of rice tank in the Patronato farm in Chalite …………………..
84
FIGURE 29. Line of pineapple in a farm ………….………………………………... 84
FIGURE 30. Chicken coop in Dudori…………... ………………………………….. 86
FIGURE 31. Duck pond in the Patronato farm, Chalite ……………………...…….. 86
FIGURE 32. Fish pond ……………………………………….…………………….. 87
FIGURE 33. Fish harvest for one family……….. ………………………………….. 87
FIGURE 34. Pigs in the pen…………………….. ………………………………….. 88
FIGURE 35. Pipe from pig pen leading to fish tank ………………….…………….. 88
FIGURE 36. Teak plantation in Caño Sucio ………………….…………………….. 89
FIGURE 37. Area cleared to plant banana in the Patronato farm in Chalite ……….. 90
FIGURE 38. Patronato buying banana seed to plant in the farm ………………….... 90
FIGURE 39. Area on farm weeded for coffee trees ………….……………………..
91
FIGURE 40. Manioc growing in lines with compost around stems ………………..
92
FIGURE 41. Dachin (taro root) growing in the Patronato farm ……………………. 93
FIGURE 42.
Raised garden beds to grow beans, cucumber, and tomatoes………… 93
FIGURE 43. Kate and Willy raising cucumber vines up off the ground …………...
94
FIGURE 44. Small tree nursery made at the school …………………………….….. 95
FIGURE 45. Drainage ditch at the Patronato farm ……………………………...….. 95
v
FIGURE 46. Patronato province leader Irving Candadero and area ………………… 96
technical leader Alfredo Guerra visiting the farm
FIGURE 47. Farm activities chart……………… ………………………………….. 98
FIGURE 48. A Ngöbe chicken hideaway ………………………………………….. 107
FIGURE 49. Pig pen made of bamboo for a pregnant pig ………………………..... 111
FIGURE 50. An overgrown coffee nursery grown for Patronato …………………. 115
FIGURE 51. Old bowl used as a seed starter ……………………………………….. 120
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Interview Questions- Household characteristics………………...………53
Table 2.
Interview Questions - Farm Characteristics ………………..…...………54
Table 3.
Interview Questions - Agricultural Technology Questions.………..… 55
Table 4.
Example of SAS output data………………...………………………… 57
Table 5.
Extension Agent Questions………………….……………...………… 57
Table 6.
List of Crops grown on an average farm near the river………..……… 64
Table 7.
List of agricultural technologies observed on the………………………. 80
Patronato farm in Chalite
Table 8.
Agricultural chemicals used in the Patronato farm program………..… 85
Table 9.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of contours….…….….… 99
Table 10.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of manures. ……...……… 101
Table 11.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of pineapple management. 103
Table 12.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of agricultural chemicals... 105
Table 13.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of chicken coops…...…... 105
Table 14.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of duck pens…………… 107
Table 15.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of fishponds…………..… 109
Table 16.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of pig pens...…………… 110
Table 17.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of non-native tree species..112
Table 18.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of banana management…. 113
Table 19.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of coffee management…... 114
Table 20.
Selected variables correlated with the adoption ………………………. 116
of manioc management
Table 21.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of taro root management.. 117
vii
Table 22.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of gardens…….……….… 118
Table 23.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of nurseries….…….……. 119
Table 24.
Selected variables correlated with adoption of drainage……...……… 120
Table 25.
Farmers adoption of agricultural technologies………………......….... 119
Table 26.
Positive indicators of adoption………………......……....................… 123
Table 27.
Negative indicators of adoption………………......……....................…124
viii
PREFACE
I remember climbing through the mountains in Mendicino County as a young
boy. I had my knife on my hip and a small bag with food in it. The knife was one of those
Rambo knives with a compass on the bottom end. You could unscrew the bottom to find
fishing lines and hooks. I would hike around fishing for small brook trout and after a long
day, walk home and sleep in my tent outside. I have always liked to be outside and
luckily, unlike my father and his father, I was not meant to be a Civil Engineer.
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I dedicate this paper to my grandfather, Donald Silveria, who passed away while I
was serving my Peace Corps service in Panama. He encouraged me as Kid Karaoke and I
will forever be in debt for his strength.
I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who have helped me on
my way. Blair Orr, my advisor, has been a source of uncanny wit, strength, and
knowledge. Without Blair reminding me that I could stay another semester, I would never
have finished. I thank the Peace Corps staff and fellow researcher Jason Cochran for his
encouragement. I especially thank the community of Chalite. Forever, I will be known in
Panamá as Chodi. I have learned much from them and can only hope my paper will help
in some small way. I wish to thank all my friends and family who have supported me and
wondered what exactly I was doing and I would like to tell my wife Kate Lincoln, I am
lucky to have a partner like you.
x
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION
"I like it here, I want to live here all my life and be a farmer. I am free here and
can do what I want. People do not kill each other here, and I always have a home. My
family is here, and so no, I do not want to work in the city. I want to stay here, in Chalite
for all of my life". A moment in time as I sit on my small porch talking to a seventeen
year old boy. I have asked him about life here in Chalite. Does he like it? Does he want to
stay here? I tell him I find the life hard. Always backbreaking work and I do not
understand why people do not embrace ways that can help them. In fact, they would
rather go fishing than listen to a seminar about green manures and ways to improve their
farms. Perhaps he is right and I just do not understand the freedom they have.
I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Panama. I lived in the community of Chalite,
Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé, Ño-Kribo, Guariviara from October 21, 2002 until June 21, 2004.
My job was to work with a non-governmental organization called Paronato de Nutrición
to provide technical and organizational assistance to the farmers involved in the program
and village. The farmers I worked with live in poverty with little cash income and
subsistence agriculture is their main means of living.
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether farmers are adopting
agricultural technologies because of the Patronato farm program. From experience, I
believed the combination of current indigenous technologies combined with outside
agricultural technologies would cause more adoption. I researched variability in attributes
such as wealth, education, and experience to investigate adoption of agricultural
technologies.
1
In chapter two, I discuss Panama, the semiautonomous region of the indigenous
Ngöbe, and the community I worked and studied in, Chalite. I give a brief historical
background of Panama from a political and agricultural perspective. I explain what the
Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé is and how it was formed. I further discuss the basic farming of
the Ngöbe in Bocas del Toro and some cultural values. Finally, I describe the community
of Chalite where I conducted my research.
In chapter three, I give a brief discussion of agricultural technology adoption
literature. In the literature review, I raise relevant issues pertaining to agricultural
technology adoption and how other studies have investigated agricultural adoption and
some results of those studies. I introduce some of the reasons for the new agricultural
technologies and explain them. I proceed to introduce agricultural adoption studies
conducted in Panama.
Chapter four is a complete description of my methodology. I decided to study
adoption of agricultural technologies in a holistic framework, or farm systems research. I
introduce reasons why I used surveys, participant observation, meetings, and interviews
and how I carried them out. Each method is explained in detail and describes how the
data were gathered and will be presented.
Chapter five describes the average farmer and Patronato farm program in Chalite.
In the first section, I use results from the survey and observation to create a picture of the
average farmer and farm technologies. I then describe the Patronato farm program and
present a description of the national and regional program. Furthermore, I describe the
history of the farm program in Chalite and how the farmers worked on the farm. I then
introduce the eighteen agricultural technologies identified in the farm program.
2
Chapter six presents and discusses the adoption rates of the agricultural
technologies and reasons for adoption or non-adoption. Each agricultural technology
using selected Pearson correlation coefficients from a SAS analysis with perspectives
from farmers, interviews, meetings, and observations of the work done on the Patronato
farm. The chapter ends with a general overview of reasons why Ngöbe farmers are more
likely to adopt some technologies than others.
I conclude the study with an analysis of the findings in my study as compared to
the literature in agricultural adoption studies. An overview of the study is made and
recommendations follow.
3
CHAPTER 2 –BACKGROUND
PANAMÁ AT A GLANCE
From Spanish domination to the release of the Panamá Canal to
Panamánian authorities, Panamá, known as "Plenty of Fish" to the indigenous peoples,
has been the connecting region between North and South America (Black and Flores
1989) (Figure 1). As a former Spanish colony the majority of the population is Spanish
speaking with Caribbean influences and seven indigenous languages. According to the
2000 Panamánian Census, Panamá is populated with 3.1 million people and Panamá City
contains about one third of the population. It is a country slightly smaller than South
Carolina with a total area of 78,200 sq. km. (30,193 sq. mi.) (U.S. Department of State
2004).
History
The Spanish first landed in Panamá in the year 1501 from the Caribbean Sea.
The region was used as a major trade route since it lay as one of the shortest distances
between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. They found a fairly large population of
indigenous peoples, some of who wore earrings of beaten gold, signifying to the Spanish
there was a large supply of gold to be found. Vasquez Nuñez de Balboa, one of the first
Spanish mayors in the town of Antigua on the Caribbean coast, tried to understand and
cooperate with the indigenous peoples. He discovered the site of Panama City after
traveling through the mosquito ridden tropical forest and arrived at the Pacific
4
Figure 1: Map of Central America
ocean to declare all that he saw part of the Spanish Kingdom. Although he was famous
in Panamá his enemies were plenty. He was charged with treason in 1517 by the new
governor known as “Pedrarias the Cruel” and was executed the same year (Howarth
1966).
During the next 300 years, the Spanish used Panamá as a trade zone. Africans
were brought in by the French, Portuguese, English, and Dutch to be sold as slaves. It
was the only form of trade not taxed by the Spanish. After the successful example of the
political uprising in Colombia, the Panamanians began to stir, and voices of
independence were heard. In the province of Veraguas the people of a town called Los
5
Santos (City of Saints) raised their voices first to declare independence. The official date
of independence was November 28, 1821. Panamá became a part of Gran Colombia with
the other newly freed colonies Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (Black
and Flores 1989).
In the 1800s, the United States, England, and France considered constructing a
canal across Panamá. However, before the Canal was built a group of New York
investors formed the Panamá Railroad Company to build a railroad across the Isthmus. It
was completed in 1855, following the same path as the future Canal. In 1879 the French
obtained the rights to build the Canal across Panamá. The French company officially
began construction in 1880 and by 1889 the company was bankrupt. They had finished
two-fifths of the excavation and essential buildings but had to liquidate their assets. Much
of the workforce was sent back home to the Caribbean Islands; some stayed and worked
on the Canal with the United States (Avery 1915).
After the French had gone bankrupt, a key French official named Philippe BunauVarilla convinced the Panamánian government to separate from Colombia. Because
Colombia was having political problems, the relations with Panamá had weakened. With
the support of President Roosevelt’s Navy, Panamá could separate from Colombia. This
allowed the United States to negotiate directly with the new government of Panamá and
not Colombia. However the hostile action towards Colombia would contradict the
Bidlack-Mallarino Treaty of 1848, which guaranteed protection for Colombian interests
by United States forces during times of duress. The treaty was ignored and the
Frenchman Bunau-Varilla acted as the Panamánian representative and signed the new
treaty with the United States. Secretary of State John Hay signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla
6
Treaty on November 13, 1903, separating Panamá from Colombia. The United States
Senate ratified the final treaty in 1904, granting land and water rights necessary to build
the Canal with eminent domain within the area of the future Canal. In 1914 the first ship
sailed through the Panamá Canal (Anguizola 1980)
After the construction of the Panamá Canal, additional treaties increased the
power the United States had within the Canal Zone and Panamá. In 1958 students
opposed the United States government occupation and in 1959 there were demonstrations
to raise a Panamánian flag in the Canal Zone. Raising the Panamánian flag within the
Canal Zone meant to the students that the United States respected Panama's sovereignty.
Rioting resulted again in 1964 when the flag was raised below the United States flag,
resulting in twenty deaths and three days of violence. Throughout these years the Canal
represented the occupation of Panamá by the United States government. Many poems and
essays were written about Panama's sovereignty and the United States occupation (Black
and Flores 1989).
In 1968 General Omar Torrijos, the National Guard Chief, took control of Panamá
in a coup by the National Guard to overthrow the populist Arnulfo Arias. Presidents were
"elected", but no one was mistaken as to who was in charge (Koster and Sanchez 1991).
After several years of negotiation with the United States, a new treaty was drawn up. In
1977 Torrijos signed an agreement with President Jimmy Carter to release full control of
the Canal to Panamá in 1999.
In the 1970s General Torrijos attempted to place schools in the indigenous areas
and help Panamá increase its agricultural production through a land distribution scheme
that would redistribute 500,000 hectares to poor people. By 1978 over 18,000 families
7
(about 12 percent of rural families in the 1970 census) had access to either individual
plots or collectively held land as a result of the redistribution. During the 1970s Torrijos
also attempted to promote collective farm programs where the farmers would all work
together on a collective farm to produce and sell. However, by 1980, most of the
collective groups had dissolved. Smallholder farmers accounted for 58.9 percent of the
farms that had an annual income below US$200 (Black and Flores 1989).
After the death of Omar Torrijos in 1981 from a plane crash, Manuel Noriega
gained control in 1984 as the new General Commander of the Panamanian government.
He had risen in the ranks under Torrijos as a trusted advisor and general. According to
Koster (1990) he helped control the western region of Chiriquí. He became known as a
tyrant to the United States government and was removed on Christmas 1989 (United
States Department of State 1989). After the removal, the Panamánian government
officially became a democratic state. In December of 1999, Panamá finally gained full
control of the Canal as promised in the treaty of 1977 (CIA 2003).
The rise of Panama as an independent state has been one of trial and strife. The
dominance of the Panama Canal as Panamas major resource has overshadowed other
important issues of development such as agricultural reform, smallholder farmers, and
indigenous peoples issues. The country of Panama has focused on the Canal and
indigenous groups such as the Ngöbe-Buglé have largely been ignored as they do not
directly affect the Canal's watershed area. Understanding Panama's culture of the Canal
is key to the understanding of people's attitudes and sense of history, aiding development
efforts.
8
Current Political State
The elected President of Panamá in the year 2004 is Martin Torrijos of the
Democratic Revolutionary Party (DRP). He is the son of General Omar Torrijos who was
the general commander of Panamá from 1968 to 1981. Martin took office on September
2, 2004, continuing the representative democracy. An executive and legislative branch is
elected every five years with a Judiciary appointed by the president and approved by the
legislature (U.S. Department of State 2004). The political party which wins the election
usually removes people from the government offices according to a person's political
affiliation, causing a break down in government services during the transition period
from June to September. In many cases it means that even an extension worker who has
worked for an agency for ten years, but is affiliated with the losing party, loses his job. In
terms of development, institutional memory is weakened and high turnover occurs every
five years.
The East-West country of Panamá is divided into nine provinces. They are
Darién, Panamá, Colón, Coclé, Los Santos, Herrera, Veraguas, Chiriquí, and Bocas del
Toro, where I lived (Figure 2). Each of these provinces has a governor and legislative
representatives for each district in the region. Within each district there are
corregimientos (municipal districts) which each have an elected representative within the
province. Three major indigenous areas or comarcas have limited political sovereignty
within the government of Panamá: the Ngöbe-Buglé (Western provinces), in which I
lived, Emberá-Wounaan (Eastern provinces), and the Kuna Yala (North Eastern
provinces). Other indigenous groups include the Teribe and Bri-Bri, which are both
located near the western border with Costa Rica (PNB 2002).
9
Economy
The United States dollar is the official currency of Panama. The estimated
average income is US $4,020 (World Bank 2002). The GNI (Gross Net Income) per
capita is high for Central America and does not demonstrate the financial difficulties in
many parts of the country where 40% of the population lives below the poverty line
(BBC 2004). For example the average person in Chalite, where I lived, earns $447 per
year. Panamá earns 77% of its GDP from the services sector, centered in Panamá City
and the Panamá Canal. The industrial sector earns 17.7% of the GDP. It consists
primarily of construction, petroleum refining, brewing, cement, other construction
materials and sugar milling, are the leading industries.
Eight percent of the GDP comes from agriculture (CIA 2003). Thirty-seven
percent of the population lives in rural areas, while the rest live in urban areas (ANAM
2004). In the last twenty years, the urban population has doubled from 917,000 to 1.7
million people who are searching for improved services such as health, water, and
employment. High population increases in the urban centers have caused a deficit of
200,000 houses and increased pressures on environmental services such as air quality,
water, and sanitation.
10
Figure 2: General Map of Panamá
11
Climate, Environment, and Agriculture
Panamá was formed by volcanic intrusions. Uplift created the central mountain
range called the Cordillera Central. The Cordillera central is actually made up of three
mountain rages from west to east; the Cordillera de Talamanca, Serranía de Tabasará, and
the Sierra de Veraguas. The highest point is the volcano Volcan Baru at 3475 meters
(11,468 feet). The Cordillera Central divides the country into two distinct climate
regions: the Caribbean and the Pacific. Climate on the Pacific region is tropical with a
pronounced rainy season from December through April. The Caribbean region of the
Isthmus is considered Humid Tropics with a year long wet season (Kluck 1985). Rainfall
on the Caribbean side is usually twice the Pacific side, ranging between one and three
meters (Hidrometeorologia 2004). Topography and rain creates nearly 500 rivers that run
from the existing watersheds. Temperature rarely deviates from a range of 24o C to 29oC.
Though the country lies outside the hurricane track, intensive rainfall still damages crops
and causes erosion (Kluck 1985).
Panama is the fourth most biologically diverse nation in Central and North
America. It has over 12,000 species of flora, 259 species of mammals, 957 species of
birds, 229 species of reptiles, and 179 species of amphibians. More than fifty new species
of mammals and birds have been discovered in the past six years. However deforestation
is affecting Panamas forest cover. From 1947 to 2000, the total forest coverage in
Panama has fallen from 70% to 45% at 3,364,591 hectares, a loss of 1,880,409 hectares.
Much of the loss is due to the expansion of shifting agriculture in the more remote areas
such as Bocas del Toro. Usually the farmers come from the higher density regions such
as Veraguas that have been extensively deforested and land is converted for pastures
12
(ANAM 2004, Fischer 2000). After the land is degraded and ceases to produce, it is
usually sold to cattle ranchers (Fischer 2000). Reforested areas are usually monoculture
plantations of teak (Tectona grandis) and Caribbean pine (Pinus caribe). Large
landholders own most of the plantations and receive 100% exoneration on taxes for
imported equipment and future revenue to reforest land (Asamblea Legislative 1992).
There are 2,454,120 hectares of land under the protection of national parks, forest
reserves, and other forms (ANAM 2004).
Approximately 21% of the population works in agriculture growing bananas, rice,
corn, coffee, sugarcane, vegetables, and livestock (WRI 2004). Because of the high
rainfall, the soils are susceptible to nutrient loss. ANAM (2004) reports 45% of the soils
are classified as category VII and 19.4% category VIII (eroded and degraded). Only 2.4%
are considered arable. According to FAOSTAT (2002) in the year 2000, Panama had
655,000 hectares of arable and permanent croplands out of a total landmass of 7,443,000
hectares. Of the 655,000 hectares, 500,000 hectares were arable while 35,000 hectares
were irrigated. Bananas accounted for 46% of the total agricultural export value. Cattle
accounted for 5.1% and cigar cheroots 11.7%. Other exports include sugar, cantaloupe,
coffee, and vegetables. Of the 387.1 million dollars of agricultural imports, 12.3% were
food preparation, 8% were maize, and 5.7% were soybean cake. Other agricultural
imports were wheat, cereals, cheese, and rice. The deficit between the agricultural exports
and imports was 64.4 million dollars.
Subsistence agriculture occupies 1,834,000 hectares of land. Most subsistence
farming is a slash and burn system where the farmer prepares a piece of land by cutting
unwanted trees, shrubs, and grasses with a machete and axe. After cutting the farmer lets
13
the cut vegetation dry and then burns the dry vegetation. Crops are then planted after the
burning of the material (ANAM 2004). Burning is a fast way of releasing nutrients from
the burnt organic matter, laying ash on top of the soil so the crops can easily access the
nutrients available (USAID 1974). However, with population pressure and shortage of
arable land, farmers are moving to new land every two years instead of the twelve to
twenty years required to replenish the soil.
Eight percent of the farmers are considered large landholders owning more than
200 hectares. They control 37% of the cultivated land. Even with mechanization and
chemical fertilizers they still burn their fields. Forty-seven percent of the farmers work
less than one hectare of land and control one-half percent of agricultural lands under
production (Fischer 2000). After the farmer has finished farming land, they often will
rent the land to a cattle owner. In 2004 there were about one million acres dedicated to
pasture (ANAM 2004).
Of the indigenous cultures of Panama, the Ngöbe-Bugle now has the largest
population at 180,000 (PNB 2002. As their population increases and more pressure is put
on their lands, outside organizations are attempting to help the Ngöbe-Buglé sustainably
develop. With the different agencies interacting with Ngöbe-Buglé, a movement to
understand their culture has arisen. Many development agencies come with a
preconceived understanding of the Ngöbe-Buglé people, and act accordingly. The
agencies come and go, yet rarely does one agency know what the others have done or are
doing. The Ngöbe-Buglé reach to find the right future, which includes knowing the right
past.
14
COMARCA NGÖBE-BUGLÉ AND BOCAS DEL TORO (NÖ-KRIBO)
The Ngöbe-Buglé were known as the Guaymí until the 1980s. The word Guaymí
was a mistranslation by the Spanish when they heard the Buglé, or Muri, call the Ngöbe
NGWANMY. It was misunderstood by the Spanish and pronounced Guaymí (PNB
2000). I will use the phrase Ngöbe-Buglé in place of the older word Guaymí. The
Spanish thought the Ngöbe and Buglé were the same people. However they are two
distinct groups (Young 1971). The name Guaymí is currently used as their sub-family
name under the language group macro-Chibcha. Ngöbe and Buglé are two distinct groups
of Guaymí (SIL International 2004). Ngöbe and Buglé were oral languages.
History
Before the Spanish arrived little was known about the lifestyle and organization of
the Ngöbe-Buglé. Some pottery has been found in the Chiriquí and Bocas del Toro
provinces, but there is not much information about who made it (Cook 1982).
Christopher Columbus first visited the Ngöbe-Buglé people in 1502 on the Caribbean
side of Panamá near Almirante (Young 1971). The Spanish frequently attempted to
govern the indigenous peoples in the remote areas such as Bocas del Toro. In the
narrations of the expedition of Espinosa, frequent contact was made with the people of
the Caribbean coast, but due to the acephalous nature of the people, the Spanish colonists
could not exercise much control (Bort and Young 1985). However, in 1578 Capitan
Pavón took possession of the Valley of the Ngöbe-Buglé, an area extending from
15
Almirante to Cricamola (Martinelli 1993). During the 17th and 18th century further
expansion into the Guaymí areas resulted in deaths from disease and some of the
indigenous population moved to the mountains. During the 18th century the Spanish
placed a local system of governors in the Ngöbe-Buglé area. It was an attempt to create
hierarchal leadership instead of the kinship based political structure the people were using
(Bort and Young 1985).
Information about life of the Ngöbe-Buglé before the 20th century is limited. The
information available tends to point towards a system still used in many parts of NgöbeBuglé society today. People lived in dispersed hamlets, which formed without a central
community structure (Fray Adrian Ufelder 1682 as cited in Young 1971 and Martinelli
1993). Fray Blas José Franko (1882) observed that the Ngöbe- Buglé had a chief with a
lieutenant during times of war. However, during times of peace the "Chief" was hardly
distinguishable from the other people. They were essentially men who had respect within
their family (Martinelli 1993). Young (1971) states that Johnson (1948a) also observed a
chief (cacique), elected by elders in the Ngöbe-Buglé culture. Bort and Young (1985)
state the unorganized character of the people has made it difficult for outside forces to
influence them. However, in the 1950s and 1960s, with the arrival of schools, people
started to settle around the schools.
The Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé
In 1925, the Kuna of San Blas rebelled against the Panamánian Government and
demanded autonomous rights as a separate nation. In 1930, they were the first
Panamanian indigenous group to be recognized as a semiautonomous political state. The
16
San Blas Kuna have a recognized governing body and rules. They are also part of the
political structure of Panamá with representation in the legislature because of the
rebellion of 1925. In response to fears of more rebellion, the reservations of Cricamola,
Kusapin, and Bluefield were opened up to the Ngöbe-Bugle by the Panamanian
government in 1934 (PNB 2002). The Kuna Congress, a central group of caciques
(chiefs), was then created in 1945 (Vakis and Lindert 2000). The Kuna system was
looked on as an alternative government model to centralize the Ngöbe-Buglé leadership.
This was contrary to the acephalous character of the Ngöbe-Buglé (Bort and Young
1985).
Signs of change arose in 1961 with the rise of a new religion called Mama Chi.
The originator of the new religion was a young girl named Mama Chi who claimed to
have seen God. In this vision God told her to bring all Ngöbe-Buglé into the religion
within five years or there would be horrible consequences. The Ngöbe were not supposed
tell any outsiders about the religion. The religion attempted a complete withdrawal of
Ngöbe-Buglé society from outside influence and prohibited certain traditional customs
(Young 1978). One such custom included the Balseria, which was thought to be a harvest
festival that signified a plentiful year (Young 1971, Gordon 1982) or a marriage festival
where men would drink chicha fuerte (corn beer) and attempt to hit one another's legs
with large poles. Despite discouraging participation with outside agencies, the Mama-Chi
movement increased organization and participation of the younger generation in the
political process (Young 1971, 1978).
The Mama-Chi movement encouraged people to register births within their local
areas because the head of the corregimientos were also Ngöbe. It also opposed spousal
17
abuse. Young opportunists within the Mama Chi movement spurred political activity
within the Ngöbe-Buglé community when, during the late 1960s, there were increased
territorial pressures by outside agencies to open up a copper mine and build a
hydroelectric dam. They organized and showed caution against these projects because
they could lose control of their territory. Many of the Ngöbe-Buglé did not see the
projects in a positive light and felt the projects would have no effect or a negative effect
(Bort and Helms1983). The projects were eventually dropped due to cost restraints and
the Mama-Chi movements’ power only lasted until the early 1970s (Young 1978, 1979).
However, the Ngöbe-Buglé political movement was more organized and many were
calling for a comarca (Figure 3) similar to that of the Kuna.
In 1968 the Panamánian government in each province of Veraguas, Chiriquí, and
Bocas del Toro gave formal recognition of the Ngöbe-Buglé Caciques. In 1969 Lopez
organized the first national congress of the Ngöbe-Buglé and Wounnan. According to
Bort and Young (1985), the caciques were chosen without a general consensus of the
Ngöbe-Buglé. In essence, the Panamanian government had chosen the leaders. The Kunabased comarca, or semi-autonomous region that had been set-aside for the Ngöbe-Buglé
was finally approved and established in March 7, 1997 through Law 10 (Assemblea
Legislative 1997). Since the 1950s, the population has increased by 143,695 (PNB 2002).
In 2000, the population of the Ngöbe-Buglé was 169,130 (Panamá Census 2000) with
106,583 Ngöbe and Buglé persons living within the comarca boundaries.
18
Figure 3: Comarca Regions Map
19
The Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé is contained within the three provinces of Veraguas,
Chiriquí, and Bocas del Toro. The area chosen as the comarca was based on indigenous
populations and locations. They tend to live in the more remote areas, which is why the
comarca in the Chiriquí and Veraguas provinces does not reach to the Pacific Ocean.
The area decided upon has an area of 694,406 hectares. Currently it is being demarcated.
One also notices the Comarca does not have any major cities and little road access. The
Comarca is now separated into seven different districts of Besiko, Mirono, Nole Duima,
Müna, Ñürüm, Kankintú, and Kusapin in the three regions of Nidrín (Veraguas), Kodrí
(Chiriquí), and Ño-Kribo (Bocas del Toro) (Figure 4) (PNB 2002). A Cacique General
(General Chief) is elected for the Comarca. Each region elects a Cacique Regional
(Regional Chief), and each district elects a Cacique Local (District Chief).
These three positions are part of the Carta Organica, the governing document of
the general assembly. The second article of the Carta Organica states the Comarca is a
communal system; people cannot title their land (República de Panamá 1999). The
Cacique Locals name the Jefe inmediato (local boss) and the Vocero (voice), is named by
each individual community. The Caciques are supposed to work with the governor of the
Comarca, who is a Panamánian authority in the legislature (Assemblea Legislativa1997).
However because the Ngöbe-Bugle have been a kinship-based society, there is still some
confusion with the election of the traditional leaders and the powers they have within the
Comarca (Young 1979).
20
Figure 4: Political Regions of the Comarca
21
Although the Ngöbe-Buglé were and still remain largely a kinship based culture,
groups such as the Mami-Chi created leaders who in turn integrated themselves into
Latino culture. These leaders wanted to obtain power for themselves and in order to
achieve this they needed a hierarchal structure that can be governed. However, now
within the construct of the comarca, a traditional system for the Kuna but not for the
Ngöbe-Buglé, problems arise between factions of the Caciques and provincial governors.
This results in confusion, as average people do not know who is in charge. In 2002, an
election was held for the new Caciques, but not until 2004 did the Panamanian
government recognize the new traditional chieftains. Thus, during that interim period,
again the people of the comarca were neglected. The program I researched, Patronato de
Nutricion, works directly with Ngöbe farmers, and is affected by the political past of the
comarca.
Economy
The main economy of the Ngöbe-Buglé was and is subsistence agriculture
(Cabarrus 1979 as cited in Bourgis 1988). Before the Mama-Chi movement, when the
Ngöbe harvested more than their household needs, they would hold ritual activities such
as a wedding or harvest festival (Young 1979). They had little experience with time
constraints, cash, and living in a defined community area (Johnson 1948). During the
1950s many of the Ngöbe took their cayucos (dug out boats) and rowed to Almirante and
Changinola to work for the United Fruit Company, a subsidiary of the Chriquí Land
Company (Gordon 1982). Others went to Costa Rica and worked in the coffee
plantations. They worked as wage laborers who worked hard and earned little.
22
The institutionalized atmosphere changed some of the views of the Ngöbe in
terms of economy. Some people leave their towns to work in coffee farms from
September through December as low wage laborers. Road access to Bocas del Toro was
limited before 1984 and the main mode of transportation was by boat. This made it
difficult for development to occur in the Bocas region before the 1980s. After the road
from David to Chiriquí Grande was built in 1984 access was greater to the Bocas del
Toro area and Ngöbe were able to travel more quickly to work in the coffee plantations in
Costa Rica and Chiriquí (Bort and Young 1985). The roads opened up more activities
such as construction work. The road from Chiriquí Grande to the Inter-American
Highway was not built until 1997, opening the route all the way from David to
Changinola.
Development Agencies
Some confusion exists within the Panamanian institutions such as MIDA
(Ministry of Agriculture), ANAM (National Authority of the Environment), MINSA
(Ministry of Health), and MEDUC (Ministry of Education) about which agency has the
authority to work within the comarca. At this time the agencies are creating separate
institutions that only work within the Comarca. For example instead of just calling the
institution MIDA, it is called MIDA Comarcal. “The Project Ngöbe-Buglé” formerly
funded by FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), GTZ
(German Technical Cooperation), and JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) is
now funded by the World Bank to work in the comarca for sustainable agricultural
practices and indigenous arts marketing (PNB 2002). The Meso-America Biological
23
Corridor Project works with coastal communities to conserve biodiversity by
implementing different agricultural programs, such as enhanced cacao production
(ANAM 2001). A variety of other development programs exist in the comarca to help the
indigenous people of the Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé.
Ngöbe Agriculture Systems in Bocas del Toro
Bocas del Toro received over three meters of rain in 2003 (Hidrometeorología
2004). No real pronounced dry season exists within the Bocas del Toro province except
for a small period in September. In the past the region probably had large deposits of ash
deposited by volcanic actions but have by now been eroded (Gordon 1982). Soils in the
comarca range in classes of III, V, VI, VII, and VIII (PNB 2002). Unlike many other
parts of Panama, Bocas del Toro has more class III through V arable land but high
rainfall damages many crops. The classes VI through VIII are not considered arable. It is
a well-suited environment for the staple diet of banana and plantain.
The Ngöbe use a slash and burn agriculture system as well as a slash and mulch
in Bocas del Toro (Gordon 1982). The farms were usually left for a seven-year fallow
period along with a selective clearing of a new area to plant (Young 1971, Tollefson
1989). The main crops were yams (Dioscorea spp.), peach palm (Bactris gasipaeas
Kunth), corn (Zea mays), taro root (Xanthosoma violaceum), cacao (Theobroma cacao),
and coffee (Coffea arabica ) along with small game and fish. They utilize a variety of
forest tree and plant species that supplement their diet. The introduced species of
plantains (Musa paradisiaca) and bananas (Musa sapientum) became the staple food
source along with animal stock of cows, pigs, chickens, ducks and turkeys (Gordon 1982,
24
Young 1971, PNB 2002). Rice (Oryz sativa), another species introduced by Europeans, is
an important part of the Ngöbe diet. Cash crops are cacao, rice, peach palm, and coffee.
Cow pastures were increased in the 1960s as ranchers from Chiriquí came to work at the
Bocas Fruit Company. This increased more during the banana blight of the 1970s when
the Chiriquí Land Company invested in cattle. Smallholder farmers began to clear land
for their own cattle when they saw the company investing in the cattle. ANAM (2004)
stated an annual loss of 10000 (ha) of forested land due to the increase in pasture land,
banana plantations, and slash and burn agriculture.
Population pressures have increased more rapidly in Bocas del Toro in the last
twenty years because of the new roads. People have come from other parts of Panama to
take advantage of open land. The use of machetes, rifles, lights, and snorkeling
equipment and population pressures have depleted populations of wild game and fish
(Young 1971, Gordon 1982). Many of the Ngöbe people leave their farms to work in
plantations and have less time to work in their own farms. Much of the comarca in Bocas
del Toro is only accessible by foot or by boat, making transportation of goods difficult as
well as extension work. Agriculture remains the main source of food and funds for the
Ngöbe in the province of Bocas del Toro as well as the people of Chalite.
CHALITE
Chalite is located at N 8o52’0” W 82o2’0” in the province of Bocas del Toro,
Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé, district of Kankintu, in Guariviara county in zone Kö-jutare
(Wayhoo 2004, PNB 2001). The Guariviara region (Figure 5) has 5,368 people with a
25
density of 6.9 people per km2 in twenty-two small communities (ANAM 2002). The
Panamánian National census estimated 216 people live in Chalite (Panama Census 2000).
To reach Chalite one leaves from Chiriquí Grande out into the Chiriquí Bay and
then south up the Guariviara River, usually traveling in a small fifteen to eighteen foot
boat powered by a fifteen horsepower motor. The trip usually takes four hours when the
river is high. When the river is low and the boat must be pushed, it takes longer.
Map produced by Russell Slatton with data from Contalaria
general de La republica de Panama, seccion de Cartografia,
permssion obtained. Russell Slatton
Figure 5: Guariviara Region
26
Map produced by Russell Slatton with data from Contalaria
general de La republica de Panama, seccion de Cartografia,
permssion obtained. Russell Slatton
Figure 6: Sketch map of Chalite
27
Chalite lies between a small mountain to the south called Cerro Chalite (Figure 6) and
swampland to the north. It lies at an elevation of twenty meters (Wayhoo 2004) above sea
level. To the south one can see the high rising Cordillera (central mountain range of
Panamá) dividing the Isthmus.
While the official language of Panamá is Spanish, all of the people in Chalite
speak the indigenous language Ngäbere with a mixture of Spanish words. Most of the
older generation only speaks Ngäbere, making it difficult to communicate with the
younger people who do not like to speak Ngäbere. For example, an old grandmother told
me the young have no respect for the old because they have a hard time understanding the
young people when they talk in Spanish to them. The young people tend to ignore them,
especially if they were going to be sent to do something like collect wood. There were
many times while I was in my house and I heard “blite ngäbere” or “speak my language”,
not Spanish. The grandmother next door was speaking to the children, screaming and
playing all around her, talking only in Spanish.
History
The people of Chalite recite the story of a French gentleman with the name of
Chalite, who first formed the town in the 1950s. He moved where the central part of town
is and started to farm while taking up a wife. Many of the people moved to Chalite in the
1970s after retiring from the Bocas Fruit Company so they could have their farms and
pastures without the highly populated, deforested, area of the Cricamola River region.
People in Chalite are more traditional as compared to people in other towns near city
centers, although most of the time they do not wear the traditional Nagwa (Figure 7)
28
unless it is for a formal occasion. They also make Krä, bags woven of Kiga (Aechmea
magdalenae) and drink cacao during the full moon to keep away bad spirits.
Figure 7: Little meris (women) wearing nagwas
Education
In the 1950s and 1960s, some of the Ngöbe would send their children to the AfroAntillean families on Bocas Island to attend school (Young 1978). The children would
work for their room and board. Now many of the communities have a small school to
provide basic education. The Ministry of Education (MINSA) constructed a concrete
school in 1998 (Figure 8) and children are able to attend kindergarten through sixth
grade, but must to go to Changinola, Kusapin, Kankintu, or Chiriquí Grande if they wish
to receive any higher education. This proves difficult, because at the moment the nearest
29
of those secondary schools are four to eight hours away by boat. Some children are able
to attend by living with relatives in those areas. Primary school is free in Panamá, and the
Guariviara region has been a focus of the government. However the uniforms, paper,
pencils, and pens are not free, and tend to be prohibitively expensive. The teachers are
Latinos who come from other places in Panamá. This sometimes leads to communication
problems with language and cultural barriers. According to the Panama Census 2000,
one-third of the community had less than a third grade education.
Figure 8 : Teachers at the school
Transportation
Transportation to and from Chalite is by boat on the river Guariviara (Figure 9).
The nearest city is Chiriquí Grande, which provides bus service to and from Changinola
and David. Many people take the boat for a cost of four dollars to arrive in Chiriquí
30
Grande and then four dollars more to come back to Chalite. All transportation of goods
such as cattle, pifa, rice, and anything else is by boat or horse. The cost to transport
something is usually one dollar per sack, or one dollar per extra hundred pounds. Many
times people will pool their cash crops such as cacao (chocolate), to enable cheaper cost
of transport. It will weigh more but ends up costing less because there are fewer people
traveling. This varies with the level of trust between cooperating parties.
Figure 9 : Boat carrying supplies upriver
A large network of trails (Figure 10) exists in the Gauriviara area, connecting the
towns, farms, and pastures. These trails have developed over the years by people walking
31
and riding horses. The trails cross logs, rivers, banana fields, towns, and other various
landscapes to reach a destination. For example the nearest medical facility and phone
is about a two hour walk away with two log crossings, three stream crossings, and nine
barb wired fences to cross.
Figure 10: Kept path to the river
32
Infrastructure
Thirty-three inhabited houses are located in Chalite. Missionaries built sixteen of
the houses in 1992. The houses were all built of wood planks, concrete floors, and zinc
roofs, all paid for by the church. Houses not built by missionaries are usually built on
stilts with a wood floor and palm thatch roof. The houses are on stilts to avoid the mud,
rain, and dangerous critters. Wooden poles were set up with copper wire between the
houses that run to a diesel generator. Electricity was only available to the missionarybuilt houses. However, the generator was damaged in the year 2000. A couple of years
after the missionaries built the houses many of the people built a rancho (palm thatch
covered building) in the back of the concrete floor house for a place to cook, pass the
time, and sleep (Figure 11). In the past people used vines to tie the palm thatch and wood
together but now there is cheap nylon twine and nails. The more affluent can obtain zinc
for their roofs.
A collection dam is located above the community in the stream and is surrounded
by forested lands The stream supplies running potable water. The funding for
construction of the dam and water tank came from a government organization (FES). The
people of the town have agreed not to cut down trees around the stream to protect it, but
the agreement is slowly eroding. Some have planted banana on the same hillside. PVC
tubes run from the dam to a storage tank (Figure 12) that lies on a hill above the
community. One tube runs from the tank to houses that have tubing running to them.
However, currently the dam is damaged and they run a 2.5” pipe directly from the stream
to the storage tank. People still get diarrhea and vomiting when they use other water
sources that contain viruses, amoebas, or parasites.
33
Figure 11: Rancho in the back of a house
Figure 12: Water tank of Chalite
34
Chalite has no health facility, phone, roads, or bridges. Most of the area is open
pastureland, secondary forest, and cultivated land (ANAM 2001). There is a large road
cut, which is not paved and is highly eroded leading from Cañazas #3 to the town of
Guabal near the rivers Daira and Guariviara. It is supposed to extend all the way eastward
to the large Ngöbe city of Kankintú, thereby opening up the heart of the area to
commerce and trade. The walk on the road is eight hours from Chalite to Cañazas.
Organizations
Four main organizations exist in Chalite. Padres de La Familia (Parents of the
Students) is a group formed by the school and teachers of the parents to help cook, pay
for food, and gather wood. The artesanias (crafts group), is formed of women who meet
to make chakaras (the traditional bags), discuss health issues and market goods. Proyecto
Ngöbe-Buglé, a project that was in the area in 1996 promoting sustainable agriculture
technologies and now has started again. Patronato de Nutricíon, a private Panamánian
NGO that creates communal farms attempting to feed people and promote sustainable
methods of farming. They send an extension worker once every two weeks to deliver
tools and supplies to the farm group. Other small groups include a sports club and water
committee.
Farming
The majority of farming in Chalite is a slash and burn system with some slash and
mulch (Figure 13). They grow rice, corn, plantains, bananas, peach palm, manioc, yams,
cacao, coffee, and a variety of herbaceous and tree species. Farming is conducted in the
35
three distinct areas of the swamp, river area, and hillsides. Swamps provide growing
areas for rice. Flooding of the river deposits sandy soils and nutrients to grow most of the
other crops. Hillsides are used more and more for crops. Decreased land access may be a
contributing factor. Cash crops are cacao and peach palm. Access to markets,
accessibility to land, and other factors limit the success of farmers in Chalite. Programs
such as Patronato de Nutricíon have attempted to provide improved sustainable farming
methods. They have tried to increase production and improve health through a program
developed to improve crop quality and production in a sustainable manner. Through the
farm program, the farmers should learn new agricultural technologies to improve their
own farms.
Figure 13: Slash and mulch system for corn
36
CHAPTER 3 – AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION LITERATURE
REVIEW
Patronato de Nutricíon is an NGO based in Panama endeavors to creates
“sustainable” farms in small rural communities. One of the goals of Patronato de
Nutricíon is to train the farmers in improved agricultural technologies, so in turn the
agricultural technology is transferred into the farmers farms. New agricultural
technologies are developed in order to raise the standard of living for families and
conserve the environment (Patronato de Nutricíon 2004 (c)). In the following chapter, I
will discuss the idea of agricultural technology adoption, the need for more sustainable
agricultural activities, a brief review of agricultural technologies, the study of agricultural
technology adoption, and examples from Panama. This literature review provides the
reader with a brief overview of agricultural technology adoption studies, why they are
important, and the basis for my study.
Agricultural Adoption
The study of technology transfer is referred to as adoption and diffusion (Feder
1985). Most agricultural adoption studies utilize discrete data in the form of yes or no to
utilize as statistical data. Continuous data is the extent of the adoption and how the
technology is spreading and changing, known as diffusion (Neil and Lee 1999, Mele and
Zakaria 2002). People will either adopt the new technology or not, and programs such as
Patronato de Nutricíon, that I worked with, attempt to help them adopt these new
technologies. One of the long term goals of these programs is to leave the farmers with
the ability to improve their farms after the development program ends (Bunch 1999).
37
Farmer’s Needs
The current form of agriculture for smallholder farmers in many developing
nations is the slash and burn or swidden-fallow system of farming. This involves clearing
a piece of land, burning the brush, and then planting a crop. The ash from the burn
provides readily available nutrients (Prinz 1986). Erosion is limited to the small areas that
are cleared for the crops. Farmers leave trees standing in the cleared areas for firewood,
building materials, or because it is too difficult to remove them (Ruf and Schroth 2004).
The fallow period allows the land to recuperate, and return the land to productive levels,
over a period of ten to twenty-five years, depending upon the specific area (Place and
Dewees 1999). With increases in population and land use, farmers are not able to leave a
field fallow for a long enough period of time to recuperate (Carrasco 1993, Godoy 2000,
Harwood 1996).
Harwood (1996) and Raintree (1986) state that slash and burn farming is a
starting point for evolving new pathways of agriculture, but warn not to focus on one
single aspect. With natural resources becoming scarcer, poor land management accounts
for much of the environmental damage (Neil and Lee 1999). Natural resources are seen
as expendable by many (Allen et al. 1991) and activities such as clearing land for cattle
and growing monocultures in areas like Central America are increasing (Harwood 1996).
With pressure to protect the environment, produce more goods to sell, and food to eat,
agricultural technologies are being developed by researchers, development agencies, and
farmers to help smallholder farmers and sustainably manage land resources (Place and
38
Dewees 1999).
Agricultural Technology Options
With limited resources available, new sustainable agricultural technologies are
needed for smallholder farmer (Wiggins 2000). Although mineral fertilizers, HYVs (high
yield varieties of seed), and mechanization are introduced, a low rate of adoption occurs
because of the prohibitive costs (Prinz 1986). Many of these technologies mine the
nutrients without replenishing them (Wit 1987). For example, tilling the soil creates
better soil structure, however it is also found to reduce organic content in soil (Prinz
1986). Fischer and Vasseur (2000) identified eight different systems of farm and off farm
improvements. These included alley cropping, trees in farms, gardens, live barriers, live
fencing, shade trees, taungya and windbreaks. Although the breadth of agricultural
technologies and literature is too large to cover here, some examples are given from the
literature of more sustainable agricultural technologies.
Woody and herbaceous legumes provide a source of organic material and, through
fixation of nitrogen (Nichols et al. 2001). Nitrogen fixation provides a useable form of
nitrogen for trees and surrounding plants. Farm systems that use perennial crops like
banana, cacao, and coffee can use nitrogen-fixing trees such as Leucaina leucocephala,
Glircidia sepium, and Acacia mangium (Prinz 1986, Nichols et al. 2001) for shade and
nutrients (Place and Dewees 1999). Other “green manures” Phaseolus vulgaris, velvet
bean or mucuna (Mucuna pruriens), and jack bean (Canavalia spp.) are used for food,
cover crops to shade out the weeds, organic humus, and nitrogen fixation (Nichols et al.
2001). For the last twenty-five years mucuna use in Honduras increased corn production
39
considerably by shading out the weeds and providing a no till system. The farmer cuts
the mucuna and plants the corn directly into the decaying organic matter, thereby saving
labor (Buckles 1999). A study by Nwonwu and Obiaga 1988 (as cited in Nichols et al.
2001) shows the cost of labor per hectare is lower when a cover crop is used.
Agroforestry, or tree integration, is used in farms to grow wood and create shade.
Laurel (Cordia alliodura) is a common species used for shade in mixed cacao groves in
Panama (Neri 1999). Ruf and Schroder (2004) established that shading reduces stress on
cacao trees. Agroforstry technologies work long term as compared to fertilizers that work
well in the short term to increase production but do not work as well in the long term
because access and costs prevent further use. A study in Brazil found in the 1970s people
kept their shade trees although the Brazilian government was promoting herbicides,
fertilizers, and shade removal. Reasons included wood for construction, firewood, and
farmers did not think the chemicals would help.
Soil conservation usually involves planting on the contour with live or dead
barriers. The object is to retain topsoil and prevent erosion, especially on steep slopes
(Prinz 1986). Creating contours requires low inputs of materials but high inputs of labor
(Bunch 1999). Terracing is another technology used to prevent soil erosion on steep
slopes. However, terracing is highly labor intensive and time consuming, therefore less
desirable to farmers (Shiferaw and Holden 1998).
Many agricultural technologies have been developed to help smallholder farmers.
However, Neil and Lee (1999) caution against using only one technology due to
problems with monocultures and outside factors such as natural disasters and world
markets. Traditional agriculture provides a basis of traditional knowledge that can
40
incorporate appropriate sustainable agricultural technologies (Braimoh 2002). However,
Bunch (1995) cautions against thinking traditional agriculture is the only answer to
helping smallholder farmers, otherwise the farmers current problems would be solved
(Bunch 2000 as cited in Smith 2000). If there is too much concentration solely on the
agricultural technology, the human aspect is neglected (Allen et al. 1991).
Adoption Study
Increased interest by researchers and political bodies because of the promise of
economic growth (Pattanayak et al. 2003) has increased research into the process of
introduction, adaptation, and adoption (Cromwell 1992). The need for adoption studies
stems from interest by donor agencies and consultants who make assumptions about
farmers' needs without addressing their local situation (Bannister and Nair 2003).
Inevitably, this means bad decisions are made from the top down without knowing what
is actually happening, especially at the farm level. If a development program does not
address farmers' needs, the program will be rejected by the farmers (Amacher et al.
1993).
Past researchers investigated green revolution technologies such as HYV
fertilizers, mechanization, irrigation, and high value crops (Neil and Lee 1999). However,
studies now are focusing more on traditional agricultural methods (Peng 1996). Little is
known about how smallholder farmers in developing nations manage and value their trees
and farms (Cromwell 1992). Many farmers are perceived by extension workers as
resistant to their adoption when new agricultural technologies are introduced. Frustrated
extension agents in Bhutan say it is because of cultural barriers and a lack of interest
41
(Roder 2004). Veersteg (1998) asserts that researchers should focus on the needs of the
farmer, help them experiment, and act as a liaison with funding agencies. This involves
the farmer in the research process, not just the recipient (Allen et al. 1991).
Adoption research often focuses on a single technology and biological factors
instead of the whole farm system (Allen et al. 1991). However, social and economic
processes are necessary to study the adoption of farm technologies requiring a
multidisciplinary approach (Budowski 1993 as cited in Fischer and Vasseur 2002,
Rauniyar 1996, Cromwell 1992). Researchers need to further local development and risk
sharing to advance adoption and understanding by understanding the local situatio of the
farmer (Cromwell 1992). Some recent farm studies attempt to explain how the farmer,
farm, and land characteristics are correlated with the adoption of agricultural
technologies. Just because the agricultural technology works well in a research farm does
not mean it will work well within the farming system of a smallholder farmer. Farming
systems research or whole farm research includes socio-economic data and outside
factors which gives a more complete picture of the farmers and their farms (Pattanayak
2003).
Adoption Study Results and Findings
Many times a community is introduced to a new agricultural technology through a
development program and will be excited about using it. However, after time, most
people lose interest and few if any use it (Versteeg et al. 1998). Roder (2004) found that
people adopt a new technology primarily for immediate economic benefit, which usually
42
requires good access to markets and quality results from the new agricultural technology.
If markets are available then people can take advantage of higher yields.
In a study by Fischer and Vasseur (2002) farmers identified problems with
agricultural extension. The extension agents used too much technical language, were not
humble, and many times did not show up when they said they would. Monitoring and
follow up was not sufficient. Another study showed that villagers were more interested in
the personality traits of the extension agent than the technologies the extension agent
promoted (Amacher 1993).
In some programs, commercial fertilizers and herbicides are used before a more
sustainable agricultural technology because of the immediate gains. (Ruf and Schroder
2004). However, even with a technology like herbicides, sometimes people will not adopt
because they use the herbicide incorrectly, and then abandon the technology because of
the poor results (Godoy et al. 2000). Mucuna, a green manure, though successful in
Honduras, is now experiencing problems because of weeds and mismanagement. Farmers
let the mucuna self-seed, which was effective before, because the mucuna set enough
seed to grow over the weeds. However, with the emergence of a new fast growing weed
means mucuna now requires the farmers to collect seed, and then seed their land. They do
not want to use the new planting method because it requires more work (Neil and Lee
1999).
Cacao once considered a highly viable cash crop, but after prices plummeted in
the 1980s and witches broom disease (Crinipellis perniciosa) killed off many trees,
people shied away from it. Programs now promote cacao farms grown under forest
canopies as a way to conserve forests and make money without using fertilizers and
43
herbicides (Ruf and Schroth 2004). Brazilians who did not cut down the shade trees are
now looked on by Brazilian agencies as an example of effective traditional technology
(Johns 1999). Even if an agricultural technology works well, sometimes farmers will not
use it because they are afraid that people will steal the product. For example, fishponds
are particularly susceptible to theft (Bannister and Nair 2003).
Local knowledge of the area is important. People will not replant in land that
does not produce (Amacher et al. 1993). Therefore, people will not attempt a sustainable
agricultural technology if they believe the land will not produce (Cochran 2004).
Educating people in a development program about the immediate local area is correlated
with adoption of new agricultural technologies (Amacher 1993, Godoy 2000). Previous
knowledge, from extension work has also been cited as a reason for adoption (Bannister
and Nair 2003, Amend 2002). Bunch (1999) claims that adoption happens when the
technology is simple and little input is needed. The diffusion of mucuna in Honduras
through family networks is an example of a simple agricultural technology with some
extension work on a local level (Buckles 1999).
Huizer (1970) argues people many times will not change because they feel that
the outside forces are beyond their control. Why change when one feels that things will
not really change? Factors out of control of the farmers include weather, topography, and
large markets (Bunch 1995). Risk is a limiting factor because if the new agricultural
technology does not work, things have not changed, they have gotten worse. The
perception that technology will not really help stems from a lack of leadership,
organization, credit, income, land, and illiteracy (Apantaku et al. 2000, Feder 1985).
44
Agricultural Adoption Studies in Panama
From the 1950s through the 1970s the Panamanian government promoted largescale farming and cattle production (Current and Scherr 1995 as cited in Fischer and
Vasseur 2002). A 1962 agrarian law stated that in order to own land the owner must use
two thirds of the land for some sort of production such as pasture or farmland (Simmons
et al. 2002). During the 1960s much of the fertile flat land was taken by large farms,
causing smallholder farmers to move to less fertile land (Johnson 1991 as cited in Fischer
and Vasseur 2002). After the 1970s, most agroforestry programs were focused on wood
production for farmers. Since the 1980s, there have been many agricultural development
programs such as FIDA (Rural Development for the Guaymis), and Proyecto NgöbeBuglé. However, there is little published material regarding agricultural adoption studies
in Panama (Fischer and Vasseur 2000, Gomez 1995).
Neri (1999) researched adoption rates of the native tree laurel (Cordia alliordura)
in three Ngöbe communities. The study was conducted in Bocas del Toro as part of
cooperation between ANAM and CATIE (Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion
y Enseñanza). The two-year study gave three Ngöbe communities seedlings of laurel to
plant as shade trees for their cacao trees and lumber. Adoption rates were relatively high,
45%, because laurel was already grown and desired by the farmers in the towns..
However, Neri (1999) noted that after the program ended the extension agents did not
visit all the farms and only asked the farmers if they planted the tree. He believes that
because it was already a tree species the farmers used and was the trees were highly
desirable, they were an appropriate agricultural technology that would be adopted.
45
Fischer and Vasseur (2002, 2000) researched agricultural technology adoption in
the southern provinces of Panama, the Azuero, and Chiriquí. They studied adoption of
alternative technologies such as rice ponds, green manures, hillside planting, contour
lines, and agroforestry. Five development agencies were promoting these technologies.
They used informal surveys and interviews with farmers and extension workers to find
out if farmers were adopting any of the technologies. They found that most farmers
continued to use subsistence farming. Constraints to adoption included the amount of
land, extension workers, and the top down structures of the agencies. The average amount
of land owned by an individual farmer was less than seven hectares. More intensive
agricultural technologies like alley cropping with green manures were promoted to more
fully use the land. Farmers complained that extension workers used too much technical
jargon in their talks and showed them little respect. Extension workers said the agencies
were giving too many things away and promoting paternalism. Fischer and Vasseur
(2000,2002) suggested that long-term projects are needed as well as low cost
demonstration farms to reduce the risk to the farmers.
Cochran (2004) conducted research specifically in the area of The Azuero. He
looked as to whether farmers were adopting sustainable agriculture technologies through
farmer-to-farmer extension and the NGO IDEAS (Impact on Development,
Empowerment and Action). He found that less than 25% were first generation farmers,
and most were specifically trained by the NGO. Some farmers who adopted new
agricultural technologies stated they did so because they hoped for higher yields and were
pressured to try something different because of their own low yields. Farmers who used
the slash and burn method said that it was easier, part of their tradition, and slash and
46
burn produced higher yields. Cochran noted that the program had only been there for five
years, which could account for the poor adoption levels of the new agricultural
technologies.
Adoption studies usually only research the reasons why people do not adopt as
compared to why they do adopt (Bannister and Nair 2003). The question then is, “how
does one go about conducting research that will be beneficial to the community and the
researcher?” As a Peace Corps volunteer in the town of Chalite, my job was to work with
the NGO Patronato de Nutricíon and try and help people increase farm production.
During this time I was also researching what I would study and noted there was little
published material with respect to Bocas del Toro and Panama. My experiences with the
agency Patronato de Nutricion and current literature started my process of research. One
of the problems I had seen with development of Bocas del Toro were that agencies were
attempting to use agricultural technologies from the Azuero. Bocas del Toro has a
different climate and different people. As the literature has stated this is a constraint to
adoption and I wanted to find out more through my research. Through my observations,
meetings, and talking with people in Chalite, I found that I had started the process of
farming systems research. I decided to continue on this path and study the Ngöbes’
adoption of new agricultural technologies and the effects of the Patronato de Nutricíon
farm program.
47
CHAPTER 4 – METHODOLOGY
From May 2002 to July 2004 I was an Agriculture Volunteer in Panamá. I spent
my first three months from May 2002 to June 2002 in the training community of Caimito
learning the Spanish language and small-scale agriculture technologies that we were
going to promote. After arriving in the Community of Chalite October 21st I began the
process of working as a volunteer and starting my research. I based my methods on the
farming systems research method (DeWalt 1985, Doorman 1991, Godoy 2000, Martin
and Sherington 1997,Tripp 1985). My methods chapter is divided into two sections. The
first section describes participant observation, on-farm visits, and group meetings with
the farmers. Through the aforementioned methods I was better able to understand the
community and Ngöbe culture allowing me to conduct a semi-structured interviews of
nineteen farmers in the community and semi-structured interviews with extension
workers from Patronato de Nutricíon (Doorman 1991,Godoy 2000).
STAGE I
For the first ten months of my time in Chalite I was in the exploratory stage of my
research (Yin 2003). I was finding out what was important to people in Chalite. I learned
out how they live, eat, play, farm and interact as a society. I improved my Spanish and
Ngöbe while creating lasting relationships members of the community. In the first stage I
used social science research methods such as participant observation, farm visits, and
many informal talks with farmers about their needs and problems. During this stage I was
48
learning as much as I could about agricultural extension technologies and ways that I
could help them improve their farms. To better accomplish this I started the first stages of
farm systems research by learning about the local area and culture (Doorman 1991).
Participant Observation
From October 2002 to June 2004, I lived and worked in the town of Chalite. I
participated in community activities almost every day. I kept an in-depth daily journal of
what I saw, heard, and thought. I used participant observation to better understand the
community as a whole (Nichols 2000, Crane 1992). For example, I helped the MamaTata church members in the community carry penca (palm thatch) from over an hour
away. We carried the penca across two small mountains. Afterwards we ate food and
drank coffee together. I was an observer and a participant in daily activities. I talked to
people about why they had to go so far to get penca. I personally experienced the
difficulty in obtaining the resource, penca. I had a better understanding of the labor
involved procuring the penca and the importance of the product. Many people prefer zinc
for their roofs because of the durability and development agencies will distribute zinc.
However, penca is preferred for the cooking space because it is cooler. In the nighttime,
when I went home, I wrote in my journal daily what was learned and observed in
activities like this.
Farm Visits
Farming was the focus of my time and research in Chalite. While working with
the Patronato farm twice a week I also visited and worked on many other farms. At times
49
I would work with the farmers on their farms to try and help improve them, or at other
times I would walk with them around the farms and discuss their technologies, problems,
and successes. I observed and worked with ten different farmers multiple times during
my time in Chalite (Nichols 2000). I asked specific questions about a crop such as “How
often do you harvest this yam”. After the day was done, I wrote what I had seen and what
the farmer had told me. Daily journal entries allowed me to develop a general picture of
the farmer and the farms, especially within the context of Ngöbe culture (Crane 1992).
I worked with the NGO Patronato de Nutricíon twice a week, on Mondays and
Saturdays. I would work with the men and women to accomplish the tasks set out by the
leaders of the farm or the Patronato extension agent. During this time, I developed my
particular question about whether the Patronato program was helping people adopt
agricultural technologies that were promoted on the Patronato Farm. Through continued
participation, I began to identify other key related questions to further my developing
study.
Group Meetings
I was involved with over fifteen informal meetings with the socio (the Patronato
farm group) and extension agents. Group meetings are a way to listen to farmers talking
about issues they think are important (Nichols 2000). During these meetings we would
draw farm maps, farm cycles, and discuss problems ranging from money to insect
problems (Selener et al. 1999). Meetings were also a way to plan farm activities and
watch the interaction between the Patronato extension agent and the farmers. This is
where I became aware of the language barrier between the farmers and extension agents.
50
During and after the meeting I would write notes and information to record what I had
seen and heard. I would also share with the farmers what I had written and heard. The
meetings were an essential part of the next stage of the study, in which I conducted semistructured interviews. The meetings made it apparent that the extension agents did not
really know what the farmers’ farms were like. The conditions on the Patronato farm,
based on my observations, were different than those of the farmers.
STAGE I
I continued participant observation methods and working with people in the
community. I talked with key informants almost daily (Nichols 2000). As my qualitative
data was growing I wanted to be able to discuss my results from a quantitative and
qualitative view, or as a whole farm system (Godoy 2000). In order to do this and help
answer my question of whether farmers were using technologies that they had learned
from Patronato, I developed a semi-structured survey and interviews with the extension
agents. After I developed the questions, I received permission from the Comarca NgöbeBuglé and Institutional Review Board at Michigan Technological University to conduct
the study.
Semi-Structured Surveys
I conducted semi-structured interviews with nineteen head of households out of
an available sample of fifty households. Households were selected by throwing a die. If
the die landed on a one or two landed from the thrown die, I would attempt to interview
the head of the household (Nichols 2000). Questions for the interview were tested with
51
other Ngöbe people who were not going to be interviewed. Other volunteers also helped
to refine the survey. Before I started an interview I would talk to the respondent and
explain their rights and obtain permission to do the survey.
I had lived in Chalite a year and a half and working and living with the people and
was accepted enough to get truthful statements. If they were untruthful with me I would
comment that I had seen something different and we would discuss it. I tried to make it
clear that I would not be sharing their information with others in the community and
explain why I was doing the interview. Although my sample size was small, my
acceptance and their trust created more accurate data. All interviews were conducted in
Spanish and Ngöbe with the identified head of household. If I needed help I would ask a
child to help me.
Cochran (2004), Doorman (1991), Godoy (2000), and Kitchen (2000) cite semistructured interviews as a valuable way to obtain data to answer the research question.
Cochran (2004) divided the interviews into three parts as I did: socio-economic data,
farm systems, and technology adoption questions. Available households for the
interviews were families who sent their children to the school in Chalite. I chose this
method because it assured the farmers would have some interaction with the Patronato
farm program.
The first and second parts of the interview (Table 1 and Table 2), were based on
observations and other studies (Godoy 2000). The questions attempt to find out the
condition of the people and their daily activities. Factors I included to analyze
agricultural technology adoption were based on wealth, land, markets, and other factors
found to affect adoption (Amacher 1993, Pattanayak 2003). These questions incorporated
52
a year and a half of my observations and attempted gain more knowledge about Ngöbe
farmers.
Table 1: Interview Questions -Household characteristics
1
2
3
Sex
Age
Years of Education
15
15a
15b
3a
Where
How many people live in the
house
How many houses do you live in
/own
How many people in the house
are below the age of 12
Are there people in the house
that do not speak Spanish
15c
Do you hunt
What do you hunt
With what do you hunt
How many times do you hunt in
a week
15d
Where do you prefer to hunt
16
Do you fish
How many times do you fish in a
week
4
5
6
7
7a
11
12
How many
You have lived in this house
how many years
Where were you born
When did you come here
How many 5 gal. tanks do you
have
Do you work for money
12a
12b
12c
Work (how much per year)
Where
How often
12d
13
13a
13b
Pay rate
Sell things (how much)
What
Price per unit
13c
14
14a
Where
Pension
How much per month
8
9
10
16a
17
17a
Do you cook with wood
How many times a month do you
get wood
17b
17c
18
Approximately how much
How long does it take
Do you cook with gas
18a
19
21
21a
22
22a
22b
How often do you run out
Who runs the house
Are you part of a group or
organization in the community
List them
How often
Part of a group or organization
List them
Do you have debts
To whom
How much
23
23a
Can you get credit
From Who
20
20a
53
Table 2: Interview Questions - Farm characteristics
24
24a
24b
24c
24d
24e
24f
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
33a
33b
33c
35
36
Do you have a farm or farms
How many different areas
For each separate area how many hectares
Where is it
How long to walk from your house
What do you grow there
What do you harvest that you did not plant
For how many years have you worked as a farmer
Who taught you
How do you know good soil from bad
Do you have tools
Do you prepare your farm before planting
Do you cut then burn
How long do you use a piece of land
How long do you leave it lay fallow
Do you own your farm(s)
How do you measure it
How do you mark it, boundaries etc.
If you have a problem between two owners what do you do
Do you have animals at your farm(s)
Do you sell things that come from your farm(s)?
54
The third part (Table 3) was based on adoption of eighteen technologies that I identified
as being promoted on the Patronato de Nutricíon farm.
Table 3: Interview Questions - Agricultural technology questions: Note – Each
technology question asks how they have knowledge, if they use it, and why or why
not as in question 37.
37
37a
37b
37c
37d
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
Knowledge of contours y/n (0-1)
If yes how
Use contours
If no why
If yes why
Knowledge of green manures and organics
Knowledge of rice tanks
Knowledge of pineapple in lines
Knowledge of agricultural chemicals
Knowledge of chicken pens
Knowledge of ducks pens
Knowledge of fish ponds
Knowledge of pigs pens
Knowledge of grafted fruit trees
Knowledge of non-native tree species
Knowledge of management of banana and plantains
Knowledge of coffee stand management
Knowledge of manioc management
Knowledge of taro root management
Knowledge of gardens and vegetables
Knowledge of seed beds and small nurseries
Knowledge of irrigation
Do you sell rice
Do you sell plantains
Do you sell manioc
Do you sell taro root
Do you sell pigs
Do you sell chickens
Do you sell fish
Do you sell wood
Do you sell fruit
Do you sell coffee
Do you sell ducks
Do you sell pineapple
55
Data Analysis
After the interview data was collected, it was entered into an Excel format.
Questions that produced yes or no answers were entered as one and zero. Questions that
asked for a list or reasons for a yes or no statement were categorized and then applied to
each farmer to see if they had mentioned that particular response. For example if
someone said that they learned about a technology from MIDA, I included MIDA as a
category for each respondent and marked yes or no if they responded with the same
response of MIDA. In this manner I was able to produce an Excel spreadsheet with all
yes or no answers. The ones and zeros were input and used in a Pearson correlation
analysis of 209 different variables of the nineteen respondents.
Pearson correlation allows the researcher to find pairs of variables that may show
a positive or negative interaction between each other (Doorman 1991). For example, most
studies show that income has a high correlation with adoption of new agricultural
technologies (Kitchen and Tate 2000, Pattanayak 2003). Using SAS (Larose and Jin
1998) I produced more than 21,000 different relationships between variables (Kitchen
2000). Variables were searched for significance levels (r value) of 90% and 99% (Table
4). A value between -1 and 1 is given (P value) for the Pearson correlation coefficient.
The closer the value to -1 or 1, the more the variable is considered a significant factor of
agricultural technology adoption. I compared the correlation coefficients to journal notes
and interview responses for consistency and clustering to combine qualitative and
quantitative analysis of agricultural technology adoption of Ngöbe farmers in Chalite.
56
Table 4: Example of SAS output with correlation and significance
Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 19
Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0
Res
Res
Sex1
Sex1
Res
Sex1
Age2
YrsScl3
hous4
less125
House6_
1.00000
-0.22525
0.3538
-0.05829
0.8126
-0.03409
0.8898
0.09134
0.7100
0.14602
0.5508
-0.24801
0.3059
-0.22525
0.3538
1.00000
-0.12483
0.6106
-0.01847
0.9402
-0.39224
0.0967
-0.29692
0.2170
-0.20204
0.4068
Semi-structured interviews with extension workers
I conducted semi-formal interviews with four extension workers from Patronato
de Nutricíon (Nichols 2000). Questions for these interviews were based on
misunderstandings I had noted between the extension workers and the farmers. The goal
was to have a better understanding of the Patronato program and extension agents. The
answers from the extension agents were compared with personal observations, farmers'
responses, and literature to create data consistency (Godoy 2000).
Table 5: Extension worker questions
1. What training does Patronato provide you?
2. What is the structure of Patronato?
3. What resources do they provide?
4. Describe the process to start a Patronato farm project?
5. Who designs the farms?
6. Are there technologies that must be used on the farms?
7. How do you think the farms work?
8. How do you think they can be improved?
9. Describe your work?
10. How do you cooperate with other institutions such as MIDA, Comarca,
ANAM, MEDUC, etc.
57
Method of Analysis
With the preceding methods, I combined current literature, quantitative and
qualitative data in the form of interviews, participant observation and farm visits. In the
following chapters, I will combine the data gathered to create a robust picture of the
Ngöbe farm system and the Patronato farm program in Chalite. Agricultural technology
adoption is based on many factors such as wealth, extension work, access to markets, and
cultural indicators (DeWalt 1985). Results and discussion will be a conversation with the
data collected to provide possible reasons for adoption and non-adoption of the eighteen
technologies used on the Patronato farm with respect to the Ngöbe people of Chalite.
58
CHAPTER 5 –CHALITE AND PATRONATO DE NUTRICIÓN
The results of this study are presented in two chapters. The first section of this
chapter will demonstrate the farm system and life of the average Ngöbe farmer using
descriptive statistics from the interviews, information from participant observation, and
farm visits. The second section will describe the farm program managed by the NGO
Patronato de Nutrición. The next chapter will address the adoption of agricultural
technologies by farmers in Chalite while considering the average Ngöbe farmer and the
Patronato de Nutrición farm program. Reasons for adoption and non-adoption are
discussed based on Pearson coefficient correlations from the interviews and participant
observation.
LOCAL FARM SYSTEMS
According to Beets’ (1990) classifications of farm systems, the Ngöbe are
subsistence farmers. They grow their food to maintain their diet and usually have little to
sell afterwards.
During the discussion of farm systems in Chalite, the term “average farmer” will
be used when describing descriptive statistics from the interviews and general
observations. Values such as number of homes and age are averages derived from the
interviews I conducted. The average farmer in Chalite is also a representation of my
observations, data obtained from the interviews, and literature of Ngöbe culture.
59
The average farmer has three distinct parcels of land that he farms with a total of
7.47 hectares. The areas are generally near the river, on a hill, and in the swamp. Except
for land in the swamp the farmer grows a variety of different crops on each piece of land.
Household Characteristics
The average farmer is thirty-seven years old with a fourth grade education. The
age of interviewed farmers ranged between 18 to 60 years old. Education ranged from
zero to a seventh grade education. An average of nine people lives in the house, four of
whom are small children. The people who usually live at the house are the wife, mother
of the farmer, a brother or sister, and the farmer’s children. The average farmer owns two
houses: one is his farmhouse and the other is the house where he sleeps. Most farmers in
Chalite sleep in houses constructed by missionaries in 1992. The houses were made with
concrete floors and a zinc roofs. However, the farmers built a raised room (Figure 14) in
the back made of wood and a palm thatch roof, which is cooler. The back house is where
his family cooks and visits with other people in the community. Other farmers, who do
not live in the central square of Chalite, live in raised houses with palm thatch roofs, but
still construct a separate cooking area. Food is cooked in cast iron pots over an open
flame with collected wood.
60
Figure 14: Household of the farmer
In Chalite, the farmer’s household usually has running water he uses to bathe,
wash clothes, cook, and brush teeth. Women generally cook and wash the clothes,
however the young men will wash their own clothes, and the men will help cook. When
there is no water the women and teenagers will wash clothes in the stream above the
community by slapping the clothes against the rocks. The household will also gather
water to cook with from the stream in plastic buckets and old cooking oil containers, and
bathe in the river. Most people prefer to bathe in the river since they feel it makes them
cleaner. For example people in the town prefer to use the river as a full service latrine in
which they can bathe and get rid of the waste.
During the rainy months of November, December, and June there are many cases
of malaria in Chalite. The four hour boat ride makes it difficult for people to send a
61
message to health workers in Chiriqui Grande that people are sick. The distance also
makes it difficult for the health workers to arrive. The workers distribute pills to treat the
malaria, although they make the people feel tired and have strange dreams. This is
significant to the people because the greeting ñantore (hello) literally means “I did not
dream last night”. Not dreaming is many times safer to people than to dream because they
must interpret the dream, and the dream could predict bad things.
Obtaining meat in the diet is important to the Ngöbe person in Chalite. The
average farmer goes fishing and crayfish collecting every other day. However, one person
in the interviews expressed he did not go fishing because his sons came back with fish for
him. To fish people use a spear made from the bark of peach palm and the stem from a
palm leaf for a fishing pole. The best time is to go at night when the big crayfish are out.
Men will go out together at night with their snorkels, masks, and flashlights to find the
crayfish.
Hunting is another important activity to most farmers. Male children learn to hunt
at an early age. It is common to see a seven year old with a slingshot and pebbles
shooting at the birds eating crops. Many times young men shoot blue heron and egrets
along the rivers. This skill is utilized later in life by the farmer to obtain meat by hunting
once or twice a month with his dog, some friends, and a .22 rifle. Occasionally, if the rifle
is not working, he will borrow one or use a bow and arrow. People prefer to hunt in the
swamps where small deer, peccary, and other game are found. Many men will go up in
the mountains for two or three days to hunt. A farmer’s other sources of meat are free
range chickens, turkeys, ducks, and pigs. He feeds the domestic animals banana peels,
pifa skins, and rice husks to supplement their diet of insects, fruit, and grass.
62
Approximately seventy-five percent of the men go to work in the coffee harvest in
Chiriquí or Costa Rica. This is most of their yearly income of $447 United States dollars.
If a farmer has an abundance of animals, he may sell them to supplement his low income.
Other sources of income include pifa (Figure 15), sold for one dollar a bunch to people
from Chiriquí, cacao to the cooperative of Bocas del Toro for $0.65 a pound, and rice in
Chiriqui Grande for $0.20 a pound. However, travel cost is a significant constraint to
obtaining income. A farmer will have to pay eight dollars for travel to and from Chiriqui
Grande, the nearest major trade area. The farmer must also pay transportation fee of one
dollar per 100 pound sack of goods.
Figure 15: Farmers selling pifa
The average farmer has lived in the community for eighteen years and worked as
a farmer for sixteen years. The two year difference exists because many men do not
63
consider themselves real farmers until they manage a piece of land, which they obtain
from their family or from their wife’s family. At the age of twenty-two they go to work
for the Bocas del Toro fruit company as a wage laborer weeding banana plantations and
applying chemicals, or become a farmer. When a man decides to farm, he will generally
farm three distinct areas: near the river, the swamp, and hillsides.
Farm 1 – Near the River
All farmers interviewed had a parcel of land near the river where they planted and
harvested bananas, plantains, trees, yams, and other crops (Table 6). Parcels near the river
Table 6: List of crops grown in an average farm near the river:
note- crops listed are in order of number of times listed during interviews.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Banana and Plantains
Trees – Wood Species
Trees –Fruit Species
Peach palm (pifa)
Taro root (dachin)
Cacao
Manioc
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Coconut palm
Yams
Vegetables
Corn
Sugar cane
Coffee
Pineapple
are on average three hectares. The land is relatively close to the house, requiring on
average an eleven-minute walk. However, some farmers must walk as long as an hour to
reach their farms.
The soil near the river is relatively good due to the occasional flooding. The
farmer identifies good soil as cool and dark, and inferior soil as red and hot. Farmers
responded that soils with high red clay content and exposed directly to the sun did not
work as well. However, planting near the river area is also a hazard because frequent
floods can wash away crops and trees. A negative factor of planting near the river is that
64
trees are removed for crops, causing erosion along the stream bank during flooding.
Bananas, trees, yams, pifa, and other crops are farmed in a swidden fallow method.
To prepare a new area to farm in the parcel, the farmer will slash out an area of
land about one half hectare in size. He will leave an overstory of large trees and saplings
such as laurel. He prefers to leave trees for wood. He will burn the vegetation after it
dries or let the vegetation mulch. Approximately half of the farmers mulch, especially
when growing corn. After preparation of the land, the farmer will plant seeds obtained
from another farmer or his own crops. He plants crops such as banana at a spacing of
approximately a meter and a half, a practice he learned working for the banana company.
After a year the farm has three vertical layers (Figure 16): an overstory of trees for wood,
an understory of perennials such as cacao, coffee, bananas, and understory crops such as
taro root and yams. Most work is done by the farmer and his family. However, when
there is too much work, the farmer will hold a junta. Other people will help prepare the
farmer’s land or harvest, and he will provide food and drink.
Land tenure in the comarca is not well defined because of Law 21, which states
the land is communal and not private property (Asamblea Legislativa 1997). It does
provide provisions of usufruct rights to the communal land. However, land use rights are
not well defined and if someone left for two or three years they could find that their land
had been taken by another farmer. Many of the farmers use a live fencing system to
delineate their parcels. Although some people who own cattle use barbed wire for
fencing, most people use pifa and other plants such as pita (Aechmea magdalenae)
(Lincoln 2004). Pifa is a tall spiny palm tree, which produces a fruit rich in beta-carotene
65
and protein (Mora-Urpí 1997), and serves to delineate the land (Figure 17) so that other
people will know which farmers parcel it is. The farmer plants pifa, hibiscus, pita, and
Figure 16 : Farm with bananas and trees overhead
Figure 17: Border between two farms
66
other plants in a row demarcating the farm. Many times, while walking with a farmer to
his farm, I would ask whose farm we were passing by. He would always know whose
land it was because of the live borders and where the farmer’s parcels lay.
The average Ngöbe farmer owns four tools of which the most important is the
machete. Other tools include axes, coas, shovels (Figure 18), and hammers. Most, if not
all, preparation, weeding, planting, and harvesting is done with the aid of the machete.
Many men consider work with a machete real work. If a farmer decides to utilize a
different tool, some say he is lazy. For example I went with a farmer and observed how
he harvested pifa. During the harvests of pifa in October and July a farmer will usually
knock down the palm fruit with a tall piece of bamboo that has a machete attached to the
end. The farmer I went with instead, used two triangles made of wood, a plastic tube,
and rope to climb the spiny trunk of the palm. After harvesting the pifa he repeatedly told
me how hard the work was, that it was real work. Other community members
communicated to me he was lazy because he did not work the land like them.
Figure 18: Woman using a shovel to dig up ñame (yam)
67
The average farmer does not grow many vegetables near the river because floods
usually wash them away. However, he does grow some cilantro for soup, and collects
spinach-like greens called ka la lu. The greens are new shoots from vines, ferns, and trees
found on and around farm parcels. People do not actively plant these foods and they are
falling out of favor with the younger people. A botanico, a man who knows the plants,
said that before the people could buy sugar and coffee from the stores, greens were more
important than they are today. He said the younger generation is not learning from their
parents as he did.
Farming near the river provides a fertile source of land for people to grow the
crops that they depend upon to eat such as bananas, taro, yams, and pifa. Everyday the
farmer is weeding and harvesting these crops. The plants used most for consumption are
root crops (taro, yams, manioc), bananas, and palms. Vegetative propagation is the main
means of planting for these crops. Many times when a farmer is harvesting he is also
planting at the same time.
The swamp
The average swamp parcel is one hectare. The sole crop grown in the swamp is
rice. The lowland variety seed comes in red and white colors. To utilize the swamp a
farmer finds an area that he did not use the year before. He cuts all the existing vegetation
down from May until June except for a large palm they called totuma. The totuma palm
is important because it provides most of the burned vegetation. In order to use a swamp
area the farmer looks to see if totuma covers the whole canopy The farmer then waits
until it is somewhat dry, usually June, and sets the swamp area on fire including the
68
totuma (Figure 19). After the burn the farmer will wait until July when the rains come.
Then he broadcasts the seed by hand, usually fifty to one hundred pounds per hectare.
In September and October, rice is harvested by hand. When I went to harvest the
rice with one farmer and his family, we walked an hour to the farm through the swamps,
making sure not to fall into the deep parts. We pinched off the rice infloresence by hand,
and others scraped off the seed into a bowl. We worked from eight in the morning until
six in the evening. With seven people, we collected five three-quarter full sacks of
unprocessed rice. In the following days, the rice we collected was pounded by women
and children in a wooden container and then separated from the husks by winnowing
(Figure 20).
An area will lay fallow for an average of three years, before it is used again,
although farmers responded seven years are required for the totuma to grow back and
completely cover the area. If the farmer lets the totuma grow, he will have a better
harvest. According to most farmers, one hectare of swamp can produce around twenty
sacks of rice, or 1500 pounds. The average household can eat more than 30 pounds per
week.
Figure 19 : Totuma palm on fire at edge of new area to plant rice
69
Figure 20: Woman winnowing rice
Farm three- on the hillside
Cropping on hillsides is increasing, as less land is available near the rivers. The
average farmer will walk about twenty to thirty minutes to arrive at his 3.5 hectare parcel.
Not all farmers have a hillside area, however more are looking to these areas as a source
of land for farming. The area is considerably harder to reach, however the hillside area is
the preferred place to live because it is “mas fresca” (cooler), and one does not have to
bother with the neighbors and their complaints about your chickens and pigs running
around ruining their crops. Farmers use hillsides because the first harvest yields well.
This is probably because of the top layer of organic material in the understory. Most
farmers use slash and burn (Figure 21) and some use slash and mulch. The farming
structure is essentially the same as that of the river area, however monoculture systems
are more prevalent for rice, banana, and corn.
70
Figure 21: Slash and burn hillside farming
The three areas where people plant their crops: the river, swamps, and hillsides,
are the means by which the people of Chalite live. The average farmer works between
these three farms to produce what he needs to eat, wood to build and cook, and
sometimes to sell what he produces. In Figure 22 a yearly farm calendar to harvest and
prepare land is presented.
71
Figure 22: Rainfall and agricultural calendar of Bocas del Toro
72
In order to understand why the farmers adopt or do not adopt agricultural
technologies I have used data to describe the average farmer and his farm. In the
following section, I will present the Patronato de Nutricion farm program to illustrate
differences. Time management, crop management, and organizational structure are
presented to show the differences between the less structured Ngöbe system and the more
structured Patronato de Nutrición program. When Patronato de Nutrición came to solicit
the people of Chalite to join the farm group, they assured the farmers the program would
help to improve their production and way of farming, thereby increasing their ability to
produce more food and generate a cash income. To answer my question " Do farmers in
Chalite adopt Agricultural technologies because of the Patronato de Nutrición farm
program?" an understanding of the farmers' perspective and the program perspective must
be presented to better analyze the statistical data presented in the next chapter.
73
THE PATRONATO FARM
Patronato de Nutrición
Patronato de Nutrición is a Panamanian NGO started in 1990. The primary
program focus is the alleviation of hunger in poor areas. The secondary focus is the
transfer of agricultural technologies to those poor areas. The program buys or borrows a
piece of land near the town, organizes a group of “interested” farmers and provides a
10,000 dollar budget for tools, seeds, fertilizers, animals, and feed, along with other
materials. Patronato has a committee in each province which works with MEDUC,
IDIAP, MIDA, and other institutions (Patronato 2004 (c)). According to Joseph
Homsany, the president of Patronato de Nutrición, as of March 2004 there were 309
farms, of which not one has failed. He plans to have more than 1,000 Patronato farms in
the future.The privately funded organization depends on telethon fundraisers and private
contributions along with technical support from government organizations such as
MIDA.
The Patronato de Nutrición administration has a hierarchal structure. The
president, who obtains funding, has provincial office managers and area technical
advisors. Within each province, there is a provincial technical leader and under him is the
main extension agent. Each farm is supposed to receive a visit from the extension agent
every two weeks, a visit from the regional leader every month, and a visit from the area
technical advisor every three months. The extension agent brings the supplies and
provides agricultural expertise.
To start a farm program in a community the extension agent finds out from a
community leader if they would be interested in the program. When the leader is
74
interested, the extension agent holds a meeting in the community to explain what the
program is and how it works. Farmers who come to the meeting are supposed to create a
cooperating group of fifteen families and look for a piece of land they can use. The group
has to find a willing party to loan the land for the farm area because the comarca states
that one cannot own land. Patronato requires the land have water access from a stream in
order to provide water for the animals, fishponds, and rice ponds.
After the initial meeting, the extension agent conducts a survey of the families
involved with the program (Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (b)). For children under the age
of five in the families involved in the farm group, Patronato asks for their date of birth,
age, weight, and height. They use a chart to evaluate the nutrition of the children in the
program (Patronato de Nutricíon 2004 (a)). The extension agent sends this information to
the head office in Panama City, where they decide how much crema (cream of corn) they
will give each family for the first year of the program. A survey of the households is
conducted to find out their socio-economic status and diets.
Results of the surveys are not usually given to the town members because they are
sent to Panama City and tend to stay there. For one year, I attempted to obtain results for
Chalite but never received them. After the surveys, the extension agent holds another
meeting to discuss the perfil (list of materials the program can deliver) (Patronato de
Nutrición 2004 (d &e)). The socios (farm group) is supposed to decide what projects they
want on the farm and select the appropriate materials for them. When the provincial
manager approves the perfil, the Patronato farm program begins to bring supplies to the
community.
75
In interviews with Patronato extension agents I found all are educated with a
technical degree or higher. However, Patronato did not offer further training. No specific
set of technologies is implemented on the farms except for the rice fertilization system.
Pig excrement flows into a fishpond with tilapia (Tilapia spp.) and water is channeled
into the rice ponds to fertilize them. Extension agents explained that a major constraint to
a farm group’s success was lack of organization by the farmers. When I asked questions
about initial designs for the farms and how the farms were designed, they responded there
really were no design rules.
Patronato develops three farm systems. The first is to provide an alternative food
source for the community. Patrontao estimates one hectare can support two families
(Patronato 2004 (c)). Eighty percent of the three to five hectare farm is for the farmers’
consumption and the other twenty percent is for Patronato and the farmers to sell. The
second type of farm, five to seven hectares, is fifty percent production for the farmer,
forty percent for the farmers to sell, and ten percent for Patronato to sell. The third farm
is mechanized at seven hectares or more. Patronato takes the ten percent of the harvest to
help support the program. Chalites Patronato farm program is the first farm type.
Patronato and Bocas del Toro
The region of Bocas del Toro has the same administrative leader as Chiriquí. The
head office for Bocas del Toro is in David, the provincial capital of Chiriquí. This
requires the regional leader for Bocas del Toro to travel from Chiriquí to Bocas del Toro,
a two and one-half hour trip across the central mountain range. Bocas del Toro has two
extension agents who are expected to bring supplies and expertise to the communities
76
that have a Patronato farm. As of March 2004 the extension agent for the area of the
Guariviara, which includes Chalite, had eleven farms he had to visit and three more
Patronato was developing. Most of these sites are reachable only by boat. In order to visit
all the farms twice a month he had to visit as many as two a day, if they were close
enough.
The Patronato Farm in Chalite
When I arrived in Chalite on October 21, 2002 the Patronato farm (Figure 23) had
been implemented for six months. One man in Chalite requested the program after the
town had originally said no to the project. He told me that he wanted the town to learn to
improve their farming. I worked with the farm group until June of 2004. The function of
the Patronato farm program is to provide food to the area. The farm area in Chalite was
borrowed from a member of the community for ten years. After that time the group will
continue work on the land or the owner will take it back. No money was provided by
Patronato to pay for the land. The farm group consisted of a president, vice-president,
secretary, treasurer, and a speaker for the group.
Figure 23: Kate and I standing in the farm overlooking Chalite
77
During my time in Chalite, four different extension agents and three different
provincial leaders worked with the Patronato farm. This caused some confusion with the
farmers. During a typical visit the extension agent inspected the farm and then held a
meeting. In most of the meetings, we talked about problems. Even if the land was not
being used for anything, the extension agents would state that the farm did not look clean,
which meant it was not weeded well. The farmers would say other people were not
showing up on the specific work days of Saturday and Monday and blame the problems
of the farm on people who were not present. The attitude of “it is not my responsibility”
was furthered by the inconsistent support by the extension agents.
Each new extension agent was not informed about what the other extension agents
had accomplished in the Chalite farm. Many times the new extension agent would tell the
farmers something completely opposite of what other extension agents had suggested.
For example, one extension agent approved the use of mucuna, a cover crop and green
manure, to cover an area in the farm and provide nitrogen. However, the area technical
advisor came from Veraguas and told the farmers’ mucuna was giving nitrogen to the
weeds. During group meetings the extension agents would try to empower the farmers
and declare the farm was completely in their control. However, if the farm did not look
limpia (weeded), the extension agents would convey to the farmers the program would
end. The main here is that communication between the extension agents was not
coordinated well.
The farm area (Figure 24) has 2.5 hectares and is fenced off with material
provided by Patronato. All materials such as tools, building materials, and feed for the
animals are part of the budget. Many materials are bought in Chiriquí, however Patronato
78
Sketch Map of the Patronato Farm Program in Chalite
Taro
Figure 24 : Sketch map of the Patronato farm program in Chalite
79
also buys seed from the farmers to use on the farm. In one instance, the farmers collected
a total of 1000 banana seed from their own farm to plant at the Patronato farm. Ten
different families collected 100 seeds each at ten cents a seed. The farmers were
extracting money from their own program. Although the farm group has a bank account
with funds from products they have sold, in order for an individual farmer to get money
from the total amount that has been saved they must "borrow the money" from the farm
program.
Twelve to fifteen families are involved with the farm depending on the time of
year. During the coffee harvest from September until December there are fewer people in
the community because they are working outside of Chalite. For the first year the farm
received cream of corn for the participating families. The farm had many of the same
crops and animals that the farmers had in their farms, but the Patronato farm program
tried to manage the system in a smaller area and more intensively than the average
farmer’s farm. During my work with the farm group, I identified eighteen different
extension technologies (Table 7) applied at least once on the farm.
Table 7 : List of Agricultural Technologies Observed on the Patronato
Farm in Chalite
1.Contours
2. Manures
7. Duck Pens
8. Fish Tanks
13. Coffee
14. Cassava
3. Rice Ponds
9. Pig Pens
15. Taro
4. Pineapple
5. Chemicals
6. Chicken Coops
10. Tree Grafting
11. Non native trees
12. Banana
16.Gardening
17. Nursery
18. Drainage
80
The farmers did not receive adequate training in many of these technologies
because the extension agent did not have time to train them. In fact, many times they
were just told to do it, or depend on Jose Gonzalez, who had received training. In the
next section, I will give a short description of the technologies used on the farm.
Agricultural Technologies Used on the Chalite Patronato Farm
Contours:
Contours are used on hillsides to prevent erosion. Contour lines are lines
of equal elevation. Patronato extension workers stated they had used contours to
plant the bananas and pineapples. One can use material such as logs, rocks, and
soil along the contour which is measured with an A-frame level (Figure 25). Live
material such as vetiver (Vetiviera zizanoides) and trees can also be planted along
the contour.
Figure 25: Men learning how to use an A-frame in Alto Guayabal
81
Green Manures and Organic Fertilizers:
Green manures (Figure 26) are plants that provide nitrogen to the soil
through fixation by Rhizobium spp. They create nodules that are attached to the
roots (Figure 27). Green manure organic material can also provide nitrogen
through decomposition, and when used in compost or as mulch it provides
nitrogen to the soil. The farm group experimented with canavalia, mucuna, and
red beans. Other examples include Glircidia sepium, Leucaina leucophalia, and
Acacia mangium.
Figure 26: Experiment with canavalia intercropped with rice
82
Figure 27: Rhizobium nodules found on canavalia roots
Rice Ponds:
The farm had five tanks totaling 815m2. Rice ponds (Figure 28) are
excavated areas with mud barriers on all sides. Although Bocas del Toro has high
rainfall, in order to control the water depth in the pond, an irrigation system was
used. PCV piping was utilized to control the inflow and outflow. The rice is
planted in rows from spacing of 50cm x 50 cm to 25cm to 25cm, depending on
the extension agent’s experience. The ponds require fertilization five times during
the rice cycle or three times with organic fertilizers. Pig excrement is used as a
fertilizer. The excrement is washed into the fishponds, the fish eat the solids, and
the water from the fishponds flows into the rice ponds. Rice ponds are supposed
to provide two to three harvests per year and about seven hundred kilograms per
250 meters squared. Total harvest during one and half years came to seven
hundred kilograms, or seven full sacks, divided among fifteen households.
83
Figure 28: View of rice tank in the Patronato farm in Chalite
Pineapple Management:
Management requires pineapple to be planted in lines (Figure 29) at a halfmeter spacing for ease of weeding and fertilizer application. Pineapple reproduces
by fruiting at the stem. If planted and cared for a plant can produce in nine to
twelve months. Pineapple was located on the hill area of the farm.
Figure 29 : Line of pineapple in a farm
84
Agricultural Chemicals:
All agricultural chemicals (Table 8) were hand dispersed or with a $50
hand pump backpack sprayer. Safety gear was not provided and because
instructions were in Spanish farmers were sometimes confused about correct
application. In one such instance my garden was sprayed with herbicide instead of
the insecticide. Patronato provided the chemicals because there were constant
problems with fungi and insects killing the rice and fruit trees.
Table 8 : Agricultural chemicals used in the Patronato farm program
Chemical Fertilizers
12-24-12
Urea 46%
Herbecides
Glifosato
Parakut
Paraquath
Benlate
Fungacides
Vitabox
Dithane
Antracol
Ridomil
Insecticides
Mirex
Arribo
Furadan
Malthion
Hormitox
Chicken Coops and Duck Pens:
Chicken coops (Figure 30) are way to raise chickens faster for meat and
eggs. The chicken excrement can be used for fertilizer. The farm had two coops
which were empty when we left. The duck pen (Figure 31) was the same concept
as the chickens except the ducks were only for consumption. However, for both
technologies the farm group was supposed to breed the ducks and chickens to
sustain production. However, all the ducks and chickens were eaten. Much of the
time the chickens and ducks were sick due to missed feedings and lack of water
and the farmers thought Patronato would bring more.
85
Figure 30: Chicken coop in Dudori
Figure 31: Duck pond in the Patronato farm, Chalite
86
Fish Ponds:
There were two 125m2 ponds with red tilapia (Tilapia spp.) (Figure 32).
Water washed from the pig pens, flowed into the fish ponds. The fish ate the
solids left in the excrement. Two harvests (Figure 33) occurred over two years at
four pounds of fish for each family, a small harvest. Many in the group
complained that people would steal fish from the ponds.
Figure 32: Fish pond
Figure 33: Fish harvest for one family
87
Pig Pens:
Although farmers in the community had free range pigs, Patronato uses
pig pens (Figure 34) to grow them faster and bigger with feed. The pigs' manure
was used to feed the fish (Figure 35). The farm group was supposed to breed the
pigs to sell for meat and to sell piglets. Meat sells for $0.30 per pound and a piglet
for $30.00. However, the farmers would slaughter the pigs for meat before they
bred them. During my time in Chalite Patronato brought them more pigs.
Figure 34: Pigs in the pen
Figure 35: Pipe from pig pen leading to fish tank
88
Grafted Fruit Trees:
Grafted varieties of orange and lemon trees were brought by Patronato to increase
the production of the fruit trees.
Non-native trees:
Non-native species of trees like teak (Figure 36) were introduced for wood
production.
Figure 36: Teak plantation in Caño Sucio
Banana and Plantain management:
On the farm there was emphasis on keeping the farm clean, meaning clean of
weeds (Figure 37). They made sure that dead and dying banana leaves were cut off.
Planting in rows was important as well as fertilization and removing banana plants
that were infected with a rootworm. Seed (Figure 38) was transplanted from the
farms of the farmers.
89
Figure 37: Area cleared to plant banana on the Patronato farm in Chalite
Figure 38: Patronato buying banana seed to plant in the farm
90
Coffee Stand Management:
The Patronato farm had a small area of coffee of a highland variety from Boquete,
a variety that requires cooler weather. The main activity related to coffee
management was weeding it (Figure 39). The coffee trees were planted in a spacing
of 1.5m x 1.5m with some shade trees left. To harvest coffee one waits until the fruit
is a bright red. The fruit is then removed by hand and then soaked in water to remove
the skin and pulp. Afterwards it is dried and roasted to make coffee.
Figure 39: Area on farm weeded for coffee trees
Manioc management:
Manioc is grown to produce a large tuber. The farm has manioc planted on the
hillsides and planted in rows (Figure 40). Maintenance includes weeding and
maintaining just two stems. The crop is easily planted by cutting a stem about four
91
inches long and placing it in the soil at a 45 degree angle with the bud facing up. Over
twelve different varieties of manioc were named during my time in Chalite.
Figure 40: Manioc growing in lines with compost around the stems
Taro root management:
Taro root is one of the main foods of the Ngöbe. It was planted in rows (Figure
41) and weeded often. Small and dead leaves were removed during weeding to allow
improved development of the tuber. However, after the first harvest there was a
noticeable decrease in production. The chemical fertilizer was not working as well,
and the second crop was not growing nearly as well. However, some of the farmers
believed it was the fault of each other, and not the soil.
92
Figure 41: Dachin (taro root) growing in the Patronato farm
Home gardens and vegetables:
Garden activities included on the farm were a small area with five raised beds
(Figure 42) of green beans, cucumber (Figure 43), and tomatoes. The seeds came
with a fertilizer coating and the were sprayed with fertilizers and insecticides.
Figure 42: Raised garden beds to grow beans, cucumber, and tomatoes
93
Figure 43: Kate and Willy raising cucumber vines up off the ground
Seedbeds and nurseries:
Trees are planted in a nursery and transplanted to another place. Planting soil and
bags or containers are prepared to plant the seeds (Figure 44). Patronato says that a
nursery was used to grow the seedlings for the fruit and wood species. I was not able
to verify it. However, some farmers remembered receiving the seedlings.
94
Figure 44: Small tree nursery made at the school
Irrigation:
Given the annual rainfall, drainage ditches (Figure 45) were used on the farm to
create areas of land that were not completely flooded.
Figure 45: Drainage ditch at the Patronato farm
95
Working with the Agricultural Technologies
The agricultural technologies described were used on the Patronato farm during
the duration of my study and work. With the help of the Patronato extension agents
(Figure 46) the farmers were either told to do the activity or the farmers expressed a
desire to do the activity. Many times the extension agent would explain that the farm
looked sucia (dirty). This term meant the farm did not look neat, orderly, or weeded. Out
of the forty-nine workdays that I participated in, thirty-two involved weeding of which
most lasted three hours or less. Therefore, not much time was left to do many other
activities. Much time was spent weeding, working in the rice ponds, and bananas. In
Figure 47, I show what percentage of the total days a particular activity was performed.
For example 12% of the days (six), I observed chemical utilization on the farm.
Figure 46 : Patronato province leader Irving Candadero and area technical leader
Alfredo Guerra visiting the farm
96
Patronato Farm Activities
4%
Drainage
2%
Nursery
6%
Gardening
Taro Root
8%
Cassava
8%
6%
Coffee
24%
Banana
2%
Non native trees
Activities
Tree Grafting
0%
6%
Pig Pens
4%
Fish Tanks
2%
Duck Pens
8%
Chicken Coops
12%
Agricultural Chemicals
18%
Pineapple
37%
Rice Ponds
Manures
4%
Contours
4%
14%
Meetings
65%
Weeding
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Activity Percentage (Data from 49 Farm Days)
Figure 47: Farm activities chart - note: each percentage represents number of days out
of 49 that the activity was performed
97
Patronato identified Chalite as a community requiring assistance. I have described
the farming system of Chalite and the farming system of the Patronato farm program.
Farmers in their own farms generally have to clear an area, burn it, and then throw the
seed or put the seed in the ground. There is little daily intensive management of the crops.
When it is time to harvest something, the farmer goes and harvests it. When the farmer
thinks the weeds are damaging the plants, he cuts them down. Essentially the farmer
sustains himself and his family with food the land provides, and income obtained from
work or selling farm products.
The Patronato de Nutrición farm program has come to the community and tried to
provide a place where the farmers involved can grow more food more effectively.
Farmers have complained that there is less land available to them than their fathers had,
and so they are starting to realize that farms must be managed effectively and sustainably.
The farm program attempts to give the farmer the tools and agricultural technologies that
the farmer can use in his own farm. However, are these technologies adopted, why or
why not? In the next chapter, I utilized Pearson coefficient results, descriptive results of
the average farmer, and results from the Patronato de Nutrición program to discuss
adoption rates and possible reasons why or why not farmers adopt the agricultural
technologies observed on the Patronato farm.
98
CHAPTER 6 - ADOPTION OF AGRICULTUAL TECHNOLOGIES
PROMOTED ON THE PATRONATO FARM
Why do farmers adopt a technology? In this chapter, correlation of selected
variables and each agricultural technology is presented to show why farmers adopt or do
not adopt a particular technology. A short discussion of farmers’ reasons for adoption and
the Patronato program follows the correlation results. The final section of the chapter
presents an overview of the results and analysis of all the technologies and describes a
general set of reasons for adoption and the relationship to Patronato de Nutrición.
ADOPTION OF INDIVIDUAL AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGIES
Contours
Thirty-seven percent of the farmers had knowledge of contours and 16%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 9 shows correlations
between selected variables and contour adoption.
Table 9: Selected variables correlated with adoption of contours: notevariable corresponds to the interview question and the variable definition is the
meaning.
Variable
37d1
q37
Fish16a
tlcnt28
Amt22b
37a1
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
1.000
0.567
-0.544
0.503
0.494
0.397
Variable definitions
Adopt contours experiment
Knowledge of contours
Number days fishing
Number of tools
Amount borrowed
Knowledge of contours from Patronato
99
P
<0.001
0.011
0.016
0.028
0.032
0.093
Farmers did learn about contours from Patronato, however the people who
actually adopted had more resources, especially tools. People who adopted also had
more debt, the sign of a risk taker. A project in 1990 by Banco Desarolla Agropecuaria
(BDA) offered loans of 5000 dollars to grow a hybrid type of cacao. One farmer said he
paid it off, the other said he did not have to, because the trees had died. However, these
farmers were willing to take the risk associated with this new technology because they
believed they could obtain a higher income from it and did not really have to pay it back.
Farmers who fished more and had farmed for a greater period were less likely to
adopt contours. For example, there were times when people did not show up to a meeting
because they had gone fishing and stayed out until it was dark. Some farmers I talked to
did not think their lives were so bad, except that they would like to have more income.
They enjoyed the freedom to go fishing and hunting when they wanted, especially when
compared to working outside the community for companies such as the Bocas Fruit
Company. When a farmer worked for a company, he had to work a specific set of hours
and days, not like the life in Chalite.
Another factor influencing adoption was Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé (PNB). PNB had
come six years before and conducted agroforestry extension work and seminars with the
farmers. Extension agents could usually speak Ngäbere and would stay in the community
for more than a day or two. However, most of the farmers who adopted contours had
also attended a one month PNB seminar to learn about the different technologies such as
contours. One constraint voiced in private talks, was the great labor involved in making
contours. In the farmers’ own farms they slashed, burned, planted, and harvested. In the
100
farm program we only worked with contours four percent of the time, therefore the
farmers had not yet identified the need to add more labor by making contours in their
own farms.
Manures
Seventy-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of manures and 21%
responded they used green and organic manure technologies on their own farms. Table
10 shows correlations between selected variables and manure adoption.
Table 10: Selected variables correlated with adoption of manures
Variable
38d1
38d4
38a2
yrsScl3
tlcnt28
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
1.000
0.664
0.606
0.440
0.416
Variable definitions
Adopt manures to experiment
Adopt manures better
Knowledge of manures from PNB
Years in school
Number of tools
P
<0.001
0.002
0.006
0.059
0.076
Work with manures on the Patronato farm was done four percent of the time.
Except for our involvement, there was little education or hands on practice to use green
manures. Green manures such as mucuna could work well in the humid climate.
However, miscommunication between the extension agents has thwarted the effort. In
spite of the communication problems, some farmers have adopted the technology. They
adopted it because of the similarity to the slash and mulch system they sometimes used
for corn. This leads to the correlation between experimentation and adoption. The slash
and mulch system is already comparable to a slash and mulch with a green manure. In
101
the slash and mulch system farmers told me they let the weeds grow up to a certain height
before they cut them down to provide the mulch base. They are able to do the same with
a crop like mucuna. However, a constraint I heard while working on the farm many
times was that green manures were not edible.
Extension work by PNB was another reason people knew about the technology
and decided to use it. A farmer told me during the interview that although PNB had not
left a constructed building, they had left useable knowledge. A constraint to adoption
identified by Fischer (2002), stated programs need to be continuous and long term.
Patronato is, in effect, continuing the examples PNB started, although not necessarily
focusing on what PNB did well or badly. In order for people to adopt green manures,
they must see an effective example working. Other manures are difficult to manage
because of weather, chickens, and cows. For example, in a green manure experiment
outside of the Patronato farm, plants were eaten by pigs, insects, stepped on by cows, and
scratched up by chickens. A farmer will not use a technology if he sees it fail.
Rice Ponds
The system of rice ponds is supposed to provide more rice per hectare. Although
we worked with the rice tanks on the farm 37% of the days, not one of the farmers
adopted the technology. Reasons given by the farmers was it did not work, it required
too much labor, produced low yields, and was too easy for the birds to eat the seed. I also
observed the constant struggle to get the spacing right, use fertilizers, and use the pig to
fish to duck system effectively. Many farmers bluntly stated that rice ponds were a waste
102
of their time and the only reason they did it was to get the meat from the free ducks,
chickens, pigs, and fish that Patronato provided.
In many of the farm group meetings, the farm group voted to stop working in the
rice ponds. However, one man continually pressured them to continue. The rice ponds
are the pride of Patronato and this is what they show visitors. Rice ponds could work if
people did not already have alternative sources of food they feel works better, such as
their own rice system. Farmers told me during the survey they could harvest twenty
sacks of rice from a hectare of swamp as compared to seven sacks in two years from the
farm program. Rice tanks are a labor intensive, highly managed system that does not fit
in well with the lifestyle of the Ngöbe people. One can broadcast the rice seed into the
prepared swamp and wait for the harvest.
Pineapple Management
Ninety percent of the farmers had knowledge of pineapple management and 53%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 11 shows correlations
between selected variables and pineapple adoption.
Table 11: Selected variables correlated with adoption of pineapple management
Variable
40d2
wkmon12
20a1
pina66
40d4
cacao67
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
0.490
-0.490
0.490
-0.418
0.411
-0.411
Variable definitions
Adopt pineapple, it is easier
Work for money
Part of Patronato
Sell pineapple
Adopt pineapple, it is better
Sell cacao
103
P
0.033
0.033
0.033
0.075
0.081
0.081
Pineapple management requires very little extra work besides weeding. Farmers
stated it was easier to weed the pineapple when planted in rows. It can sell for as much
as $0.50 per fruit, is easy to plant, and maintain, so many people adopted it. Farmers can
take 50 pineapple fruits to Chiriqui Garnde and sell them at an average of $0.35,
generating a gross profit of $17.50. After the boat trip and cost of transport, they can
make a net profit of $8.00 dollars. This is not much profit, but it is easily obtained.
Farmers who labor for income, are less likely to adopt pineapple management. They will
grow it but with little management and only for personal consumption. Farmers who sell
other products at higher values, such as cacao for $0.65 to $0.85 per pound, are less likely
to adopt pineapple management because they can earn $65 for one sack of unprocessed
cacao bean.
During work on the Patronato farm, we worked on pineapple plants 18% of the
time. Most of the time was spent weeding. Pineapple is valued in the community
because it is sweet and sweet foods are a luxury too many people. They carry little
candies with them at all times. Pineapple propagation is a simple process: it is planted
from seed in the under-story with medium shade and left to grow.
Agricultural Chemicals
Sixty-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of agricultural chemicals and 5%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 12 shows correlations
between selected variables and agricultural chemical adoption.
104
Table 12: Selected variables correlated with adoption of agricultural
chemicals
Variable
41d4
tlcnt28
Fish16
21a3
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
P
1.000
<0.001
0.765
0.001
-0.687
0.001
0.505
0.028
Variable definitions
Adopt chemicals works better
Number tools
Go fishing
Other person part of women’s group
Many of the farmers had worked for the Bocas fruit company and coffee harvests
in Chiriquí. During their work, some of the farmers encountered chemical use. Most
farmers told me they would use chemicals if they could afford them, however this was
not possible. They were constrained by their low incomes and travel distance to buy the
chemicals. Only one farmer had the resources to obtain and use the chemicals. The
chemicals were used on the Patronato farm for 12% of the workdays. However, no
training was given. Some people were afraid of the chemicals, because if they used the
wrong ones they could kill their crops.
Chicken Coops
All of the farmers had knowledge of chicken coops and 16% responded they used
the technology on their own farms. Table 13 shows correlations between selected
variables and chicken coop adoption.
105
Table 13: Selected variables correlated with adoption of chicken coops
Variable
42d4
38a10
20a2
Fish16
42c2
Amt22b
Variable definitions
Adopt chicken coops better
Knowledge of manures from BDA
Part pf pto
Go fishing
Do not adopt chicken coops no materials
Amount borrowed
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
1.000
0.604
0.567
-0.544
-0.508
0.494
P
<0.001
0.006
0.011
0.016
0.027
0.032
The majority of farmers did not adopt the type of chicken coops used in the
Patronato farm. They did not have the materials to make the chicken coops. The coops
require a dry area, medicine for the chickens, chicken wire, and wood. The chickens
needed to be watered and fed at least twice a day. Most people own free-range chickens
that feed themselves. During the survey people said they thought their chickens were
stronger against disease and needed little management. Some farmers have their own
method of protecting the chickens at night. They make a raised platform easily
constructed from sticks or a small little coop made from the bark of a palm tree (Figure
48).
The farm group constantly struggled with who was in charge of feeding and
watering the chickens’ each day. The Patronato extension agents believed the group
could sell eggs for $0.10 each or $1.00 a dozen to other communities. It is hard to sell
food to people in Chalite because many believe if you have extra food you should share it
with your fellow villagers. The farmers ate all the Patronato chickens because most of
the people in the farm program would not transport the eggs and so the chickens had no
value.
106
Figure 48: A Ngöbe chicken hideaway
Duck Pens
Ninety-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of duck pens and 17%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 14 shows correlations
between selected variables and duck pen adoption.
107
Table 14: Selected variables correlated with adoption of duck pens
Variable
20a2
43a2
43d4
21a2
Fish16
Amt22b
borrw23
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
0.676
0.664
0.664
0.456
-0.456
0.417
0.394
Variable definitions
Part pf pto
Knowledge of duck pens PNB
Adopt duck pens better
Other person part of pto
Go fishing
Amount borrowed
Ability to borrow
P
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.050
0.050
0.075
0.095
Duck pens are similar to the chicken coops. Farmers who did adopt duck pens had
prior knowledge of the technology through the PNB program and the Patronato program.
People who could afford the supplies built a similar area for the ducklings but not for the
ducks. Many of the farmers felt the ducks they owned were superior because they were
not as susceptible to disease. Farmers also expressed it was too hard to keep ducks in a
penned area and predators could more easily enter the pen and eat the ducks. The ducks
in the Patronato farm were to be bred together to have more ducks, but due to inadequate
training and supervision of the farm group, the ducks were eaten.
Fishponds
Ninety-five percent of the farmers had knowledge of fishponds and 11%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 15 shows correlations
between selected variables and fishpond adoption.
108
Table 15: Selected variables correlated with adoption of fish ponds
Variable
ha24a1
w2tm24
debts22
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
0.551
-0.485
-0.402
Variable definitions
Total hectares farm land
2 weighted time to farms
Have debts
P
0.014
0.035
0.088
Fishponds are a high risk investment because of the labor to dig the ponds and
management to feed the fish. Time is a constraint as shown by the negative correlation
with distance to the farms. Some farmers felt it was a good idea because there are fewer
fish in the river, however people would steal fish from the ponds and the people who did
have the ponds were near the river, and the ponds were eventually washed away. Farmers
said they would use the system if tools were available to make the ponds and they had
help, but also said they would have to share the fish from their pond with all the people
who had helped.
Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé helped to construct two fishponds in the Patronato farm
area before Patronato arrived. After a harvest, obtaining new fish can be difficult because
all fish must be male in a tank or crossbreeding occurs and they will not grow as fast.
This involves sexing the fish when they are young. The Ngöbe farmers were in no
position to do this on their own inititive and sexing usually occurs in a MIDA fish farm
six hours away. Harvests were low, and the fish did not grow large due to confusion
about feeding periods. Many farmers felt it was a waste of their energy, although they
admitted there were fewer fish in the rivers than when their fathers were young.
109
Pig Pens
Ninety-five percent of the farmers had knowledge of pig pens and 26.3%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 16 shows correlations
between selected variables and pigpen adoption.
Table 16: Selected variables correlated with adoption of pig pens
Variable
45d4
45d2
Amt22b
45c2
Fish16
ms24a
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
0.864
0.574
0.511
-0.510
-0.394
0.391
Variable definitions
Adopt pigpens better
Adopt pigpens easier
Amount borrowed
Do not adopt pigpens no materials
Go fishing
Number different farm areas
P
<0.001
0.010
0.026
0.026
0.095
0.098
People recognized that the Patronato pigs grew faster and were easier to take care
of in pens. A constraint was the materials needed to make the pens exactly like
Patronato's. A statement I heard many times while working with people would was “ no
estoy acostumbrado Chodi”, they were not used to doing it a new way. If they did try a
new agricultural technology, many in the community believed that if was not done
exactly as the extension agent had introduced it, the technology would not work for them.
However, some people had created their own systems. People kept their pigs tied below
the house so they could eat the manioc, banana, and pifa husks leftover after cooking.
They would bring the pigs to the farm so they could root around while they were
working. One complaint of people with free-range pigs was they destroyed other farmers’
crops. The negative consequences of free-range pigs, the desire for meat, and lack of
materials to make a pen with concrete, enabled some people to go halfway and make a
110
pen of their own design (Figure 49). Their response was it was easier to take care of a pig
when it had piglets.
Figure 49: Pigpen made of bamboo for a pregnant pig
Tree Grafting
Only twenty-eight percent of the people knew what grafting was, and none of
farmers interviewed adopted this technology. None of the workdays in the Patronato farm
involved tree grafting training. However, all of the farmers already had orange trees they
harvested. During the two years I stayed there most of the grafted trees brought in by
Patronato had been killed by leaf cutter ants (Atta cephalotes), black aphids, and fungus.
The fruit trees in the farms of the farmers were not as sweet, and did not produce as
much, however they did produce every year.
111
Non-native tree use
Forty-two percent of the farmers had knowledge of non-native trees and 26.3%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 17 shows correlations
between selected variables and non-native tree adoption.
Table 17: Selected variables correlated with adoption of non-native tree species
Variable
q47
47d6
own33
Fish16a
Hunt15
47a7
ms24a
Variable definitions
Knowledge of non native trees
Adopt non-native trees have
Own your farm
Number days fishing
Do you hunt
Knowledge of non native trees Jose G.
Number Different farm areas
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
0.701
0.574
-0.574
-0.513
-0.457
0.397
0.391
P
0.001
0.010
0.010
0.025
0.049
0.093
0.098
One of the farmers was a promoter of the use of some non-native trees in the
farms. He would give out seedlings to people from his own small nursery. This farmer
grew up outside of the community of Chalite. He had experienced different foods and
forms of farming on the island of Bocas del Toro and was one of the children sent by
their parents to be educated away from home. With this knowledge, he constantly
struggled to help farmers in his area to try different technologies even when they did not
want to. Although the adoption rate was low for the non-native trees, almost everyone
had the native laurel and native trees in their farms. The main reason for adoption of non-
112
native tree species were that PNB had given them seedlings and helped them plant in
their farms. After the trees were established, they required little management.
Banana Management
Seventy-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of banana management and
63% responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 18 shows
correlations between selected variables and banana management adoption.
Table 18: Selected variables correlated with adoption of banana management
Variable
q48
20a2
48d4
Communal
48c1
20a1
organ20
Variable definitions
Knowledge of banana management
Part of teacher parent group
Adopt banana better
Use communal rice area
Do not adopt banana too much work
Part of Patronato
Farmer part of an organization
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
0.676
0.583
0.583
-0.567
-0.450
0.420
0.409
P
0.002
0.009
0.009
0.011
0.054
0.074
0.083
Many of the farmers had worked for Bocas Fruit Company with banana
management in the banana plantations. They transferred the knowledge from outside the
community to their farms and Patronato reinforced it. If a farmer was part of Patronato
they were more likely to adopt management methods. The knowledge was already there
before Patronato had arrived, and they reinforced the ideas through the banana
management on the Patronato farm. The farmers who did not adopt banana management
113
methods thought their current methods were fine because the bananas were producing
well without much labor.
Coffee Management
Sixty-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of coffee management and 39%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 19 shows correlations
between selected variables and coffee management.
Table 19: Selected variables correlated with adoption of coffee
management
Variable
49d5
debts22
49c2
crn32a
q49
49d6
49d4
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
0.449
-0.454
-0.456
-0.460
0.519
0.567
0.676
Variable definitions
Adopt coffee sells
Have debts
Do not adopt coffee no materials
Slash and burn for corn
Knowledge of Coffee management
Adopt coffee have
Adopt coffee better
P
0.054
0.052
0.050
0.048
0.023
0.011
0.002
A large part of the adoption of coffee management is the promise of more income.
People who already had coffee were more likely to adopt management strategies to
improve coffee stands in their farms. A reason why other farmers did not adopt the
strategies was that they did not have the materials. Materials included black bags to plant
the seedlings and building materials to cover the seedlings. Patronato had used an
upland type of coffee from the area of Boquete, which is famous for the volcanic soils
and ability to grow shade-grown coffee. However, this variety did not work well in the
farm. Patronato contracted a farmer to grow a lowland variety in his farm (Figure 50).
They provided him with the black bags. Patronato established a sale price of $0.15 per
114
seedling. However, he received no payment during my time in Chalite because the farm
program had run out of funds in Chalite. All the farmers expressed a desire to have
coffee, however they had not yet seen financial benefits. Most coffee was for personal
consumption.
Figure 50: An overgrown coffee nursery grown for Patronato
Manioc Management
Eight-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of manioc management and 74%
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 20 shows correlations
between selected variables and manioc management adoption.
115
Table 20: Selected variables correlated with adoption of manioc
management
Variable
q50
50d4
YrsScl3
communal
Variable definitions
Knowledge of manioc management
Adopt manioc better
Years in school
Communal rice area
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
0.725
0.567
0.403
-0.397
P
0.001
0.011
0.087
0.093
The correlations show that education and prior knowledge were indicators for the
adoption of manioc management. Patronato was constantly trying to plant the manioc on
the hillside in rocky soils. The farmers did not plant manioc often on hillsides, but did
make sure the manioc they grew was in lines for ease of weeding and only had two stems
promoting larger tuber growth. The negative correlation between the use of a communal
rice area and manioc adoption could mean if they spent time working on another
resource, they would spend less time managing the manioc. The plant grows well in
degraded soils and propagates easily. However, people have observed the management
technologies increase the size of the root, and thus increase food production.
Taro Root Management
Thirty-two percent of the farmers had knowledge of taro root management and
22% responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 21 shows
correlations between selected variables and taro management adoption.
116
Table 21: Selected variables correlated with adoption of taro root management
Variable
51d6
q51
51d4
Fish16
Amt22b
wkmon12
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
0.792
0.637
0.604
-0.544
0.494
-0.485
Variable definitions
Adopt taro have
Knowledge of
Adopt taro better
Go fishing
Amount borrowed
Work for money
P
<0.001
0.003
0.006
0.016
0.032
0.036
Adoption of taro root management is another example of prior knowledge of the
technology from other sources. Taro root is one of the main food crops of the Ngöbe and
grows year round. In the Patronato farm, the farmers did learn how to pick plants, which
would produce better. They would also weed the taro periodically and remove the smaller
plants around the main plant to allow better development of the root. The Ngöbe farmers
had reason to adopt this technology because it was one of their main food sources and
similar to their normal farming habits.
Gardens
Sixty-nine percent of the farmers had knowledge of the technology and 21%
responded they used gardening technologies on their own farms. Table 22 shows
correlations between selected variables and garden adoption.
117
Table 22: Selected variables correlated with adoption of gardens
Variable
52d1
House4
52d4
20a2
20a1
q52
q53
Yrsschools3
Variable definitions
Adopt gardening experiment
Number of houses
Adopt gardening better
Part of pto
Part of Patronato
Knowledge of vegetable gardens
Knowledge of seed beds and nurseries
Years of school
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
P
0.725
<0.001
0.625
0.004
0.574
0.010
0.535
0.018
0.406
0.085
0.406
0.085
0.406
0.085
0.398
0.092
Prior knowledge contributed significantly to the adoption of gardening by the
farmers. However, many of the farmers I interviewed said they had tried and failed with
gardens. The river washed away the gardens during hard rains and insects had destroyed
the plants. The main crop most farmers had a desire to grow was cilantro. They use it to
spice their soups. However, none of the programs that came to Chalite, including Peace
Corps, tried to improve cilantro plants.
Nurseries and Seedbeds
Sixty-eight percent of the farmers had knowledge of nurseries and seedbeds and
39% responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 23 shows
correlations between selected variables and nursery and seedbed adoption.
118
Table 23: Selected variables correlated with adoption of nurseries
Variable
52c1
yrhs8
tools28
House6
sb30
ckwd17c
52a5
53a1
Variable definitions
Do not adopt gardening too much work
Number Years in house
Have tools
Number Houses have
Slash and burn the farm
Time to look for firewood
Knowledge of gardening Peace Corps
Knowledge of nurseries Patronato
Pearson Correlation
Coefficient
0.604
0.548
-0.544
0.533
-0.485
-0.419
0.397
0.397
P
0.006
0.015
0.016
0.019
0.036
0.075
0.093
0.093
The actual idea of a small nursery is not new to the Ngöbe farmers. Many farmers
take seedlings from around a large tree and transplant them. The Patronato farm program
grew and transplanted trees on the farm before I arrived. However, after the planting on
the Patronato farm, there was virtually no work with nursery technologies. Some of the
farmers told me they wanted to start a project, but they did not have the materials or the
tools. They felt they needed all the black bags and tools to create a seedbed or nursery.
Some farmers who did adopt the technology used their own method. They would find an
area they knew was fertile, and cover it with a simple bamboo structure. The seeds would
grow, and then they would transplant the seedlings. For pifa, people would use old
cooking pots with holes in them, put some black sandy soil in the pot, and then plant the
pifa seeds (Figure 51). After a month or two, the seedlings were ready to transplant.
119
Figure 51: Old bowl used as a seed starter
Drainage
Seventy-four percent of the farmers had knowledge of drainage and 42 %
responded they used the technology on their own farms. Table 24 shows correlations
between selected variables and drainage adoption.
Table 24: Selected variables correlated with adoption of drainage
Variable
Fish16a
q54
tools28
54a9
54c2
organ21
yrsfm25
time24
Variable definitions
Go fishing
Knowledge of drainage
Have tools
Knowledge of drainage Bocas fruit company
Do not adopt drainage no materials
Some else part of an organization
Years farming
Time to farm
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
-0.502
0.482
-0.456
0.440
-0.440
0.440
-0.415
-0.397
P
0.037
0.037
0.050
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.078
0.093
Farmers who adopted making drainage ditches most likely learned from the work
they did with the Bocas Fruit Company. Farmers remarked that in order to plant crops,
120
the soil could not be saturated with water all of the time. Farmers who did not adopt
drainage stated they did not need to or did not have the tools to do so. Prior knowledge of
drainage and experiences with the Patronato contributed to the adoption of this
technology.
OVERVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN CHALITE
The adoption of agricultural technologies by farmers (Table 25) is
attributed to prior knowledge, access to wealth, and immediate direct benefits to the
farmer. The four most widely adopted technologies correlate to the diet of the Ngöbe
farmer. The farmers system is one of slash, burn, and harvest while the Patronato system
attempted to manage the resource in a single piece of land. Although Patronato has
contributed to the adoption of technologies, they were indirectly affecting the adoption
Table 25: Farmers Adoption of agricultural technologies
Activity
Rice ponds
Tree grafting
Agricultural Chemicals
Fish ponds
Contours
Chicken Coops
Duck pens
Manures
Taro root (otoi and dachin)
Vegetable gardening
Pig pens
Non native trees
Coffee management
Nursery and seed beds
Drainage
Pineapple in rows
Banana and plantain management
Manioc
n=
19
18
19
19
19
19
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
Adopt %
0%
0%
5%
11%
16%
16%
17%
21%
21%
21%
26%
26%
37%
37%
42%
53%
63%
74%
121
Adopt yes
0
0
1
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
7
7
8
10
12
14
by using some familiar technologies. Other organizations such as Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé
had promoted these familiar technologies before Patronato arrived in Chalite. Therefore,
the Patronato system to some extent works only because other institutions have promoted
the same technologies. Programs should research what other programs have done in the
area before they start their own program, and then focus the program with the farmers on
an individual community basis.
Farmers who have worked outside of the community bring those experiences
back to their community. For example, farmers have worked for the Bocas Fruit
Company and in Chiriquí harvesting coffee. They bring back the experiences and use
what they think is appropriate. Tools and management technologies are used if the
farmers have seen the technologies before. Therefore, farmers are more likely to adopt
familiar technologies and have the ability to manipulate the technology. Obvious
agricultural benefits should be demonstrated to the farmers.
Technologies not adopted tend to be highly managed and labor intensive.
Inappropriate varieties of crops are promoted as in the example of rice and fruit trees
brought in by Patronato. They also require materials the farmers felt they could not
obtain. If the farmer felt there were better options that would give him faster results and
more money he was less likely to adopt the agricultural technology.
The fishing phenomenon is another critical factor. Fishing was negatively
correlated to adoption because fishing represented the daily lifestyle of the Ngöbe farmer.
Fishing was the better alternative to the adoption of a technology the farmer felt was too
122
risky, costly, and laborious. Instead of spending energy trying to make something work
and losing food, they went fishing and obtained the food for that day.
Although Patronato was found to have an influence on the adoption of agricultural
technologies, the program was not conducted in a focused manner. This is demonstrated
futher in Table 26 where the Patronato program is positively correlated to the adoption
Table 26: Positive indicators of adoption
41 Agricultural Chemicals
44 Fish Ponds
37 Contours
5%
11%
16%
43 Duck pens
42 Chicken Pens
38 Manures
51 Taro Root (Otoi)
52 Vegetable Gardening
45 Pig Pens
16%
17%
21%
21%
21%
26%
47 Non native trees
49 Coffee management
53 Nursery Techniques
54 Drainage
26%
37%
37%
42%
40 Pineapple in Rows
Banana and Plantain
48 Management
50 Cassava
53%
x
63%
74%
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
of contours, vegetable gardening, pineapple management, and banana management.
However, except for pineapple, other main factors were prior knowledge and immediate
benefits. The table also demonstrates that prior knowledge and immediate benefits are
123
Education
Patronato Program
x
x
x
x
x
Ability to
experiment
x
x
x
x
x
Prior Knowledge
Positive indicators of adoption
Immediate
Benefits
Adoption Rate
Risk
Activity
Wealth
Question
x
x
positively correlated with the adoption of the agricultural technologies. However, the
highly adopted agricultural technologies also had the factor of education. In other words a
combination of education, facilitation, immediate benefits, and follow up can increase the
adoption of an agricultural technology that is right for a specific area.
Table 27 summarizes the fishing phenomenon. As stated prior, fishing is another
way of saying the technology is not perceived to be a valuable asset to the farmer.
Agricultural technologies with low adoption rates further this summation as demonstrated
Table 27: Negative indicators of adoption
41 Agricultural Chemicals
44 Fish Ponds
37 Contours
5%
11%
16%
43 Duck pens
42 Chicken Pens
38 Manures
51 Taro Root (Otoi)
52 Vegetable Gardening
45 Pig Pens
16%
17%
21%
21%
21%
26%
47 Non native trees
49 Coffee management
53 Nursery Techniques
54 Drainage
26%
37%
37%
42%
40 Pineapple in Rows
Banana and Plantain
48 Management
50 Cassava
Fishing
Other options
Negative indicators of adoption
Labor intensive
Adoption Rate
Risk
Activity
Wealth
Question
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
53%
x
x
63%
74%
x
x
124
x
x
x
in the table. The fishing variable, combined with risk or lack of wealth, are indicators for
low adoption. Programs must find out what is important to the farmer in order to have
better success.
The farmers in Chalite live day to day. Therefore, if the technology cannot be
utilized on a daily basis and guarantee them food, they will not adopt the technology.
Many times, I would pasear (pass time with neighbors) with people and they would say “
yo no tengo presa Chodi, tengo hambre” which means, "I do not having anything to eat
but bananas and I am hungry". Farmers in Chalite strive to eliminate daily hunger in an
efficient, risk-free manner. In the final chapter, I reemphasize the need to work within the
culture of Panama and the Ngöbe and give recommendations on how development and
specifically Patronato could improve their program and more effectively work with the
Ngöbe farmers to improve their lives.
125
CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: GO SMALL OR
THEY WILL GO FISHING
Communities like the town of Chalite are poor, and are perceived as is in need
help. Institutions are created to help poor farmers, be it for humanitarian, political, or
economic reasons. However, poor people will not necessarily think the ideas brought to
them are always useful. Many times people will not change if they feel outside
influences control them (Huizer 1970). This is similar to the Ngöbe farmer, except some
feel in that in order to control their lives they must retain the part of their lives that makes
them free. Fishing represents the daily life of a farmer in Chalite and the ability of the
farmer to control what he is going to during any given day.
When institutions come to a village to work with farmers, many times they have
made assumptions about the farmers without regard to the local situation (Bannister and
Nair 2003, Raintree 1986). In the case of Patronato de Nutrición, they are no exception.
All agricultural extension agents for Patronato received training in Chiriquí or Veraguas.
Those regions have a distinct dry period. Bocas del Toro is humid and rainy most of the
year. Some technologies, like vegetable growing, are based on crops which require a dry
summer, and so they did not grow well in Chalite. The Patronato program, like many
other programs, had disregarded the daily ritual of the Ngöbe farmer. They came with
solutions before they knew the problems.
Of the eighteen technologies studied, only three had more than a 50% adoption
rate. Correlations to adoption in this study were wealth, prior knowledge, and immediate
benefits. Wealth indicators include tools, debts, and selling goods. Prior knowledge
126
indicators are knowledge of agricultural technologies from Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé,
MIDA, Banco de Desarollo Agropecuario, and education from school. Immediate
benefits are cash income and crop improvement.
Farmers in Chalite said that a reason to adopt or use an agricultural technology
was experimentation. When a farmer was experimenting, they were taking small risks
without disastrous consequences. Bunch and Lopez (1995) observed that farmers in
Honduras adopted the mucuna system, a slash and mulch method. It was similar to their
swidden fallow system and it easily passed down from other farmers. The farmers
experimented with the method and saw it worked for them. It became their innovation.
The Ngöbe farmer does not live in a close-knit society; he lives in a society where the
family is the central decision maker. Therefore, risk increases because it will affect the
family. Small-scale experimentation is a way to reduce risk (Bunch 1999).
Wealth is an indicator for adoption. Indicators of wealth are number of houses,
number of tools, and number of farm areas. The ability to obtain tools, food, and clothing
increases a farmer's likelihood to adopt a technology, especially if the technology
requires external inputs. Wealth is an indicator in determining adoption by Pattanayak
(2003). In the study of 120 different adoption studies, Pattanayak found that resource
endowments were one of the most important components of adoption. The ability to
acquire wealth and use that wealth for other purposes promotes adoption. Godoy (2000)
found that the Tawahka people of Honduras were more likely to adopt chemicals if they
had access to wealth or were wealthier. Lack of access to wealth and markets by roads,
was identified by Fischer and Vasseur (2002) as a constraint to reaching markets, and
127
therefore obtaining more wealth. The Ngöbe people are not wealthy, and have limited
market access due to distance and boat travel.
Previous knowledge of an agricultural technology was an indicator of adoption to
the farmers in Chalite. Many had previous experiences through work at the Bocas Fruit
Company and the coffee harvests in Chiriquí. They gained experiences from previous
programs such as Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé, MIDA, and Banco de Desarollo Agropecuario.
Amend (2002) notes in a coffee study in Tanzania that farmers with some previous
knowledge of coffee production adopted coffee more easily. In a study of the adoption of
laurel in three Ngöbe communities, Neri (1999) found farmers adopted the management
of the trees because they were native and were willing to try out the technologies.
Previous knowledge is also obtained through one's own farm. Everyone has bananas, and
a slight change could help them produce more, hence a higher adoption rate. Not
everyone has manioc, however it is highly desired, and so people are more willing to try
to obtain and manage it. Knowledge of manioc comes from the farm and other farmers.
Site specificity, local knowledge, and attitudes matter because the internal knowledge
could contribute to adoption of an agricultural adoption (Bannister 2003, Bunch and
Lopez 1995).
Patronato de Nutrición is a contributing factor to adoption in Chalite, in other
words they are succeeding but in an unfocused manner. The program acts as a
continuation on previous knowledge. Although the program does not focus on Ngöbe
farmers' knowledge nor attempt learn about previous programs, they are using a wide
range of agricultural technologies and sometimes follow up something that another
organization has promoted. Patronato's hierarchal structure does not allow the extension
128
agents the flexibility or time to help the development of each farm on an individual basis.
In effect, when rice ponds fail in a community, Patronato tries to continue them without
focusing on other technologies that work better in a specific site. Fischer and Vasseur
(2002) state that in order for people to adopt the alternative agricultural technologies,
they need follow up to the programs. Patronato is in effect, acting as the follow up to
prior programs and knowledge. Bunch and Lopez (1995) found in a follow up survey in
Honduras, that the farmers adopted mucuna not specifically because of the extension
programs, they adopted more quickly because of the programs.
The biggest constraint to the adoption of agricultural technologies in Chalite is
when a farmer "goes fishing". Farmers in Chalite are not accustomed to working in
groups. When a farmer felt that a technology was not going to help them in their daily
lives they do something they feel will add to their daily diet. Technologies such as rice
tanks and tree grafting were not adopted because they were not proven to work. Use of
inappropriate varieties, which did not grow as well, and required extensive education or
labor, are attributed to non-adoption. The factor most recognized contributing factor to
the non-adoption of agricultural technologies is risk (Pattanayak 2003). If a farmer
believes the endeavor may decrease or not increase his daily diet by much, he will not
adopt the technology.
Overview
The objective of this study was to determine if the Patronato farm program was
helping farmers to adopt agricultural technologies used on the Patronato farm. Bort and
Young (1985) state that Ngöbe are integrating into the Panamanian culture. However,
129
due to their social structure, without strong leaders and the family unit as the decision
makers, group organization and work has been difficult. The people of Chalite live in a
remote site with little market access and are subsistence farmers.
In chapters three and four, I introduced and explained current and past literature
dealing with adoption studies. Gomez (1995) notes that before the 1980s there is no
literature about agricultural adoption and technology in Panama. In 1986 organizations
started to work with agroforestry. My study attempted to take a holistic approach to this
adoption study by using statistical analysis, personal observations, personal interaction,
and surveys to present findings as a farm system and not just as technology adoption.
In the results, I found that the average Ngöbe farmers farm in three areas: by the
river, in the swamp, and on hillsides. They farm in a slash and burn or slash and mulch
system and live on their resources day to day. The Patronato de Nutrición program
attempted to provide a farm area to cultivate more food and experiment with different
agricultural technologies to be transferred to the region. They borrowed a piece of land
and created a farm group. Adopted agriculture technologies are indirectly attributed to
the Patronato program. The program did reinforce some technologies the farmers were
already familiar with such as bananas and pineapple management. Farmers adopted
technologies they could do themselves, and therefore have a direct benefit to their farms
with little cost in terms of labor, time, and money.
Recommendations
Many times development work focuses on large-scale projects that do not take
into consideration the local scale in which they will be working (Raintree 1986). Prior
130
knowledge on the part of the institution with respect to the particular village they are
working in can improve their focus and effectiveness on improving farmers lives.
Realizing a cooperative system of the farmer, the institution, land conditions, and past
work could greatly improve adoption of improved agricultural technologies. Many times
institutions will give all the necessary resources to a farmer, such as tools, and believe
that will help them adopt technologies. However, the tools are just one component of the
farm system. If farmers cannot access the tools and technologies at all by themselves,
how are they going to utilize those things when the agency is gone? In a final note, the
Ngöbe farmer works hard, and Patronato has attempted to help them. However, a
program such as this could improve focusing the program towards farmers' specific needs
in Chalite, and not on what other people say their needs are. Otherwise, they will go
fishing.
If Patronato de Nutrición wants to help the farmers, and continue to use the
methods they use in each of the farms, they must evaluate what is working and what is
not. An initial evaluation may be done with rapid rural appraisal methods and analysis
involving the farmers. Then after a year, an evaluation of the agricultural technologies
may be performed to select the ones working, and discontinue the others. Perhaps
through this method Patronato can use the allocated funds more effectively and help the
farmers take those small steps towards adoption more rapidly. Extension agents should
have a basic understanding of rural appraisal and be allowed to help the farmers develop
in a rational way, making sense to the farmers. Just because the farm does not look
weeded does not mean it is not working. Agricultural development tends to be site
specific and Patronato can take advantage of this fact.
131
LITERATURE CITED
Allen, Patricia, D.Van Dusen, J. Lundy, and Stephen Gliessman.1991.Integrating
Social, Environmental, and Economic Issues in Sustainable Agriculture. American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture 6(1):34-39
Amacher, Gregory S., W. F. Hyde, and Mohammed Rafiq.1993.Local Adoption of
New Forestry Technologies: An Example from Pakistans Northwest Frontier Province.
World Development 21(3):445-453
Amend, Joshua D. 2002.Risk and Coffee Production in Mhaji, Tanzania. Masters
Thesis at Michigan Technological University. 109 p.
ANAM. 2001. Corredor Biologico Mesoamérica del Atlantico Panameño. Accessed at
website www.cbmap.org/es/home.php
ANAM. 2004. Informe del Estado del Ambiente. Autoridade Nacional del Ambiente,
Panamá. 175 p.
Anguizola, Gustave. 1980. Philippe Bunau-Varilla: The Man behind the Panama
Canal. Neslon hall, Chicago. 472 p.
Apantaku, S.O, C.I.Sodiya, F.S. Apantaku, and E.O.Fakoya. 2000. Alternative Internal
Sources of Funds for Extension Service in Ogun State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable
Development 17(1):37-53
Asamblea Legislativa. 1992. Ley No.24 (del 23 de Noviembre de 1992) por la cual
Establecen Incentivos Reglamento Actividad de Reforestación en La Republica de
Panamá. 27 p.
Asamblea Legislativa. 1997. Ley No.10 por la cual se Crea la Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé.
Presidencia Fondo de Emergencia Social. 19 p.
Avery, Ralph Emmett. 1915. The Greatest Engineering Feat in the World at Panama.
Haskins, William C. (ed.) Leslie Judge Co., New York 384 p.
Bannister, M.E., and P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Agroforestry Adoption in Haiti: The
Importance of Household and Farm Characteristics. Agroforestry Systems 57:149-157
BBC. 2004. (British Broadcasting Company) 2004 Country Profiles- Thursday, 2
September, 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1229332.stm
132
Beets, Willem C. 1990. Raising and Sustaining Productivity of Smallholder Farming
Systems in the Tropics. AgBé Publishing. Alkmaar Holland. 738 p.
Black, Jan Knippers, and Edmundo Flores. 1989. Chapter 1: Historical Setting. Pages
1-66 in Meditz, Sandra W, Hanratty, Dennis M., (eds.), Panama: A Country Study.
United States Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 337 p.
Bort, John R., and Philip D.Young. 1985. Economic and Political Adaptations to
National Development Among Guaymi. Anthropological Quarterly 58:1-12
Bort, John, and Mary W. Helms 1983. Panamá in Transistion: Local Reactions to
Development Policies.University of Missouri Monographs in Anthropology Number
Six. Department of Anthropology. University of Missouri-Colombia 198 p.
Bourgois, Philippe. 1988. Conjugated Oppression: Class and Ethnicity Among Guaymi
and Kuna Banana Workers. American Ethnologist 15:328-348
Braimoh, Ademola K. 2001. Integrating Indigenous Knowledge and Soil Science to
Develop a National Soil Classification System for Nigeria. Agriculture and Human
Values 19:75-80
Buckles, D., and B. Triomphe. 1999. Adoption of Mucuna in the Farming Systems of
Northern Honduras Agroforestry Systems 47:67-91
Bunch, Roland, and Gabinó López. 1995. Soil Recuperation in Central America:
Sustaining Innovation After Innovation. Sustainable Agriculture Program of the
International Institute for the Environment and Development. Gate Keeper series
No.55 18 p.
Bunch, Roland. 1999. Reasons for Non-Adoption of Soil Conservation Technologies
and How to Overcome them. Mountain Research and Development 19(3):213-220
Carrasco, Domingo A., Scott G. Witter, 1993. Constraints to Sustainable Soil and
Water Conservation: A Dominican Republic Example
CIA. 2003. The World Fact Book- Panamá 2003
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pm.html
Cochran, Jason B. 2004. Approaches to studying technical innovation adoption and
characteristics of adopters in developing countries: Masters Thesis, McGill University
Cook, Richard G. 1982. Los Guaymis Si Tienen Historia. pages 27-64 in Comité
Patrocinador del "Foro sobre el Pueblo Guaymí y Su Futuro" y Centro de Estudios y
Acción Social-Panamá (eds.), CEASPA 1982. Republica de Panamá
133
Crane, Julia G., and Michael V. Angrosino, 1992. Field Projects in Anthropology: A
student Handbook. Waveland Press. Illinois 200 p.
Cromwell, Godfrey. 1992. What Makes Technology Transfer: Small Scale Hydro
Power in Nepals Public and Private Sectors. World Development 20(7):979-989
DeWalt, B.R. 1985. Anthropology, Sociology, and Farming Systems Research. Human
Organization 44:106-114
Doorman, Frans.1991. A framework For the Rapid Appraisal of Factors that Influence
the Adoption and Impact of New Agricultural Technology. Human Organization 50(3):
235-244
FAOSTAT. 2002. Food and Agriculture Indicators. Accessed at
http://www.fao.org/es/ess/compendium_2003/pdf/ESS_PAN.pdf
Feder, Gershon, Richard E. Just, and David Zilberman. 1985. Adoption of Agricultural
Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey. Economic Development and Cultural
Change 33:255-299.
Fischer, Alexandra, and Liette Vasseur. 2002. Small Holder Perceptions of
Agroforestry Projects in Panama. Agroforestry Systems 54:103-113
Fischer, Alexandra, and Liette Vasseur. 2000. The Crisis in Shifting Cultivation
Practices and the Promise of Agroforestry: A Review of the Panamanian Experience.
Biodiversity and Conservation 9:739-756
Franco, Fray Blas José, and A.L. Pinart. 1882. Noticia de LosIindios Guaymies y de sus
Cosumbres 19 p.
Godoy, Ricardo, Kathleen O´neil, Kendura McSweeney, David Wilkie, Veronica
Flores, David Bravo, Peter Kostishack, and Adonio Cubas. 2000. Human Capital,
Wealth, Property Rights, and the Adoption of New Farm Technologies: the Tawahka
Indians of Honduras. Human Organization 59(2):222-233
Gómez, Manuel. 1995. Economic and Industrial Analysis of Agroforestry Projects in
Panama. in pages 146-162 of Costs, Benefts, and farm Adoption of Agroforestry:
Project Experiences in Central America and the Caribbean. A CATIE-IFPRI- World
Bank Project. Current, Dean, Earnst Lutz, and Sara Scherr (.eds). World Bank
Environmental Paper #14, Washington D.C. 219 p.
Gordon, Burton L. 1982. A Panamá Forest and Shore: Natural History and
Amerindian Culture in Bocas del Toro. The Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove California.
178 p.
134
Harwood, Richard R. 1996. Development Pathways Toward Sustainable Systems
Following Slash and Burn. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 58:75-86
Hidrometeorologia. 2004. Republica de Panama. Accessed at www.hidromet.com.pa
Howarth, David. 1966. Panama: Four Hundered Years of Dreams and Cruelty.
McGraw-Hill Book Company. NY Toronto London 297 p.
Huizer, Gerrit. 1970. Resistance to Change and radical Peasant Mobilization: Foster
and Erasmus Reconsidered. Human Organization. 29(4):303
Johns, Norman. 1999. Conservation in Brazils Chocalate Forest: The Unlikely
Persistence of the Traditional Cocoa Agro ecosystem. Environmental Management
23(1):31-47
Johnson, Fredrick. 1948. The Post-Conquest Ethnology of Central America: An
Introduction. The Meso-American Division. Bulletin 143. Handbook of South American
Indians 4:195-204
Kitchen, Rob, and Nicholas J. Tate 2000. Conducting Research into Human
Geography. Theory, Methodology, and Practice. Prentice Hall. United Kingdom 330 p.
Kluck, Patricia. 1989. Chapter 2: The Society and its Framework. Pages 67-122 in
Meditz, Sandra W, Hanratty, Dennis M., (eds.), Panama: A Country Study. United
States Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 337 p.
Koster, Richard M., and Guillermo Sanchez. 1991. In the Time of the Tyrants. Panama
1968-1990. W. W. Norton & Company 434 p.
Larose, Daniel T., and Chun Jin. 1998. Ready, Set, Run. A Student Guide to SAS
Software for Microsoft Windows. Mayfield Publishing Company, Mountain View
California. 96 p.
Lincoln, Kathryn M. 2004. The Use and Potential use of the Pita Plant, Aechmea
magdalenae (Andre) Andre EX. Baker, In a Ngobe Village: A Case Study of Chalite,
Boocas del Toro, Panama. Masters Thesis at Michigan Technological University 118 p
Marianela, Martinelli A. (Lic.) 1993. El Pueblo Ngöbe: Cultural Y Organization.
Documento Ngöbe Tomo 1. Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe-PAN. Republica de Panamá.
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables Agencia de Cooperacion Tecnica
Alemaña-GTZ 78 p.
Martin, Adrienne, John Sherington. 1996. Participatory Research MethodsImplimentation, Effectiveness, and Institutional Context. Agricultural Systems
55(2):195-216
135
Mele, Paul Van, and A.K.M. Zakaria. 2002. The Innovation tree: A New PARA Tool
to Reveal the Innovation Adoption and Diffussion Process. pla notes: participatory
learning and action. Community-based animal healthcare. IIED. 45:54-58
Mora-Urpi, Jorge, John C. Weber, and Charles R. Clement. 1997. Peach Palm, Bactris
gasipaes Kunth. Promoting the Conservation and Use of Underutilized and Neglected
Crops.20. Internatioanl Plant Genetic Resource Institute (IPGRI). Gatersleben
Germany. 76 p.
Neill, Sean P., and David R. Lee. 1999. Explaining the Adoption and Disadoption of
Sustainable Agriculture: The Case of cover Crops in Northern Honduras. Working
Paper WP-99-31. Department of Agricultural Resource and Managerial Economics,
Cornell university, Ithaca, NY 25 p.
Neri E, Beer J., SO Marriba, M. Gomez, and Validcium D. Durret. 1999. Adopcion
Inicial y Difusion de Tecnologia Agroforestal en Cacaotales con Indigenas Ngabe en
Panama. Revista Agroforesteria en las Americas 26 8 p.
Nichols, J.Doland, Martha E. Rosemeyer, F. Flynn Carpenter, and James Kettler. 2001.
Intercropping legume trees with native timber trees rapidly restores cover to eroded
tropical pasture without fertilization. Forest Ecology and Management 152:195-209
Nichols, Paul. 2000. Social Survey Methods: A Field guide for Development Workers.
Development Guidelines, No.6. Oxfam, Oxford 131 p.
Panama Census. 2000. http://www.contraloria.gob.pa/index.htm
Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (a). Patronato de Nutricion Encuesta Antropométrica
(Peso y Talla en niños menores de 5 anos.)
Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (b). Patronato de Nutricion Encuesta Socioeconómica
Patronato de Nutrición 2004 (c). Cuerpo de Paz y Patronato de Nutricion. De Plan
Panama Rural 2001-2004. Ministerio de Desarrollo Agropecuario. Panama 2000
Patronato de Nutrición. 2004 (d). Patronato de Nutricion Proyectos de Granjas
Sostenibles Capitulo Bocas del Toro. Provincia de Bocas del Toro. Coordinador Felipe
Villamil.
Patronato de Nutrición. 2004 (e). Proyecto de granja de Agricultura Sostenible
Comunidad de Chalite, Distrito de Kankintu, Provincia de Comarca Ngobe Bugle. (El
Perfil de la Granja)
136
Pattanayak, Subhrendu K., D. Evan Mercer, Erin Sills, and Jui-Chen Yang. 2003.
Taking Stock of Agroforestry Adoption Studies. Agroforestry Systems 57:173-186
Peng, Martin Khor Kok. 1996. The Knowledge We Need Is There for the Taking.
Ceres 157:33-36
Place, F., Dewees, P. 1999. Policies and incentives for the adoption of improved
fallows. Agroforestry Systems 47:323-343
PNB (Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe-Buglé). 2002. Atlas de la Comarca Ngöbe-Bugle.
Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe-Buglé (PAN-ANAM-GTZ). San Felix, Chiriqui,
Rpublica de Panamá 26 p.
PNB 2001 (Proyecto Ngöbe-Buglé) 2001. Plan de Desarrollo del Distrito de Kankintú.
Congresso General Ngöbe-Buglé y Proyecto Agroforestal Ngöbe (PAN-ANAM-GTZ)
Prinz, Dieter. 1986. Cropping technologies in the tropics for Soil Conservation and Soil
Improvement. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 25(2):86-99
Raintree, J.B., 1986. Agroforestry Pathways: Land Tenure, Shifting Cultivation and
Sustainable Agriculture. Unasylva 38(4): 1-15
Rauniyar, Ganesh P.,Franklin Goode. 1996. Managing Green Revolution Technology:
An Analysis of a Differential Practice Combination in Swaziland. Economic
Development and Cultural Change. :413-436
República de Panamá. 1999. Decreto Ejecutivo No.194 (De 25 de Agosto de 1999). Por
la Cual se Adopta la Carta Orgánica Administrativa de la Comarca Ngöbe-Buglé .
Ministerio de Gobierno y Justicia. 49 p.
Roder, Walter. 2004. Are Mountain Farmers Slow to Adopt New Technologies.
Mountain Research and Development 24(2):114-118
Ruf, Francois, and Gotz Schroth. 2004. Chapter 6: Cacao Forests and Monocultures:
A Historical Review of Cocoa Growing and Its Conflicting Role in Tropical
Deforestation and Forest Conservation found in pages 107-134 Agroforestry and
Biodiversity Conservation in tropical Landscapes. Schroth, Gotz, Fonseca, Gustavo
A.B, Harvey, Celia A., Gascon, Claude, Vasconcelos, Heraldo L., Izac, Anne-Marie
N.(eds.) Island Press. Washington Covelo London.
Sanchez, Pedro A., 1976. Properties and Management of Soils in the Tropics. John
Wiley and Sons, New York. 618 p.
137
Selener, Daniel, Nelly Endara., and Jos'e Carvajal. 1999. Participatory Rural Appraisal
and Planning Workbook. IIRR (International Institute of Rural Reconstruction).
Ecuador. 146 p.
Shiferaw, Bekele. Stein T.Holder. 2000. Policy Instruments for Sustainable Land
Management: the case of Highland Smallholders in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics
22:217-232
SIL International. 2004. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=1920
Language Family Trees of Chibchan.
Simmons, Cynthia S., Robert T. Walker, Charles H. Wood. 2002. Tree Planting by
Small Producers in the Tropics: A Comparative Study of Brazil and Panama.
Agroforestry Systems 56:89-105
Smith, Derek.2003. Participatory Mapping of Community Lands and Hunting Yields
among the Bugle of Western Panama. Human Organization 62(4):332-343
Tollefson, Scott D. 1989. Chapter 3: The Economy. Pages 123-170 in Meditz, Sandra
W, Hanratty, Dennis M., (eds.), Panama: A Country Study. United States Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 337 p.
Tripp, R. 1985. Anthropology and On-Farm Research Human Organization. 44:114124
United States Department of State. 1989. Panama: A Just Cause. Current Policy
No.1240. United States Department of State. Bureau of Public Affairs. Washington,
D.C.
United States Department of State. 2004. Background note of Panama.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2030.htm
USAID. 1974. Agronomic-Economic Research on Tropical Soils. Annual report for
1974. Soil Science Department, North Carolina State University. Raleigh, N.C.
Contract AID, CSD 2806. 230 p.
Vakis, Renos, and Kathy Lindert. 2000. Poverty in Indigenous Populations in Panamá:
A Study Using LSMS Data. The World Bank. Latin American and the Caribbean
Office. LHSHD Series. Department of Human Development 1-27
Versteeg, M.N., Eteka F. Amadji, A. Gogan, A. Koudokpon. 1998. Farmers
Adoptability of Mucuna Fallowing and Agroforestry Technologies in the Coastal
Savanna of Benin. Agricuitual Systems 56(3):269
138
Wayhoo.com 2004. Location of Chalite.
http://wayhoo.com/index/a/sgns/detail/1/gns_id/886823/waypoint/Chalite/ (location)
Wiggins, Steve, Elizabeth Cromwell.1995. NGO´s and Seed Provision to Smallholders
in Developing Countries. World Development 23(3):413-422
Wit, Cornelis T. de.1987. Integrating Agricultural Research and Development.
Quarterly Journal of Integrated Agriculture 26(3):311-324
World Bank. 2000.Panama Poverty Assessment: Priorities and Strategies for Poverty
Reduction. A World Bank Country Study. The World Bank
WRI. 2004. (World Resources Institute) Country Profiles Access Oct.10 2004 at
http://www.earthtrends.wri.org/country_profiles/index.cfm?theme=8&rcode=6
Yin, Robert K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd Edition. Applied
Social Research and Methods Series Volume 5. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
London, New Delhi. 181 p.
Young, Philip D. 1978. La Trayectoria De Una Religión: El Movimiento De Mama Chi
Entre Los Guaymis Y Sus Consecuencias Sociales. Revista La Antigua 11:45-75
Young, Philip D. 1979. The Politicization of the Guaymi. Journal of the Steward
Anthropological Society 11:74-135
Young, Philip D.; 1971. Ngawbe: Tradition and Change Among the Western Guaymí
of Panamá. University of Illinois Press 256 p.
139