Mantenimiento preventivo y correctivo

From CREA founding times until a few years ago, membership of the movement was strongly related to a physical factor: the ownership of land. Only farm owners were CREA members and they were personally required to attend all meetings (as opposed to a more flexible policy today, which allows an administrator or a manager to represent the farm’s owner). I will call this the “paradigm of land-ownership”. As explained before, among other conditions such as social kinship, it was the ownership of land the first requisite that made someone suitable for joining a CREA group. You had to be a

At the time the data for this study was collected, there were traces of a significant paradigm change. The “paradigm of land-ownership” began to change as the traditional way of doing business of agriculture changed as well.

The practice of renting land for cropping has dramatically increased in the Argentinean countryside during the last decade. Agricultural production, especially soybean

cropping, had an international context of historically good prices, which combined with other production factors, turned to be a profitable activity. The increase in commodity prices, the massive adoption of no-till sowing, and the use of glyphosate resistant seeds (RR) caused a boom in the rural industry, expanding the productive frontiers of the country. Some climatic changes also favoured agriculture in land which before was only suitable for meat production. More land started to be leased for cropping and all kinds of business agreements were made in this historical increase of crops production. Land renting became a business practice which escapes the original concept of ownership and territoriality of farms, and refers more to a productive activity. My point is that this is changing the relationship among farmers, and ultimately, the nature of the CREA groups.

There are CREA members today that do not own any land, yet they are still legitimate members. In the last years (2005, 2006 and 2007), the debate sparked when farmers that did not own land, but had a farming activity renting land, asked to join CREA groups. The transition began at first with firms that belonged to CREA members who did own land. For example, in one group the son of a CREA member (who had been one for many years), founded a new firm that rented land and petitioned to become a separate member. After months of consideration, the unusual inscription was allowed. Today, there are much more no-land members, in several groups. This has turned into a practice that is no longer considered unusual.

Before, membership was greatly related to owned hectares of land. Today, membership is a broader concept. Conditions for belonging to a CREA group are measured through other factors such as commitment and participation. Interviewees’ testimonies show that intangible factors such as group commitment and involvement play a paramount role in the ‘no-land owner’ members.

When owners cease to work their own farms and rent land to others, resources change. The ownership of scarce resources, in which capitalism is based, changes, and thus

changes the relations. Land is no longer the necessary resource to own to become part of the Movement.

Those CREA groups that have members who do not have any land, but rent and manage an agro-related business have a challenge (openly admitted) of measuring results in order to be able to compare with the other members. The assumption that has been accompanying the CREA culture all along is the need for measurement in order to compare, and the good will of the members to share their information for the benefit of all. As long as valid points of comparison with peers are found, a farmer can participate, regardless of the amount of land owned, if any. Examples of these points of comparison are profit margin per hectare, production indicators for agriculture, and so forth.

This ‘paradigm change’ has consequences for the knowledge the groups share and co- create. I attended a CREA meeting where a challenging conceptual discussion was held: whether the amount of hectares not owned but rented affected the percentage of the AACREA fee members had to pay. The debate revolved around a controversial issue: should all hectares managed by the CREA member be stated? Or only those hectares owned? What are the criteria to decide whether members were using knowledge generated within the group to apply elsewhere? What was considered an ethical behaviour in the matter? The practice of renting land and not declaring it in total number of hectares was questioned by those members who did not rent.

The discussion headed to the view that all learning members achieved within the group had to be somehow accounted for. After an hour of debate, consensus was reached that members would honestly declare how many hectares under their management were affected by the knowledge exchange that took part in the CREA group meetings. The

asesoralso informed that he was going to find out how other CREA groups were handling these issues and would report on it back to the group.

Additionally, this paradigm change brings along another difficulty. Part of the reasons that cooperation and trust among farmers have developed so fruitfully is that they are mainly producers of commodities. As such, price is set by the rules of the market and there is no competition between peers, as everybody gets to sell their produce in fairly similar conditions. With land renting and leasing this situation has changed, as land becomes a scarce resource. Farmers who rent are now competing for land. Some interviewees expressed their worries that this new situation could undermine the true CREA spirit. Information may be held untold, or competition for renting may come in

the way of an honest exchange in a CREA meeting. Others, those who rented, assured that they would let go of a deal if it meant that it could ruin the relationship with a CREA peer. As this farmer expressed in the interview:

If I am after renting a farm, and I find out that another CREA member is analysing the same opportunity, I would call him first and would let go of the business. I would never compete with a fellow CREA member. However I would compete if the other farmer belonged to another CREA Zone. (CREA farmer)

The consequences of this paradigm change are still in its starting stages. Perhaps in 1959 nobody thought that somebody could be a CREA member without any land. The conclusion that can be reached from this incipient paradigm shift is that the ‘CREA idea’ has evolved well beyond land and production. It has consolidated itself into a more abstract concept, and has developed into something present in the attitudes and values of CREA members, whatever their activity may be.

The ultimate source of the paradigm change I analyse can be traced back to the origins of the CREA Movement, when its founding members got together concerned about the erosion of their soils. Initially, these farmers’ worries were mainly productive and material. However, somebody who is worried about soil conservation is also looking into the future. They are thinking about coming generations and their right to have good soil too. They are considering their land a heritage and a legacy, of which they are responsible and accountable for. CREA’s founder was worried about the culvation not only of the land, but of the person as well.

The topics that concerned the Movement went gradually evolving to more abstract themes. The economic aspect of farming was then developed. Farm management started to be applied. Still later, farmers realised that they managed their firms in a social context which needed to be modified, and issues such as corporate social responsibility, the construction of social capital, education, and rural local development began to be incorporated in the agenda of the Movement. For example, the 2004 National Congress was called “Being part of a Possible Argentina”, and several national and civic

responsibilities issues were addressed.

All this evolution from more specific topics to more abstract ones is embarked within a philosophy of values that needs to be understood and embraced in order for a member to

be able to “live” the CREA spirit. And a logical by-product of this evolution is shown when a CREA member with no land can still become a true CREA member.