Larry Lev

Common support for local agriculture in two contrasting Oregon communities

One increasingly successful approach to enhancing small farm viability is for farmers to market their products directly to consumers and food-oriented businesses and institutions within their local area. This localized approach to food production and distribution is based on theoretical concepts often articulated as community, local or regional food systems. But is there sufficient consumer support to make local food systems viable? Do communities differ in their potential for developing a local food system based on their dominant socio-economic and/or political characteristics? This study reports on the results of a random mail survey of households in two Oregon communities. Although the two communities contrast socioeconomically and politically, they show common but somewhat different support for local agriculture. The results demonstrate the potential for the development of more localized food systems in both communities. However, the type of products, their method of delivery and pricing will likely need to be tailored to fit each community.

The temporal dimension in farming systems research: the importance of maintaining flexibility under conditions of uncertainty

Abstract This paper addresses the importance of temporal processes as they affect the focus of Farming Systems Research (FSR), the small farm. Those involved in FSR need to develop approaches which recognize that the state of the production system they are concerned with in any particular annual cycle is in flux. It has emerged as a response to past sets of choices and will be influenced by future ones. FSR is concerned with improving future conditions, but in seeking to alter relationships between elements in the system it often fails to understand the process by which existing relationships evolved. There is a danger that if long-term interactions are ignored researchers will be unable to determine the most viable choice sets from the perspective of the farmer. It will be argued that FSR, as it is currently described, tends to over-simplify the systems it examines because it fails to adopt an approach which examines production in a multi-period rather than a single period context. Emphasis upon a longer time frame implies a different understanding of the system in which farmers may be seen as trading off immediate return for security and/or the opportunity to maximize profitability over the long term. Farmers have developed systems which allow them to maintain production within an environment in which physical conditions (rainfall), economic circumstances (crop prices) etc., may vary from year to year. The relative capacity of the system to respond or conform to changing or new situations may be defined as its flexibility. Three categories of flexibility can be defined. The first, incremental learning, represents changes in the ability of the farmer to evaluate future alternative action choices. The second, range of options, refers to the size of the choice set which is available in future periods. Finally the third category, resiliency, is a measure of the ability of the system to survive intact from period to period. As such it is an extreme example of the range of options flexibility mentioned above. Overall then the concept of flexibility tries to capture in a dynamic fashion the effect that a current decision has on the future opportunity set. A conceptual model is presented which emphasizes the importance of the three forms of adjustment flexibility in FSR. This model is then applied to a case study of the Mandara Mountains of Cameroon. The paper concludes that the current emphasis of FSR upon the relatively short-run workings of the system entails the risk of failing to understand the full complexity of the nature of decision-making and of the technical environment of production. Incorporation of a longer time frame into FSR may make it more complex but in its absence innovations may have unintended detrimental outcomes. Flexibility is an issue which should be considered in all phases of an approach to rural development as comprehensive as FSR.

MarketTools: An educational commodity marketing game

Agricultural commodity market participants make decisions in a risky and changing environment. Few agricultural producers use the diverse marketing alternatives available to them. Many are unfamiliar with the mechanics of the alternatives and methods for incorporating them into marketing strategies. This article describes MarketTools, an educational software package designed to support real-time, competitive marketing games. MarketTools simplifies record keeping and provides the basis for a structured approach to marketing education. The concluding section summarizes experience in using MarketTools in adult education and classroom settings.

Support or subversion: the relationship between farming systems research and Tanzania's rural development policy objectives

Abstract Although farming systems research (FSR) programs have been initiated in many countries, insufficient attention has been devoted to their relationship with national rural development policies. While clearly in many instances the two will be working in a supportive fashion towards common goals, in other instances they may be operating at cross purposes. This relationship is examined through an ex post facto consideration of the historical record of rural development policies in the East African nation of Tanzania. Since independence, Tanzania has embarked on a wide variety of rural development initiatives including the introduction of communal production systems, massive resettlement programs, price controls, and the establishment of parastatal marketing firms. These policies have been formulated to achieve specific societal goals such as greater equity, the provision of social services, and the feeding of the urban population. In contrast to these broad concerns and policies, the FSR approach focuses on understanding the problems and opportunities of individual family units and on setting in motion a process of technology generation and dissemination that will increase the productivity of these families. The general conclusion is that although FSR practitioners and national policy makers often differ markedly in their perspectives on rural development, improved communications will provide substantial benefit to both sides. The FSR teams can provide new insights that will aid in the formulation of improved policies. Similarly, national policy goals that are handed down should provide the FSR teams with another basis to judge and modify potential technological interventions. The long-term success of any FSR program is dependent upon effectively fulfilling both of these roles.