Ley 1620 de 2013

The persuasion stage is where having obtained knowledge about the technology, farmers develop either a positive or negative perception about the innovation (Rogers, 2003, p. 174). He explained that

an individual’s attitude against or towards an innovation can be created by looking at the characteristics of the innovation such as relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, trialability and observability. Additionally, risks associated with the adoption also create either a positive or negative perception about the innovation (Batz, Peters, & Janssen, 1999). The initial Banzon et al. (2013a) study of the adoption of GAP in the Philippines in 2011 did not classify the growers’ perceptions of the characteristics of the technology as specified by Rogers (2003). For this reason, the perceived characteristics of a technology are reviewed in the succeeding paragraphs.

R

Relative Advantage

Relative advantage refers to the perceived additional benefit of an innovation that is better than the idea or product it supersedes (Rogers, 2003). The degree of relative advantage can be measured in terms of economic advantage, personal convenience and satisfaction or social prestige that comes with the adoption of an innovation (Rogers, 2003). For example, Banzon et al. (2013a) reported that the adoption of a GAP certification programme for bananas, regardless of whether it was a public or private programme, was perceived by growers to provide economic advantage because of improved market access to international markets relative to non-GAP-certified farms. However, the technology had a number of economic advantages such as the significant cost of investment and the absence of a premium price for GAP-certified products. These acted as a barrier to the adoption of the certification programme for the majority of growers (Banzon et al. 2013a). Reimer, Weinkauf, and Prokopy (2012, p. 120) said that “individuals are likely to vary in their perception of a given practice’s relative advantage. This is because an individual’s characteristics, or that of their farm business, or their context may influence how they perceived the technology. Banzon et al. (2013a) must have had growers who perceived a relative advantage or others who perceived a relative disadvantage. These latter people would be those who in the knowledge stage saw a need, but in the persuasion stage decided it was not worth adopting.

Banzon et al. (2013a) reported that one of the Cavendish banana plantations participated in the

GlobalGAP certification scheme. Characteristics of the farm business would include the nature of their existing QMS and also their motivation, e.g. they want to be GlobalGAP-certified. If they had something in place that was as good as, or better than the PhilGAP certification programme, they were unlikely to adopt it or continue on with the process. The Cavendish banana plantation that has adopted GlobalGAP certification has increased its productivity following the GlobalGAP guidelines, and is perceived to have increased confidence to maintain their export markets or penetrate new ones (Banzon et al., 2013a). In contrast, Lockie et al. (2014) revealed that some buyers do not explicitly

Chapter 3: Literature Review

33 require certification to any standard aside from the compliance with the ISO 9000. This standard is

consistent with the government’s policy on chemical residue limits, accreditation of exporters and

employment of quality assurance officers (Lockie et al., 2014). Nonetheless, the relative advantage of the PhilGAP certification programme over GlobalGAP or ISO 9000 has not been examined because there was no PhilGAP-certified Cavendish banana plantations in 2011 (Banzon et al., 2013a).

On the other hand, the Cardava banana farmer cooperative perceived the relative advantage from adopting PhilGAP certification was access to NGO manuals and training that would improve farm practices, provison for subsidied infrastructure, and local government unit’s (LGUs) subsidisation of medical expenses for the growers (Banzon et al., 2013a). The training, manuals and infrastructure were also perceived to result in an increase in crop yield and on-farm productivity.

Pannell et al. (2006) argued that the relative advantage of an innovation plays a crucial role that drives the adoption of practices. For example, MyGAP-certified vegetable farmers in Malaysia adopted the programme with the perception of having a better life with a healthy lifestyle because of the negligible chemical residues in food, and living up to their religious responsibilities in terms of being caring towards others and the environment (Tey et al., 2016). Participating in the MyGAP certification programme also created a social status and one was viewed as being a responsible farmer because the compliance criteria were perceived to improve the quality of agricultural products. The minimum requirements set by the programme were also perceived to provide other relative advantages to farmers such as improved food safety, increased product prices, improved access to export markets, and improved confidence in the products by consumers among others (Tey et al., 2016).

C

Complexity

Complexity is the second perceived characteristic of a technology identified by Rogers (2003) and it is defined as the degree of perceived difficulty in understanding and implementing an innovation (Rogers, 2003). It increases the level of effort needed to implement an innovation and consequently reduces the relative advantage of an innovation (Pannell et al., 2006). As such, complicated innovations are more often adopted at a slower rate compared to simple innovations that are easy to understand (Rogers, 2003). The PhilGAP certification programme is a labour and capital-intensive technology and, as such, growers perceived it as a complicated programme (Banzon et al., 2013a). Banzon et al. (2013a) reported that growers needed to learn new skills in planning and managing their operations, such as record-keeping for pesticide use, and install new facilities required to meet the programme standards. Similarly, Wongprawmas et al. (2015) found that producers who did not adopt

QGAP in Thailand perceived it as a complicated and time-consuming endeavour as it entailed tedious record-keeping.

Chapter 3: Literature Review

34 C

Compatibility

Compatibility is the third perceived characteristic of a technology identified by Rogers (2003) and it is defined as the extent to which an innovation is perceived to be consistent with the current needs, existing socio-cultural values and beliefs, and past experiences of possible adopters (Rogers, 2003, p. 15). As a QMS, the PhilGAP certification programme sets a minimum standard for quality. Interestingly, Banzon et al. (2013a) reported that none of the 33-member Cavendish banana companies in their study in 2011 had adopted the PhilGAP certification programme, despite the data suggesting the technology was relatively compatible with their current practices and socio-cultural values and beliefs. The corporate visions and guiding principles of these companies reflected quality and safety as paramount concerns, such as “Total quality is our way of life” and “Quality from seed to

shelf” (Banzon et al., 2013a, p. 19). However, one of these plantations became PhilGAP-certified only at the completion of the Banzon et al. (2013b) report. Thus, the comparison between the PhilGAP- certification programme and their existing QMS was not presented in the previous study.

Trialability

Trialability is the fourth perceived characteristic of a technology identified by Rogers (2003) and it is defined as the extent to which an innovation can be tested on a small scale or for limited conditions (Rogers, 2003, p. 16). Innovations that can be used partially or tried using a small amount of the existing resources will generally be adopted more quickly than innovations that come as a whole new package (Rogers, 2003). For example, the Cardava banana farmer cooperative initiated an incremental adoption of PhilGAPfor their production practices with “one step at a time” starting in 2008, until the

cooperative decided to apply for PhilGAP certification, and it obtained its PhilGAP certificate in 2011 (Banzon et al., 2013a, p. 32). Members of the cooperative were practising the traditional way of banana production such as cleaning, debelling and desuckering, which are included as one of the components of PhilGAP. With the goal of participating in the PhilGAP certification programme, farmers in a few areas started to add practices that were stipulated in the programme such as tagging the bunches for traceability purposes and periodic soil and water sampling to monitor water quality (Banzon et al., 2013a). For Cavendish banana plantations, Banzon et al. (2013a) reported that corporate growers who are not certified with GlobalGAP believed that they had observed practices equivalent to the PhilGAP practicesby implementing a generic GAP programme. On the other hand, Banzon et al. (2013a) also reported that the GlobalGAP-certified corporate banana grower trialled small areas for the GlobalGAP certification programme before expanding this to other areas.

Observability

Observability is the fifth perceived characteristic of a technology identified by Rogers (2003) and it is defined as the visible manifestation of the perceived benefits as a result of the innovation by the potential adopter (Rogers, 2003, p. 16). A prior observation of the potential results of the adoption of an innovation by a peer creates a perception of the innovation that can lead to the adoption or

Chapter 3: Literature Review

35 rejection by the potential user (Rogers, 2003). Banzon et al. (2013a) reported that Cardava banana growers who practised PhilGAP had produced larger and heavier bunches of bananas than those bananas produced on non-GAP plantations. As such, the local traders buy the banana at the farm instead of farmers going to the public market to sell the PhilGAP-certified bananas (Banzon et al., 2013a).

R Risk

Risk is the sixth perceived characteristic of a technology. Reimer et al. (2012, p. 120) defined risk as

“variation in likely benefits or costs associated with a sustainable practice, variation in the effectiveness of the practice, and variation as to when the benefits might be realized”. Banzon et al. (2013a) identified the risk associated with PhilGAP certification as being found to be non-compliant with the standards during an audit and inspection after all the preparation has been undertaken. Although training and seminars have been provided to the growers, there is no guarantee that implementation will be effective. For example, banana growers are expected to observe the MRL for every pesticide applied on the banana plantation by following pesticide label recommendations. However, compliance with MRL can only be validated through chemical laboratory testing and it takes time to obtain the result. If the result shows that GAP standards are not met, the applicants are at risk of failing to obtain the certificate (Banzon et al., 2013a). The long time lags between harvesting and obtaining the result of the analysis contribute to the risk because it provides scope for unanticipated changes in market demand, competing products or damage to the harvested product (Pannell et al., 2006). For example, some fruit and vegetable farmers in Thailand perceived that samples taken during the audit have very little risk of chemical residue detection, as compared to the high risk of losing a part of the harvest because of pest damage (Schreinemachers et al., 2012).

Other risks identified by Banzon et al. (2013a) are the potential increased competition and saturation in the international market. However, some banana growers are not troubled because of the quasi- market segmentation of other banana-growing and exporting countries. Producers from Latin America and South African countries cater to the demands of North America and European markets, respectively, while the Philippines dominates the Asian markets (Banzon et al., 2013a). However, the

market also triggers the situation of the “unethical practice” of “pole-vaulting” where the producer ignores contractual obligations with their exporters because of variation in spot prices in the market (Banzon et al., 2013a, p. 38). The perceived risks associated with the technology could act as a barrier to the adoption. The next section presents the decision stage of the adoption process.