Abstract
This article offers a critical approach towards adopting new technologies as a mitigation strategy. It provides a comprehensive analysis that helps illuminate the adoption process and the sociocultural factors intersecting and informing it. Using a capability approach lens and qualitative and participatory data collection methods, this study presents and analyses the testimonies of smallholders living on Colombia’s Pacific coast, currently exposed to a series of interventions that promote changes in production decisions to contribute to reducing national greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, improved forages, silvopastoral systems and new practices, such as the implementation of rotational pasturing, have been promoted as relevant new approaches. The results show that access to new technologies generates new capabilities, for instance the ability to plan for the challenges imposed by climate change or to develop new strategies to allow the soil to recover naturally. However, these new possibilities are unevenly distributed, creating disadvantages for groups that generally experience conditions of vulnerability, such as young farmers and women. The testimonies also show that many of the promoted initiatives emphasise the need for adaptation and change on the part of smallholders without considering the limitations of technology, the gender issues that affect the inclusion of women and the dynamics that set barriers to young smallholders due to economic restrictions or power issues. Therefore, the study contends that, when understanding technology adoption, it is not only a question of what farmers do or do not do but of what they can be and do in increasingly demanding contexts.
Key messages
This article offers a critical approach towards adopting new technologies as a mitigation strategy for climate change.
The study contends that, when understanding technology adoption, it is not only a question of what farmers do or do not do but of what they can be and do in increasingly demanding contexts.
Introduction
The scientific community has developed technologies to mitigate climate change effects and enhance adaptation possibilities among smallholders. Specifically, improved forages (pastures artificially produced to improve livestock production while reducing greenhouse gas emissions), silvopastoral systems (a grazing system that combines forage grasses, herbs, shrubs and trees to contribute to sustainable land use) and changes in the management procedures (rotational pasturing, improved fertilisation plans, use of silage) have been promoted as critical resources and practices (see, for example, Ruíz et al, 2016; Bravo Parra et al, 2018; Charry et al, 2018; Enciso et al, 2019; 2022).
Improved forages have the potential to increase animal production and productivity, improve soil quality and reduce the environmental footprint of cattle activity (Enciso et al, 2019; Enciso Valencia et al, 2021; Lascano et al, 2005; Rao et al, 2015; White et al, 2013). The silvopastoral systems can be used for mixed crop-livestock systems, to restore soil fertility and biodiversity; to increase forage and wood biomass and to meet food security needs associated with environmental conservation in agriculture and livestock ecosystems (Lemaire et al, 2014; Gumucio et al, 2015; Mauricio et al, 2019). Silage technologies are critical to face extended periods of drought or unexpected climate changes affecting animals’ production and health (Reiber et al, 2013). However, as the research on technology adoption, technological change and climate change adaptation in smallholder agriculture has shown, the expected contribution and impact of these technologies and practices is also mediated by the actual capacity of farmers to use, value and make sense of their contribution. That is, in the dynamic relationship between farmer and technology, which involves learning, context and individual experience.
In this taken-up space, structural factors, sociocultural categories and climate change interact (Chandra et al, 2017; Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014; Mehar et al, 2016; Rola-Rubzen et al, 2020). However, the relational aspects of technology adoption and uptake remain largely unexplored in the case of Latin America (Rao et al, 2015; Triana Ángel and Burkart, 2019; 2023). This is even more the case in Colombia, where technological adoption has been studied mainly through surveys whose questions focus on the access and distributive aspects (Ruíz et al, 2016; Díaz et al, 2018) rather than the adoption process (Tschakert, 2012) and the sociocultural components (Curry et al, 2021) that shape the exercise and practice of technological change.
The research presented in this article documents the experiences of a group of diverse smallholders who have been exposed to initiatives aimed at changing their farming practices to promote greater use of technologies that can contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Using qualitative and participatory data collection methods, we study the uptake and adoption of these technologies and strategies through a case study developed in Patía, Cauca department in south-western Colombia. The participants are women and men between the ages of 30 and 75. Most of them self-identify as Afro-Colombians, constituting 6.68 per cent of the national population, almost 3 million people (DANE, 2018).
Sen’s capability approach (Sen, 1980; 1999) is used as a key conceptual framework to explore and evaluate the dynamic relationship between participants and new technologies. A key feature of Sen’s capability approach is that it privileges a comprehensive view of people’s well-being and freedom. Sen (2009) distinguishes between two aspects: the opportunity aspect, which refers to the opportunities available to individuals, and the process aspect, where the space of agency and choice is located. This allows not only the distributional components of new opportunities (access to new resources and management strategies in this case) to be explored and prospectively evaluated, but also the relational aspect – the possibilities of effectively using these opportunities for the ultimate well-being and functioning of people’s lives (Schlosberg and Carruthers, 2010). Thus, the adoption and use of new technologies is understood as a process, and the focus is not simply on access, but on the extent to which these new tools and practices are meaningful and could be adopted by a diversity of smallholders (Tschakert, 2012). Unlike other studies that take the value of technology as a given (see, for example, Smithers and Blay-Palmer, 2001; Rose et al, 2018; Chavas and Nauges, 2020), this study understands technology as a means that can be useful if employed, and if it matters.
Based on this relational ontology of the capability approach, three primary research questions were identified: (1) how have climate change–induced events affected smallholder farmers’ practices; (2) what are the opportunities and barriers that smallholder farmers face in using new technologies and strategies in the day-to-day management of their farms; and (3) how does the practice of new technologies and strategies impact on and expand sustainable agricultural capabilities? Research questions one and two seek to feed the exploratory phase of the research, first to understand from the participants’ perspective the impacts of climate change and how helpful and feasible the new technologies are in such challenging contexts. Research question three goes deeper into this dynamic process and seeks to identify the extent to which access to, and uptake of, new technologies and strategies contribute (or do not contribute) to the development of sustainable agricultural capabilities.
Literature review
Technology adoption in agriculture and food production systems (meat, dairy) have long been promoted as the more efficient way to increase farm productivity and reduce poverty, particularly among smallholders. In current contexts of climate change and food crises, technology adoption intersects with the aim of enhancing sustainable food production systems and is aligned with various Sustainable Development Goals: 1 (no poverty), 2 (zero hunger), 10 (reduced inequalities), 13 (climate action) and 15 (life on land).
Smallholder farmers (less than two hectares), who provide 35 per cent of the world’s supply (Lowder et al, 2021), are a target group for the use of technologies such as improved forages. However, studies in different contexts have shown that adoption and use of new technologies among small producers is limited. Ruzzante et al (2021) conducted a meta-analysis of a large sample of studies from different contexts in the developing world. They found that, on average, farmer education, household size, land size, access to credit, land tenure, access to extension services and membership of organisations are positively correlated with the adoption of many agricultural technologies. Curry et al (2021) analysed the sociocultural aspect of technology adoption to understand the constraints to adoption. They used a series of case studies, also in developing countries, and argue that the explanation of structural factors is not sufficient. Sociocultural elements, such as how the technology is aligned with the indigenous knowledge or value system of a particular community, can affect how farmers relate to new tools and limit what is theoretically defined as positive.
Feola et al (2015) conducted a literature analysis to evaluate the impact of three stressors – climate change, trade liberalisation and violent conflict – on the practices of Colombian farmers. The researchers argued that the relationship between farmers and technology needs to be addressed in a more complex way. This means not reducing adaptation to technical, informational or economic measures. Instead, they, along with others in the field, call for mapping the different factors that enhance or constrain the use of new technologies. Among these, climate change stands out. The processes associated with climate change have transformed the boundaries of production, posing new challenges to small-scale farming in Colombia. Regarding the impact that these transformations have, the literature notes the following: changes in crop phenology (Eitzinger et al, 2018); quality of underground water and water availability; animal and milk production, livestock diseases and biodiversity (Rojas-Downing et al, 2017); land degradation and desertification (Ramirez-Villegas et al, 2013).
Similarly, Glover et al (2019) add a further layer of complexity to our understanding of technology adoption, arguing the concept of ‘adoption’ can be limited because what is happening involves technological change, with a sociocultural component alongside the technical and subjectivity aspects. In this dynamic space, gender, age and power relations intersect with the capacities and possibilities farmers foresee in technology and the changes it proposes.
Technology studies using a feminist lens, for example, sustains that technology is not gender neutral, as it interacts with material and social worlds ‘and perform gender as they propel the power relations inscribed in them’ (Mukhopadhyay and Prügl, 2019: 706). In this interaction, as important as the types of assets women manage (for example, land and animal quality) are the domains in which they are recognised as productive actors and have space and agency to make decisions. The literature shows that there are also differences between women themselves, as their opportunities and choices in the smallholder and agricultural sector are often shaped by their age, marital status, ethnicity, and the ownership and quality of their assets.
Another space where gender issues intersect and impact access and use of technologies is extension services (Kawarazuka, 2018; Peterman et al, 2014). This is manifested in the design, dissemination and outputs delivered by these programmes (Enciso et al, 2022; Mehar et al, 2016). For instance, initiatives are designed to be channelled through cooperatives, and women participate less in these organisations than men; or the programmes are blind to the knowledge and skills that women require (Bantilan and Padmaja, 2008; Rola-Rubzen et al, 2020).
Like gender, age also affects technology adoption in the context of climate change (Ansell, 2016; Huijsmans, 2016; Triana Ángel and Burkart, 2023; White, 2020). Regarding the use and exercise of technology, the literature shows that young farmers’ possibilities are strongly defined by structural factors (education, land ownership), national processes (migration, conflict), identity and familiar dynamics (poor generational transfer among rural families) (Lombana-Bermudez et al, 2020; Triana Ángel and Burkart, 2023; Wittman et al, 2021). In this vulnerable context, it is difficult for young farmers with fewer resources to realise the value (rather than the cost) of adopting new technologies. Even if they are willing, the question is to what extent they can manage the need for change and the experience associated with new learning.
Approaching technology adoption as a dynamic and non-binary process (adopt/not adopt; success/failure) allows opening the black box of technology change and exploring smallholders’ relationship with new opportunities. The capability approach provides a conceptual framework for analysing this relationship, based on the capabilities and functionings that farmers do or do not deploy thanks to access to new learning, and the factors that mediate this process, which the capability approach calls ‘conversion factors’ and which we will explain in the following section.
The capability approach
Sen’s capability approach is used descriptively and prospectively (Alkire, 2008) to explore the relationship the participants have with new technologies, and to understand to what extent these new resources expand (or not) sustainable farming capabilities. In the case of the Patía farmers, it is essential not only to explore whether technology is useful but also who it serves and why – what are people now able to do and be, which they could not do and be before. In line with intersectional literature on climate change and adaptation (Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014), the capability approach allows us to problematise the idea of ‘treated communities as socially homogeneous’ as there are differences in using and applying technology.
To operationalise this relational approach to individuals’ opportunities, two concepts are key: capabilities and functionings. Functionings are achieved beings and doings. There are basic functionings, such as feeding, moving from one place to another, and riding a bike; and more complex ones, such as playing a musical instrument, debating, and writing essays. Capabilities, meanwhile, represent the space for achieving functionings: what we can be and do, and what we value to be and do (Robeyns, 2020). As for the relationship between functionings and capabilities, Sen explains that the capability approach is concerned with both concepts as ‘the former [is] about the things a person does and the latter about the things a person is substantively free to do’ (Sen, 1999: 75). The distinction between functionings and capabilities is significant to this study: it provides the conceptual space to critically explore actual farming practices (the space of functionings); and the different possibilities, choices and opportunities open (or not) for the diverse farmers while having access to new technologies and new farming strategies (the space of capabilities).
Another key concept in the capability approach is conversion factors (Sen, 1992). Simply defined, conversion factors constitute the level to which a person can convert a resource – a good, a service, a tool such as a new technology – into functionings. Robeyns (2005) categorised conversion factors into three groups: personal conversion factors (for example, the physical or mental health of a person); social conversion factors (this relates to the society in which one lives, the health of democracy, how issues of class affect, or not, people’s possibilities); and environmental conversion factors, which emerge from the external conditions in which a person lives (for instance, climate, means of transportation and communication). According to Sen, conversion factors limit (negative) or enhance (positive) the development of functionings or capabilities. Therefore, while assessing people’s well-being, it is crucial to acknowledge the context and circumstances that characterise their life.
The capability approach and collective capabilities
Some scholars in the capability approach propose that capabilities can be developed individually and collectively. For example, being part of an agricultural cooperative that accesses new learning opportunities can generate collective capabilities among its members. Collective capabilities do not represent the sum of capabilities of a diversity of people but rather those capacities generated through interaction, working together and collaboration, which could not be achieved individually (Ibrahim, 2006; Ballet et al, 2007). In this article, collective capabilities are explored, considering some of the participants are active members of agricultural cooperatives, which in many cases are in charge of coordinating access to new technologies and learning opportunities. Thus, in addition to asking whom the technology serves and what individual capabilities it expands, it is also relevant to understand whether collective capabilities are expanded and how they reach the diversity of participating farmers. Ibrahim (2006) argues that collective capabilities affect people’s capabilities in two ways. The group influences the perception of what is essential to people and can also help achieve functionings and thus reach new spaces of well-being, agency and freedom. In this way, the person gains a new set of choices due to participating in a collective.
While groups can help build capacity, it has also been documented that some groups ‘can also cause social conflict’ (Stewart, 2005: 186–8), either because they engage in exclusionary practices (Cleaver, 1999; Das Gupta et al, 2000) or because of the logic of power that characterises their relationships. The analysis also pays attention to the potential negative effect of farmers’ cooperatives, particularly when considering gender and generation dynamics.
Methodology
The fieldwork was conducted in the Patía municipality in the Department of Cauca (see Figure 1). Patía municipality was selected because of the predominant presence of small-scale farmers and family farms, most of which are farmed for sale and self-subsistence (Hristov, 2005). Also, in this location, project partners International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) had demonstration sites and had existing connections with some of the participants. Based on these connections and a snowball sampling strategy, participants were selected. Ethical approval for the project was granted following University of Glasgow procedures. Participants were given oral and written information about the research project, and after discussing the study and having the chance to ask questions, they were asked to record their consent. To minimise response bias and avoid influence from partners’ projects in participants’ responses, interviews were conducted one-on-one with the smallholders and focus groups were conducted within local cooperatives spaces. While the sample may not represent all of the Patía municipality, it does represent a range of personal and contextual realities concerning socio-economic, cultural, gender, age and farm production systems.
/img/Blank.svg)
Location of study area at Patía (red circle) in Cauca Department (green), Colombia (shaded)
Citation: Global Social Challenges Journal 3, 3; 10.1332/27523349Y2024D000000018
Data collection was designed in two stages, exploratory and participatory (see Figure 2). Stage one included the realisation of two focus groups (women and men farmers, different ages) with ten participants in total and semi-structured interviews with 11 smallholders (six men and five women). The focus groups are divided by gender, as research in agriculture has shown that women speak less in mixed groups (Pignatti et al, 2015). The focus groups allow the identification of leaders within the group and issues that concern the participants and emerge from the collective conversation; simultaneously, they inform part of the semi-structured interview schedule that is applied individually to some participants.
Two stages data collection workflow
Citation: Global Social Challenges Journal 3, 3; 10.1332/27523349Y2024D000000018
After the focus groups, walking interviews were conducted. This type of interview is used in geography to explore participant experiences (Dorward et al, 2017). The current study allows the farmer to talk about their experiences and support their reflections and claims while ‘showing in the field’ their achievements and the issues faced. At the same time, it allows the researcher (urban, foreign, with no experience in farming) to understand the challenges associated with working under adverse conditions (high temperatures, drought, unexpected changes in the climate) and limited access to information and resources, especially in the case of women.
The interview schedule consisted of two sections. In the first part, personal demographic farmer information was collected by questionnaire to obtain a socio-economic characterisation of the participants (see Tables 1 and 2). Section two comprised semi-structured questions on four themes: production and farm management, use of improved pastures and new strategies, extension programmes, experiences and decisions associated with climate change. Interviews were conducted in Spanish. Each interview lasted approximately one hour. All interviews were recorded verbatim and transcribed for analysis in Spanish. Participants received pseudonyms in the course of the analysis.
Ethnic and socio-economic characteristics of the men
| Participant (pseudonyms) |
Age | Education | Principal occupation | Ethnicity | Years working in agriculture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JUA | 40–60 | Vocational | Agriculture | Afro-Colombian | >30 |
| ALJ | >60 | Basic-primary | Agriculture | N/I | 20–30 |
| RAB | 40–60 | Vocational (agricultural business administration) |
Agriculture | Afro-Colombian | >30 |
| JOR | >60 | Vocational | Agriculture | Afro-Colombian | 20–30 |
| JAV | 20–40 | Basic-primary | Agriculture | N/I | 10–20 |
| LEA | 20–40 | Basic-primary | Livestock | N/I | 10–20 |
Note: N/I = no information provided.
Ethnic and socio-economic characteristics of the women
| Participant (pseudonyms) |
Age | Education | Principal occupation | Ethnicity | Years working in agriculture |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MAR | >60 | Vocational | Agriculture | N/I | 10–20 |
| ESTI | >60 | Secondary | Agriculture and livestock | Afro-Colombian | 20–30 |
| ARI | 40–60 | Secondary | Agriculture | Afro-Colombian | >30 |
| FRE | 40–60 | Vocational | Agriculture and livestock | Afro-Colombian | >30 |
| INA | 40–60 | Vocational | Agriculture and livestock | Afro-Colombian | 10–20 |
Note: N/I = no information provided.
The participatory phase (stage two) was conducted in November 2019 with two objectives: to communicate and share stage one findings with stage one participants and identify sustainable agriculture functionings and capabilities they have reason to value. In this participatory process, both capabilities and conversion factors were discussed with the participants. This aligns with the participatory approach of the design and seeks to be consistent with the capability approach, which understands that identifying relevant capabilities requires a participatory and democratic process where communities are consulted (Clark et al, 2019). Stage two comprised two focus groups, conducted in Spanish and lasted one hour each. The recording was transcribed for analysis in Spanish.
In addition to the questionnaires, interviews and focus groups, the researcher’s notes were considered part of the data. Field notes were taken during and after the focus groups and interviews in stages one and two. These notes were used in data collection to enrich questions and support topic identification and qualitative analysis. These included thoughts on the interview content and reflections on the focus groups and interviews, and the research process itself.
The first round of interviews was conducted in September 2018, immediately after the dry season (generally running between June and August each year). During this season, particularly after August, smallholders are looking for the forthcoming rainy season. While analysing the data, the bias introduced by the seasonal factor needs to be acknowledged, particularly with the following key themes: current forage management practices; drivers, challenges and areas for further improvement; farmer main concerns, activities and capabilities. Stage two of data collection was conducted during a rainy season to bring the farmers the opportunity of sharing experiences during different seasons.
Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was performed first at the group level (separated by gender) and then individually. First, stage one’s focus group and interview transcripts were coded, and an initial coding framework was developed. Second, the coding framework was refined, and themes were identified for groups and subgroups – specifically, the men and those who have leadership tasks versus the younger ones. Between the women, two subgroups were identified. Those women who work supporting their partners or families under a ‘collaborative-family’ logic, and those who undertake farmer labour in an independent logic. After comparing and refining the initial coding, codes were combined to form themes, and these themes were again compared to the data to ensure that nuances and variations were captured.
The subgroups logic allows the researcher to map different capabilities and functionings that characterise the different groups and the barriers some farmers face. Also, conversion factors play a role in the ‘translation’ from a resource (technology) and service (extension programmes) into a capability. Third, group analysis is conducted to check similarities and differences within and between groups. After the first round of analysis, preliminary themes were identified and defined to be shared with stage one participants. This analysis process was repeated for the second round of data collection following a group/subgroup and individual logic.
The findings are discussed under theme headings, and linkages between the explored themes are supported by illustrative quotes from participants adjusted to correct English while maintaining meaning. The themes analyse current farming conditions in the face of climate change. Second, smallholders’ relationship with new technologies and the lessons and experiences from the uptake process. This is followed by a review of the capabilities and conversion factors identified in the participatory phase (see Figure 3).
Technology, conversion factors and the opportunities and capabilities developed
Citation: Global Social Challenges Journal 3, 3; 10.1332/27523349Y2024D000000018
Results
Four impacts of climate change
In El Patía, maize used to be grown a lot. In earlier times, during the first days of September, people used to sow in dry conditions because the rain was guaranteed, and winter would come. However, now that no longer happens. The rains have been delayed. Now the weather has changed a lot, so maize is hardly grown,
explains JAV, 40 years old, who manages a farm with his wife and two daughters. Waiting for the rain in September was an inherited knowledge from the grandparents, recalls JAV. ‘The week of the 8th of September, or perhaps before, they used to prepare themselves to seed corn or some other plants … Nowadays, that is impossible. Now it hardly rains in September. Sometimes it rains in October or November’.
The mangos blossomed a lot but did not load much. There was much wind, and the air was very hot, which affected the fruit. Mangos need cold nights and warm, very warm days to encourage them to flower. But when the fruit is already there, you do not need that; otherwise, they fall off. The other thing that happens at very high temperatures is a disease, in mango and citrus.
JUA is one of the leaders and senior members of one of the Farmers Cooperatives in Patía and is highly knowledgeable about pastures and soils.
Temperature changes also affect the health of the pasture. ‘When the day is hot, and it rains at night, that change is good for the pastures. However, when there is a change in temperature and no rain, the grasses do not recover well’, describes RAB, a male who is also a senior member of the cooperative. If that happens, RAB explains in a focus group, the pasture ‘flowers prematurely’. This is called ‘physiological stress’ and can be combated ‘with a fertilisation’. Nevertheless, ‘for the application of the fertiliser to be effective, rain is necessary’, he explains.
Another manifestation of climate change are shifts in the water cycle and the amount of water that falls or fails to fall from year to year. ‘Fifteen years ago, the weather could be predicted’, explains ALJ. But in the current times, ‘there are years in which the quantity (of water) that should fall in six months falls in two or one. Then a long dry term comes’. Other interviewees describe new weather phenomena, such as hailstorms, which damage plantations. ‘When I was a child, here in Patía, there were hailstorms, but they were not harmful. Whereas now this occurs and affects the economic part and the fruit trees greatly because the lemon knocked by a hail becomes rotten and the watermelon, the melon, everything gets damaged’, raises JAV.
According to JUA, extremely high temperatures in the dry season affect the fruit, pasture and animals’ production levels and their fertility. ‘The heat affects the fertility of the bull. The temperature of the testicles rises more than necessary, and although the cow is mated, she does not get pregnant because the quality of the semen is poor’, he describes.
A poorly fed cow falls and does not stand up anymore because it is fragile. There was one summer when they fell because of a lack of food. If they have food, they have strength. However, without food, there is nothing. And they die. They lie down. If two days go by and they cannot stand up, they die. We have tried to stand them up, but the weakness will not let them.
ARI is one of the group leaders of a women farmer cooperative of approximately 40 women from Patía. She says they are the first women’s group in charge of a farm granted by the state. Gradually, the women who make up the cooperative have begun to organise their work on the land. However, climate change has made their task much more complex. ‘Summer affects too much because, if you have nowhere to get water to irrigate a bush, everything dries up, everything dies, and you have to start again when it rains, which is a delay’, she points out. The uncertainty also makes it difficult to plan. ‘Summer here is supposed to go from May to August, and the most intense month is supposed to be August. However, with climate change, it has been extended to September, even October’, she explains.
Unequal relationship with technologies
In the last five years, some of the farmers interviewed had accessed, installed and used the following technologies: electric fences powered by solar energy, improved pastures, and silage pumps. In addition, all of them had attended training workshops to develop techniques to better cope with climate change – for example, the strategy of dividing the farm into small stables and separating feed for silage and saving it for times of scarcity. ‘We make silage, we make feed blocks’, says FRE, a woman farmer who works closely with her husband. In this way, they prepare for the summer and ‘no longer let the cows die’. In the workshops, they have also learned to recognise native species that can be used as ‘natural fences’, which provide shade and food for the animals in the harsh dry seasons. ‘For us, the matarratón helps us a lot. When we run out of silage, we use living fences, matarratón, nacedero, guásimo, leucaena’, adds INA, a woman, in a focus group. In general, both men and women understand and appreciate the possibilities of new resources and ideas. However, their application and reach are strongly influenced by individual categories, contextual factors and by the design of training schemes, which do not always manage to reach everyone.
Solar-powered electric fences
The installation of the solar-powered electric fence is one of the technologies to which some participants had access, as it was part of a project developed jointly by CIAT and the University of Cauca. The fence changes the relationship with the animals; it is valued by the producers and relates to a profound cultural change. It implies putting an end to the idea of the farm as a large piece of land. ‘We were not used to grazing on small plots. Everyone had one big paddock, so there was nowhere to put it if the grass ran out. We learned to conserve grass with this new technique’, explains ARI, the leader of the women’s cooperative.
Dividing the fence into plots has several advantages: it allows the rotation and feeding of the animals to be organised so that the pastures thrive and can be renewed, and plots can be ‘saved’ for times of scarcity. ‘Many people on farms are implementing rotation because it has worked for them. The result is that the farm stays grassy. If there were water, it would be green’, explains ARI. On a restricted plot, the cattle eat what they can and do not walk forever searching for food, which means a significant economic benefit. LEA, man, young administrator, who manages a farm with 30 animals and makes his living from milk and meat production, explains it very clearly: ‘By dividing up the farm, the food yields more. In addition, it commands the animals. [With the solar-energy fence] animals are compelled to eat and are more disciplined’, he says.
Replacing barbed wire with solar-energy fencing also makes the work safer. ‘With barbed wire, both the animals and the farmer are at risk. A cow full of milk gets out and scratches a teat and loses that quarter. A 20-litre cow that loses a quarter is losing five litres of milk, so you have to think about selling it’, says RAB. Switching to solar fencing also has other economic and environmental benefits. The wood used to build the barbed fence is more expensive and has to be planted closer than in electric fences.
The advantages of the solar fence are diverse but installing them is difficult and expensive and is associated with an economic capacity that not everyone possesses. In RAB’s case, the solar fence was built with the help of CIAT and the University of Cauca. They explained it to him, and he installed the solar panels. This allowed him to organise around eight paddocks on his farm, where he planted various grass types. So did JUA, who, as the administrator of the cooperative, has several pasture trials surrounded by solar fences, which gives it enormous advantages over other producers, especially the younger ones. In the case of women, only those from the women’s cooperative had access to solar fences among the interviewees. This was due to their agreement with the University of Cauca and CIAT. They were given several hectares to install pastures as a laboratory, and in exchange, the researchers built the fences, but only in a specific area of the property.
For the other women, this facility has not been possible. ‘I would like to have better grass, a fence put in here. I only have this little piece to rotate them, but it is minimal. They were going to build a solar-energy fence here, but it did not work. They have not brought it’, says ESTI. As she has no fence, her management of the animals is very restricted. ‘If I do not divide it up, the cows go from one side to the other whenever they feel like it’, making it impossible to leave areas for the grass to grow, which is the best way to take care of the resources for the summer. ESTI is single, 62 years old, and has a farm on which she works to support herself and her eight-year-old nephew. ESTI grows lemons and mangos and has cows that produce milk which she uses to make kumis, a kind of yoghurt sold in the area. In the case of ESTI’s sister FRE, the fence was installed but did not work either.
Improved pastures
The use of solar fencing is closely related to improved pastures. In fact, the more experienced farmers, such as RAB and JUA, installed the solar fences and then planted a variety of improved pastures, creating a sort of ‘laboratory’ on their farms. Experiments like this, which they have carried out with support from CIAT and the University of Cauca, are the best way to understand better pastures, animals and the soil type. All of this is vital knowledge for farming in climate change.
RAB, for example, learned that improved pasture requires between 90 and 120 days to be suitable for grazing animals. In addition, improved pastures require investment by smallholders. He explains: ‘Improved pastures are quite demanding in terms of fertilisers. They have to be given much feed, unlike the traditional pasture’. RAB believes that this investment is worthwhile, as the improved grasses are more resistant to drought and temperature changes: ‘I have tall grass now, and it is challenging to see grass like this now. Everyone is still without grass’, he describes. In addition, the quality of the improved pasture is better, he explains: ‘It has a higher fodder yield, higher protein content. The animals like it more. They eat it more willingly’, RAB says. According to his records, another effect of this pasture is that it makes the animals gain weight. ‘The improved pasture has to be managed. You have to fertilise it, rotate animals, consider the rotation of the plots with the cattle, do not leave it too long because they overgraze it, and it erodes and kills the grass’, says JUA. How long does it take to learn this management? Almost two, three years, JUA explains.
In a focus group, JUA highlights other advantages of improved pasture: ‘There is a high initial cost for seed, but it reduces another cost for me, weed control. I will not have any more problems with weeds, there are hardly any, so it is a cost I am saving. Furthermore, it improves the quality of the milk’. RAB says that the aim of the training is that everyone has the opportunity to learn how to manage improved pasture, ‘but it is something that is being done little by little because we have to change the culture’. More than resources, RAB says, what influences adoption is that people see that there are results, that the grass works. ‘You know that what is good has to put resources into it. What is good is worth it and costs money’, he says.
For one hectare, you need about 8 kilos, and if you suddenly lose it, you have to put it back, and the time, you have to leave it until you can put the animals in, then you also have to find a place to leave the animals. So it is a long process.
Therefore, moving from native grass to improved pasture is seen by some interviewees, mainly women and younger farmers, as a huge change, a risk if one does not have the necessary back-up resources. ‘Putting in the improved pasture means ploughing the land (350,000 Colombian pesos per hectare, $74 US per day), buying seeds, sowing, waiting, and killing the weeds. And waiting costs money’ sums up JAV, one of the younger producers.
In the context of climate change, keeping land waiting has a present and future cost, and in unstable family economies, this cost is often difficult to pay. In addition, you are investing in an uncertain future, which is even more expensive. Moreover, according to JAV, it is not so clear that the animals produce more. According to him, his animals ‘produce more milk with native grass’.
MAR thinks that native grass is easier to manage but less productive. ‘The improved grass did not grow well for me. Some people did well with it, and others did not’, she describes. Now she is waiting for ‘the winter to come in’ so she can plant again. ‘One of the many lessons they taught us is that we should not put the milk cows in, but rather the small calves, so that they can strengthen the roots of the grass. When the big animals go in, they will not pull out the roots’, explains MAR, a woman farmer. FRE, another woman, says that the native grass supports the animal but does not increase the milk. ‘When I introduced Toledo (a type of improved grass), the milk increased. Although this could also be the result of the climate, you have to keep testing’. FRE liked the Toledo variety. However, when asked if she has thought about acquiring new seeds from this pasture, she does not know where she can get them. ‘I do not even know where they sell Toledo or how to plant it’.
Sustainable agriculture capabilities
This section explores to what extent access to new technologies enhance sustainable farming capabilities, on which capabilities the technology acts and why is this important and what conversion factors are mediating in this process. Five essential farming capabilities were identified based on the testimonies collected and participants feedback. Capabilities are analysed at the individual and collective levels. Personal (age, gender, land ownership, land quality, education), social (gender inequalities, unequal distribution of resources, membership of the cooperative, networks, use of the farm as a laboratory, extension services) and environmental (climate change, access to water) conversion factors are identified by some of the participants as key factors mediating technology taken up and the opportunities or constraints that smallholders anticipate in terms of the use and benefits of new technologies and practices.
The capability of planning
RAB has vocational studies and belongs to the group of senior farmers of the Patía Cooperative. Currently, his income comes mainly from the sale of animals, but he wants to move into milk, as it ensures a steady flow of money. ‘Milk gives you a daily income. It takes me two years to get the male to 500 kilos. Two years of investment, and he gets fat. With milk, more money circulates. That is why I want to have a dairy’, he explains. Moving into dairying is a process, and access to technology has allowed RAB to go down a path. First, he planted improved pastures and divided his farm into small barns. Then he put up a solar-powered fence to rotate the animals. Now he is worried about getting water ‘to irrigate all the plots’. Water is key to feeding the cows. ‘I need to bring water to the farm to have a better pasture to feed the cows. Because the cow is very demanding in terms of food, she eats more because she has to feed herself, milk, feed the calf’.
ARI and her colleagues received 100 hectares of land from the Colombian state to start their women’s cooperative. A first step was to understand the characteristics and possibilities of the land and the challenges they faced. They then established a cooperation agreement with the University of Cauca, which allowed them to set aside some plots of land for experimentation with new pastures and the use of solar-powered fencing. One of the cooperative’s businesses is animal fattening. They receive the ‘cattle for profit’. An initial price is set, and what is fattened is paid, 50 per cent to the owner, and 50 per cent to them. But ARI and her team have gradually realised that they have to make changes for the business to be worthwhile. ‘There are animals that take a year to reach the necessary weight, but others take longer. Furthermore, start calculating what you have invested in salt, the worker, looking after them, vaccinating them. It does not add up’. For this reason, ARI and her partners have begun to move the farm towards the cultivation of fruits and vegetables.
For us, lemons, pumpkins, passion fruit, is more profitable than having cattle for fattening. That could change if we organise a dairy farm. That would give us results because we can have animals for fattening, and the cows will give us milk, which is a daily wage, and the offspring, and with that, we can sustain ourselves.
Climate change also forces people to plan, as the threat of shortages is always present: ‘We are learning to adjust. If you used to have ten cows, you do not, now you have four or five, so you can manage them better. You know it is not going to rain, and the pastures will run out, so you have to plan’, says a member of the women’s cooperative in a focus group.
ALJ is a senior farmer and cultivates both crops and livestock. On his two-hectare farm, he has planted cocoa, lemons, yucca, sugar cane and bananas. In another place, he keeps eight animals that produce milk. Each part of the farm has a specific purpose, ‘because you run out of one thing and you have another’. JAV, a young man, plants lemons ‘to bring in more money’, to have a Plan B when milk production drops due to the heat or poor feeding of the animals. ‘Lemon, like milk, produces immediate profit and requires less work than grass’, he explains. Lemon allows you to ‘work on your own and not worry so much about food’, he adds.
The capability of thinking sustainable about resources
The use of improved pastures and the exercise of new animal rotation practices require a more thorough knowledge of the land on which they are planted and the type of livestock being fed. The Patía Cooperative farm, administered by JUA, was selected to be the laboratory for testing pastures, allowing the farmer to get to know and understand the different potentialities of the new technologies. ‘I understand pasture as a crop. It is not a given resource, even if it is native, it needs to be taken care of […] I understand that the relation between pasture and soil is dynamic [the pasture quality is related to the soil quality]’, he explains.
JUA recites from memory the characteristics of different pastures. ‘Mombasa: good pasture, good recovery; Tamani: excellent, suitable for recovering animals; Patía: excellent, complete, good for recovering animals; Cayman: soft, the cows like it. It is the first thing the cows attack, and they finish it off’. JUA puts the cows out to pasture, and the next day he looks at the ground where they were, and the grass remains in the paddock. This way, he can see the improved pasture’s effects and resistance. According to the type of pasture, JUA distributes the animals: if they are going to calve, if they are skinny, if they are calves.
One of the smallholders’ difficulties is choosing from this diversity of pastures. JUA’s answer seems simple: ‘the soil tells me what pasture I can plant’. To know the soil, it is necessary to do analyses, which have a limited duration. It is also helpful to test different sowings, as JUA has been able to do. Among the new technologies being worked on is access to satellite images that could improve the type and quality of information smallholders have about soils and pastures. The interviewees were asked about what kind of information they would like to have during the conversations. All agree that access to new data is relevant. However only JUA identifies specific needs. JUA believes that satellite images and drones can show him fruit trees in trouble, as they turn yellow at the top first. ‘When you see that it is yellow at the bottom, the problem is already complex’. JUA believes that the satellite can also show where there is deep water.
Collective capabilities
The capability of networking
Foster and Handy (2008) introduce the term ‘external capabilities’ for those capabilities that a person acquires due to being directly connected to another person. In this case, improvements, access to technology, and working with professionals from CIAT and the University of Cauca motivate some farmers to pick up the phone and communicate directly with researchers. Photos are sent, and consultations are made, contributing to learning and increasing the individual capabilities of farmers, professionals and cooperatives as knowledge is shared. ALJ, JUA, RAB and JOR, the senior farmers, belong to the same cooperative and talk among themselves and with researchers from CIAT and the University of Cauca. This is to understand what to do and how to deal with unexpected climate changes. RAB takes photos of new bushes and sends them by mobile phone to professors at the University of Cauca, who tell him about the new bushes, and this knowledge is shared with peers. Women or younger producers do not experience these close connections and support. However, when evaluating their achievements, senior farmers tend to explain their best results as a consequence of their effort and talent rather than as a product of these advantages as well.
The capability of negotiating and leading
Above all, we have learned to negotiate, do something that men in our culture always do, and now we women are doing it. When suddenly someone cannot go from the board to look at the cattle, we have men who collaborate with us, and we call them: ‘there are some animals in such a place. Go and see how much they are’. And we give them an indication: ‘they have to be this size, you are not going to bring them like this, you are not going to accept them like that’. We are the ones who give the guidelines.
Discussion
The findings from this study show that, despite the potential disruptive characteristics of the technologies and practices learned, the activities developed allowed the diversity of farmers to change feeding practices, rotate animals and explore new ways of food conservation. The experience was crucial for challenging deep cultural practices. For example, they divided their farms into paddocks instead of keeping animals in large areas. In this way, they can make better use of resources, give the pastures time to grow stronger and healthier and prepare for seasonal extremes of temperature, which is important as it helps avoid animal deaths due to lack of feed. They also learned about native species that could be used as natural fences and as a source of feed for livestock, which has both economic and environmental benefits. The initiative also allowed farmers, researchers and technical staff to exchange knowledge on soil, pasture and animal management and establish support and communication networks that did not previously exist.
However, the testimonies also show that the opportunities, learning, new networks and benefits identified and associated with access, implementing and using new technologies, are not equally experienced. Specifically, those who benefit most from the new possibilities are the senior smallholders, men who have more education, connections, resources and or leadership roles and have the economic capital and support to try out new techniques and strategies and to understand the new possibilities of pastures, which often means investing, taking risks and making mistakes. A case in point is improved pastures. These, according to the scientific community, are decisive in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but they are only available to farmers with more assets and connections, which are basically senior men producers. Groups with fewer resources, less quality assets, voice and representation – women, younger and older farmers – are more likely to be witnesses than direct users of the opportunities associated with implementing these new technologies. In fact, despite valuing the new pastures, some of the women interviewed hardly identify their names or know where to buy them.
But the findings also show that women’s experiences vary. Personal conversion factors, such as working independently of their partners or having access to good-quality land; social conversion factors, such as belonging to a women’s cooperative; and environmental conversion factors (such as developing critical links to specific markets) shape their opportunities and, just as importantly, their reflections on their farming capabilities and the importance of access to certain technologies.
The consideration of personal, social and environmental conversion factors is relevant in this study as most participants are working in challenging contexts and with limited access to resources and services, which set potential limitations to the development of personal skills and the exercise of agency while using new technologies. Most of the participants self-identify as Afro-Colombians and according to the World Bank, approximately 41 per cent of Afro-Colombians live in poverty (World Bank, 2021). At the same time, smallholders in Colombia are considered the most affected by social and political exclusion and unequal access to land ownership in their country (Suarez et al, 2018).
The literature also shows that in contexts of climate change, the roles and socio-spatial actions of smallholders change. In India (Ogra and Badola, 2015; Ravera et al, 2016), Kenya (Njuki et al, 2016; Basu et al, 2019) and the Philippines (Chandra et al, 2017), men and women smallholders begin to carry out new tasks, and the loosening of gender-biased norms appears to be a precondition for women to join new activities. These shifts in norms, women’s voices and the gender division of labour can and do occur, but not automatically, and could generate new mobility and livelihood options, as this case shows for the women’s cooperative. As a result of getting access to land, technology and new practices, some of the women participants have managed to organise themselves and create new networks that have given them access to extension services. They have also looked critically at their farming management decisions. They decided to switch from cattle to dairy production and crops. In short, the new scenario, mediated by the possibility of managing their own land, opens up concrete opportunities for women to try out new techniques, to decide to compete and to organise their own cooperative.
However, the literature also consistently shows that men generally dominate the markets, especially cattle, which means that women have to look for other opportunities. Farmers in leadership positions and with more resources use their networks to set up laboratories on their land, test new pastures and diversify their production, generating differentiated capabilities and a more sustainable approach to land and livestock systems. Younger farmers try new crops, and those who are married explore small livestock, practice silage and generate new products to face climate change. Thus, the different identities and trajectories mediate technology use, take-up and the practices of new management strategies. Figure 3 summarises the relationship between technology, conversion factors and the opportunities and capabilities that some smallholders develop as a result of new practices and learning.
Conclusions
This study illuminates three critical issues regarding technology adoption processes and change. First, as documented by the political ecology perspective (Pimbert, 2015; Chandra et al, 2017; Taylor, 2018), and studies that critically analyse the concepts of adaptation and resilience, technology is an element that can promote new opportunities but also affect some groups, to the extent that it deepens inequalities or problems of recognition. Therefore, when designing, implementing and evaluating interventions to promote the use of new resources, it is central to ask critical questions about the characteristics of the intervention and the technology being used. For example: who decides what is relevant technology, which farms should be targeted for demonstrations, and what structural conditions may affect access and take-up of technology? If personal, social and contextual factors intersect the possibilities of using new technologies and exercising new practices – for instance, the lack of quality land and water among certain groups – then, in creating new technologies and developing mitigation resources, a focus might be on enhancing technology sociocultural functionings and capabilities. This means the relevance of the technology in a particular context.
In the design and implementation of extension services, capacity building and development programmes, it is central to consider three elements: access, take-up and exercise of new practices that go beyond the ‘adaptive capacity’ or willingness of the beneficiaries. This complex way of approaching new technologies is consistent with the guiding principles of climate justice, which include distributive, procedural and recognition aspects related to people’s identity and diversity (IPCC, 2022).
Our case study illustrates some of the challenges and opportunities faced by smallholder farmers in demanding contexts. To understand farmers’ uptake of new technologies and the extent to which they are relevant across a range of experiences, it is ideal to follow the same farmers over decades, as many of the processes that affect them occur over longer time scales (climate change, market variability and land degradation, for instance). We were able to follow the participants for two years, capturing their experiences over two weather seasons. In addition, this case shows the experiences in a particular geographical and sociocultural context.
Funding
This study was supported by funding received from UKRI through the RCUK-CIAT Newton-Caldas Fund Sustainable Tropical Agricultural Systems programme (project numbers BB/R022879/1 and BB/S01893X/1), the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and the OneCGIAR Initiative Livestock & Climate (L&C). The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Data availability statement
The authors take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the analysis.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Alkire, S. (2008) Using the capability approach: prospective and evaluative analyses, in F. Comim, M. Qizilbash and S. Alkire (eds) The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 26–50.
Ballet, J., Dubois, J.L. and Mahieu, F.R. (2007) Responsibility for each other’s freedom: agency as the source of collective capability, Journal of Human Development, 8(2): 185–201. doi: 10.1080/14649880701371000
Bantilan, M.C.S. and Padmaja, R. (2008) Empowerment through social capital build-up: gender dimensions in technology uptake, Experimental Agriculture, 44(1): 61–80. doi: 10.1017/S0014479707005947
Basu, P., Galiè, A. and Baltenweck, I. (2019) Presence and property: gendered perspectives on participation in a dairy development program in Kenya and Uganda, Women’s Studies International Forum, 74: 68–76. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2019.02.011
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bravo, A., Charry, A., Rosas, G., Jager, M., Hurtado, J., Romero, M., et al (2018) Estrategia Sectorial de la Cadena de Ganadería Doble Propósito en Caquetá, con Enfoque Agroambiental y Cero Deforestación, Cali: Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical CIAT 454.
Chandra, A., McNamara, K.E. and Dargusch, P. (2017) The relevance of political ecology perspectives for smallholder Climate-Smart Agriculture: a review, Journal of Political Ecology, 24(1): 821–42, https://journals.librarypublishing.arizona.edu/jpe/article/id/2029/.
Charry, A., Jager, M., Enciso, K., Romero, M., Sierra, L., Quintero, M., et al (2018) Cadenas de valor con enfoque ambiental y cero deforestación en la Amazonia colombiana – oportunidades y retos para el mejoramiento sostenible de la competitividad regional, CIAT Policy Brief Series, Políticas en Síntesis, 41, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT).
Chavas, J.P. and Nauges, C. (2020) Uncertainty, learning, and technology adoption in agriculture, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 42(1): 42–53. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13003
Clark, D.A., Biggeri, M. and Frediani, A.A. (2019) Participation, empowerment and capabilities: key lessons and future challenges, in D.A. Clark, M. Biggeri and A.A. Frediani (eds) The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation: Concepts, Methods and Applications, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 385–402.
Cleaver, F. (1999) Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development, Journal of International Development, 11(4): 597–612. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1328(199906)11:4<597::aid-jid610>3.0.co;2-q
Curry, G.N., Nake, S., Koczberski, G., Oswald, M., Rafflegeau, S., Lummani, J., et al (2021) Disruptive innovation in agriculture: socio-cultural factors in technology adoption in the developing world, Journal of Rural Studies, 88: 422–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.07.022
DANE (National Administrative Department of Statistics) (2018) Columbia Population and Housing Census 2018, https://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/colombia-population-and-housing-census-2018.
Das Gupta, M., Grandvoinnet, H. and Romani, M. (2000) State-Synergies in Development: Laying the Basis for Collective Action, Policy Research Working Paper 2439, Washington, DC, World Bank. doi: 10.1596/1813-9450-2439
Díaz, M.F., Vergara, D., Castiblanco, V. and Burkart, S. (2018) Colombian Cattle Producers’ Preferences for Improved Forage Technologies: Chances for Forage Breeding and Selection [poster], Cali: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
Dorward, P., Clarkson, G. and Stern, R. (2017) Manual de Campo – Una Guía Detallada Sobre el uso de PICSA con Agricultores, Paso Por Paso, Cali: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
Eitzinger, A., Binder, C.R. and Meyer, M.A. (2018) Risk perception and decision-making: do farmers consider risks from climate change?, Climatic Change, 151(3/4): 507–24. doi: 10.1007/s10584-018-2320-1
Enciso, K., Sotelo, M., Peters, M. and Burkart, S. (2019) The inclusion of Leucaena diversifolia in a Colombian beef cattle production system: an economic perspective, Tropical Grasslands / Forrajes Tropicales, 7(4): 359–69. doi: 10.17138/tgft(7)359-369
Enciso, K., Rincon, A., Ruden, D. and Burkart, S. (2021) Risk reduction and productivity increase through integrating Arachis Pintoi in cattle production systems in the Colombian Orinoquia, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.666604
Enciso, K., Triana, N., Díaz, M. and Burkart, S. (2022) On (dis)connections and transformations: the role of the agricultural innovation system in the adoption of improved forages in Colombia, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 5: art 741057. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.741057
Feola, G., Agudelo Vanegas, L.A. and Contesse Bamón, B.P. (2015) Colombian agriculture under multiple exposures: a review and research agenda, Climate and Development, 7(3): 278–92. doi: 10.1080/17565529.2014.934776
Glover, D., Sumberg, J., Ton, G., Andersson, J. and Badstue, L. (2019) Rethinking technological change in smallholder agriculture, Outlook on Agriculture, 48(3): 169–80. doi: 10.1177/0030727019864978
Gumucio, T., Mora Benard, M.A., Clavijo, M., Hernández, M., Tafur, C. and Twyman, J. (2015) Silvopastoral systems in Latin America: mitigation opportunities for men and women livestock producers, CCAFS Policy Brief, Copenhagen, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
Hristov, J. (2005) Indigenous struggles for land and culture in Cauca, Colombia, Journal of Peasant Studies, 32(1): 88–117. doi: 10.1080/0306615042000322402
Ibrahim, S.S. (2006) From individual to collective capabilities: the capability approach as a conceptual framework for self‐help, Journal of Human Development, 7(3): 397–416. doi: 10.1080/14649880600815982
IPCC, Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., et al (2022) Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability – Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781009325844
Kaijser, A. and Kronsell, A. (2014) Climate change through the lens of intersectionality, Environmental Politics, 23(3): 417–33. doi:10.1080/09644016.2013.835203
Kawarazuka, N. (2018) Agricultural mechanization: how far do women farmers benefit? CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas, https://www.rtb.cgiar.org/news/agricultural-mechanization-far-women-farmers-benefit/.
Lascano, C., Peters, M. and Holmann, F. (2005) Arachis pinto in the humid tropics of Colombia: a forage legume success story, XX International Grassland Conference, Wageningen, Academic Publishers 6.
Lemaire, G., Franzluebbers, A., Carvalho, P.C. de F. and Dedieu, B. (2014) Integrated crop–livestock systems: strategies to achieve synergy between agricultural production and environmental quality, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 190: 4–8. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.08.009
Lombana-Bermudez, A., Cortesi, S., Fieseler, C., Gasser, U., Hasse, A., Newlands, G., et al (2020) Youth and the digital economy: exploring youth practices, motivations, skills, pathways, and value creation, Berkman Klein Center Research Publication No. 2020-4, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3622572
Lowder, S.K., Sánchez, M.V. and Bertini, R. (2021) Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated, World Development, 142: art 105455. doi: 1016/j.worlddev.2021.105455
Mauricio, R.M., Ribeiro, R.S., Paciullo, D.S.C., Cangussú, M.A., Murgueitio, E., Chará, J., et al (2019) Silvopastoral systems in Latin America for biodiversity, environmental, and socioeconomic improvements, in G. Lemaire, P.C.F. Carvalho, S. Kronberg and S. Recous (eds) Agroecosystem Diversity: Reconciling Contemporary Agriculture and Environmental Quality, London: Academic Press, pp 287–97.
Mehar, M., Mittal, S. and Prassad, N. (2016) Farmers coping strategies for climate shock: is it differentiated by gender?, Journal of Rural Studies, 44: 123–31. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.01.001
Mukhopadhyay, M. and Prügl, E. (2019) Performative technologies: agricultural research for development and gender, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 21(5): 702–23.
Njuki, J.M., Wyatt, A., Baltenweck, I., Yount, K., Null, C., Ramakrishnan, U., et al (2016) An exploratory study of dairying intensification, women’s decision making, and time use and implications for child nutrition in Kenya, European Journal of Development Research, 28(4): 722–40. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2015.22
Ogra, M.V. and Badola, R. (2015) Gender and climate change in the Indian Himalayas: global threats, local vulnerabilities, and livelihood diversification at the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Earth System Dynamics, 6(2): 505–23. doi: 10.5194/esd-6-505-2015
Peterman, A., Behrman, J. and Quisumbing, A. (2014) A review of empirical evidence on gender differences in nonland agricultural inputs, technology and services in developing countries, Gender in Agriculture, 145–86. doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-8616-4_7
Pignatti, E., Carli, G. and Canavari, M. (2015) What really matters? A qualitative analysis on the adoption of innovations in agriculture, Journal of Agricultural Informatics, 6(4): 73–84. doi: 10.17700/jai.2015.6.4.212
Pimbert, M. (2015) Agroecology as an alternative vision to conventional development and Climate-Smart Agriculture, Development, 58(2/3): 286–98. doi: 10.1057/s41301-016-0013-5
Ramirez-Villegas, J., Salazar, M., Jarvis, A. and Navarro-Racines, C.E. (2013) A way forward on adaptation to climate change in Colombian agriculture: perspective towards 2050, Climatic Change, 115(3/4): 611–28. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0500-y
Rao, I., Peters, M., Castro, A., Schultze-Kraft, R., White, D., Fisher, M., et al (2015) LivestockPlus: the sustainable intensification of forage-based agricultural systems to improve livelihoods and ecosystem services in the tropics, Tropical Grasslands / Forrajes Tropicales, 3(2): 59–82. doi: 10.17138/TGFT(3)59-82
Ravera, F., Martín-López, B., Pascual, U. and Drucker, A. (2016) The diversity of gendered adaptation strategies to climate change of Indian farmers: a feminist intersectional approach, Ambio, 45(S3): 335–51. doi: 10.1007/s13280-016-0833-2
Reiber, C., Schukltze-Kraft, R., Peters, M. and Hoffmann, V. (2013) Lessons from silage adoption studies in Honduras, Tropical Grasslands-Forrajes Tropicales, 1(2): 235. doi: 10.17138/TGFT(1)235-239
Robeyns, I. (2005) The capability approach: a theoretical survey, Journal of Human Development, 6(1): 93–117. doi: 10.1080/146498805200034266
Robeyns, I. (2020) The capability approach, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Lab, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/.
Rojas-Downing, M.M., Nejadhashemi, A.P., Harrigan, T. and Woznicki, S.A. (2017) Climate change and livestock: impacts, adaptation, and mitigation, Climate Risk Management, 16: 145–63. doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2017.02.001
Rola-Rubzen, M., Paris, T., Hawkins, J. and Sapkota, B. (2020) Improving gender participation in agricultural technology adoption in Asia: from rhetoric to practical action, Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 42(1): 113–25. doi: 10.1002/aepp.13011
Rose, D.C., Parker, C., Fodey, J., Park, C., Sutherland, W.J. and Dicks, L. (2018) Involving stakeholders in agricultural decision support systems: improving user-centred design, International Journal of Agricultural Management, 6(3/4): 80–9. doi: 10.5836/ijam/2017-06-80
Ruíz, L.R., Burkart, S., Enciso, K., Puerta, D., Charry, A., Muñoz Quiceno, J.J., et al (2016) Inhibiting factors and promotion strategies for increasing adoption levels of improved forages in cattle production, paper presented at the Conference on International Research on Food Security, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development, Tropentag 2016, Vienna, Austria, 18–21 September 2016. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15722.52165
Ruzzante, S., Labarta, R. and Bilton, A. (2021) Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature, World Development, 146: art 105599. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105599
Schlosberg, D. and Carruthers, D. (2010) Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and community capabilities, Global Environmental Politics, 10(4): 12–35. doi: 10.1162/glep_a_00029
Sen, A. (1980) Equality of what?, in S.M. McMurrin (ed) The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 197–220.
Sen, A. (1992) Inequality Re-examined, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, M. and Seward, C. (2009) The relational ontology of Amartya Sen’s capability approach: incorporating social and individual causes, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(2): 213–35. doi: 10.1080/19452820902940927
Smithers, J. and Blay-Palmer, A. (2001) Technology innovation as a strategy for climate adaptation in agriculture, Applied Geography, 21(2): 175–97. doi: 10.1016/s0143-6228(01)00004-2
Stewart, F. (2005) Groups and capabilities, Journal of Human Development, 6(2): 185–204. doi: 10.1080/14649880500120517
Suarez, A., Árias-Arévalo, P.A. and Martínez-Mera, E. (2018) Environmental sustainability in post-conflict countries: insights for rural Colombia, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(3): 997–1015. doi: 10.1007/s10668-017-9925-9
Taylor, M. (2018) Climate-smart agriculture: what is it good for?, Journal of Peasant Studies, 45(1): 89–107. doi: 10.1080/03066150.2017.1312355
Triana Angel, N. and Burkart, S. (2019) Between Silences and Opportunities: Gender and Bovine Livestock in Latin America, a State of Question, Working Paper, International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
Triana Angel, N. and Burkart, S. (2023) Youth in livestock and the power of education: the case of ‘Heirs of Tradition’ from Colombia 2012-2020, Journal of Rural Studies, 97: 405–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.032
Tschakert, P. (2012) From impacts to embodied experiences: tracing political ecology in climate change research, Geografisk Tidsskrift / Danish Journal of Geography, 112(2): 144–58. doi: 10.1080/00167223.2012.741889
White, B. (2020) Agriculture and the Generation Problem, Rugby: Practical Action Publishing.
White, D., Peters, M. and Home, P. (2013) Global impacts from improved tropical forages: a meta-analysis revealing overlooked benefits and costs, evolving values and new priorities, Tropical Grasslands- Forrajes Tropicales, 1(1): 12. doi: 10.17138/TGFT(1)12-24
Wittman, H., Arulingam, I., Cano, J.L., Mungai, C., Huambachano, M., Korzenszky, A., et al (2021) Promoting Youth Engagement and Employment in Agriculture and Food Systems, Report, High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE).
World Bank (2021) Building an Equitable Society in Colombia, Washington, DC: World Bank, http://hdl.handle.net/10986/36535.
