Family farming is a predominant form of agriculture both in developed and developing countries, with over 500 million productive units in the entire world, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is promoting 2014 as the international year of family farming. This particular form of agriculture work refers to farms that are managed by family members and are usually small or medium in size and productivity. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are playing a key role in this scenario. New generations, mainly, are in permanent movement, conceiving the two spaces as complementary. Mobile phones, particularly, are providing today a great platform to connect them to the "rurbanity," a new (key) concept to understand hybrid spaces where cities and the countryside are part of the same social reality.

1. YOUNG FARMERS AND ICT
Mapping the social and technological
t raj e c to ri e s o f “rurban ” youth
Matias E. Centeno

2. WHERE I COME FROM …
Local Development & Extension Unit - San Luis
National Institute of Agriculture Technologies –
INTA (Argentina)
Communication Depar tment
National University of San Luis (Argentina)
PhD in Social Communication
National University of Rosario (Argentina)

3. Research
Facts
Methodology
Context in
Washington
State
Analytical
Framework
Preliminary
Findings
… WHERE DO I WANT TO GO
Young Farmers & ICT

4. RESEARCH FACTS

5. PROBLEM
ICT are introducing diverse changes in
family farming practices
 At the communication, organizational and social
level
 Generating intergenerational tensions

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
 Agriculture… has been
renewed by ICTs?
What is driving this
change?
 How is ICT relevant for
agricultural
development?
What role is youth
playing under this
scenario?

7. RESEARCH GOALS
 To understand the dif ferent meanings of
youth and the diverse ways to be young.
 To study the role of ICT in the countryside and
family farming.
 To explore the social changes in rural areas.
 To think about the farmers of the future.

8. METHODOLOGY

9. METHODOLOGY
Open interviews
Participant
observation
 Focus groups
Workshops
Censal data analysis

10. METHODOLOGY
Field work in four
countries
Argentina
 San Luis province
 Started in 2013 and
continuing in 2015
 200 young people
involved in surveys,
workshops and focus
groups

11. METHODOLOGY
Field work in four
countries
USA
Washington State
 42 people interviewed in
the State

12. METHODOLOGY
Field work in four
countries
 Spain
Catalunya Region
 To be completed in
September to December
2014

13. Field work in four
countries
 Italy
Reggio Emilia Province
 Projected
METHODOLOGY

14. CONTEXT IN
WASHINGTON STATE

15. WHY DO WE CARE?
 Agricul ture has a relevant contribution
to Washington Economy.
 Farming population is decreasing (rural
too).
 Average age of farmers keeps cl imbing.
 The chal lenge of the generational shi f t
in fami ly farming.
 Di f ferent notions of youth.
 ICT plataform in rural and urban areas.
$49 Billion
revenue
160,000
jobs
13%
of the state’s
overall economy
Source: Washington Farm Bureau (2014)

16.  Agricul ture has a relevant
contribution to Washington Economy.
 Farming population is decreasing
(rural too).
 Average age of farmers keeps
cl imbing.
 The chal lenge of the generational
shi f t in fami ly farming.
 Di f ferent notions of youth.
 ICT plataform in rural and urban
areas.
WHY DO WE CARE?
Farms
-9,5%
2007 2012
National average: -1.6%
Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture
USDA / NASS

17.  Agricul ture has a relevant
contribution to Washington Economy.
 Farming population is decreasing
(rural too).
 Average age of farmers keeps
cl imbing.
 The chal lenge of the generational
shi f t in fami ly farming.
 Di f ferent notions of youth.
 ICT plataform in rural and urban
areas.
WHY DO WE CARE?
Rural population
-4,9%
2000 2010
National average: -8%
Source: US Census Bureau

18.  Agricul ture has a relevant
contribution to Washington Economy.
 Farming population is decreasing
(rural too).
 Average age of farmers keeps
cl imbing.
 The chal lenge of the generational
shi f t in fami ly farming.
 Di f ferent notions of youth.
 ICT plataform in rural and urban
areas.
WHY DO WE CARE?
Average age of
57
farmers
58.8
2007 2012
National average: 57,1 (2007) – 58,3 (2012)
Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture
USDA / NASS

19.  Agricul ture has a relevant
contribution to Washington Economy.
 Farming population is decreasing
(rural too).
 Average age of farmers keeps
cl imbing.
 The chal lenge of the generational
shi f t in fami ly farming.
 Di f ferent notions of youth.
 ICT plataform in rural and urban
areas.
WHY DO WE CARE?
Farmers over 55
years old
+7,1%
2007 2012
Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture
USDA / NASS

20.  Agricul ture has a relevant
contribution to Washington Economy.
 Farming population is decreasing
(rural too).
 Average age of farmers keeps
cl imbing.
 The chal lenge of the generational
shi f t in fami ly farming.
 Di f ferent notions of youth.
 ICT plataform in rural and urban
areas.
WHY DO WE CARE?
© Bill Dickinson
CC License

21.  Agricul ture has a relevant
contribution to Washington Economy.
 Farming population is decreasing
(rural too).
 Average age of farmers keeps
cl imbing.
 The chal lenge of the generational
shi f t in fami ly farming.
 Di f ferent notions of youth.
 ICT plataform in rural and urban
areas.
WHY DO WE CARE?

22. ANALYTICAL
FRAMEWORK

23. THE WASHINGTON STATE RIDE
 June to August 2014
 13 locations in 6 Counties
 42 people interviewed
 Farmers
 Organizations
 Companies
 Public officials
 Students
 Educators
Elma (GH)
Everett (Sn)
Lacey (T)
Mounut Vernon (Sk)
Oakville (GH)
Olympia (T)
Outlook (Y)
Redmond (K)
Seattle (K)
Sunnyside (Y)
Wapato (Y)
Yakima (Y)
Zillah (Y)

24. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Institutional Policy
Socio -
Generational
Media - Tech

25. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

26. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
Types of young
farmers
Narratives Rurbanity

27. YOUTH IN FRONT OF FAMILY FARMING
 1. Breakers
 2. Wait & seers
 3. Hobby-Farmers
 4. Connected
 5. New farmers
Types of
young
farmers

28. BREAKERS
 Rural young decide to not continue with farming.
 Several of them leave the countryside and became urban.
 Why?
 Because they don’t like farming;
 Want to study;
 want an urban life;
 follow their friends;
 don’t agree with the family management;
 or feel that they don’t have an opportunity to introduce changes in
the family organization.

29. WAIT & SEERS
 Rural youth bel ieve that they need to wait for the right time to
take on the company and introduce changes.
 This youth continue with fami ly farming, but not always in the
same area as their parents or not with the same methodology.

30. CONNECTED
 They studied or leave the fami ly organization but are sti l l
connected with agriculture from other positions (educator,
public of ficer, company employee).
 Usually they col laborate with the fami ly by providing
information, knowledge or know-how.

31. HOBBY FARMERS
 They leave the farm but returning in hol idays or some
weekends to help in some specific task.
 They do it for fun or fami ly commitment.
 Maybe one d ay t h ey wi l l b e c ome b ac k …

32. NEW FARMERS
 Urban dwellers interested in farming. Some of them leaves
the cities and star t a new l ife in the countryside, mixing urban
and rural l ifestyles.
 Several are the first generation of new farmers.
 Anothers stay in the cities but star t working in agriculture,
providing services to new and older farmers.

33. YOUTH IN FRONT OF FAMILY FARMING
Young people are introducing
ICTs in farming management
In some cases, they are providing
Trainning for adults
Also, there are “tech-mediators”
(non profit organizations) that provide
access to a variety of digital
tools
Young farmers prefer
management positions than
field work.
 Critical manpower problem
Youth

34. THE HUMAN SIDE OF TOMATOES
 ICT provide the oppor tuni ty to do farm work more visible.
 Web.
 Social media (Facebook, in particular).
 For the first time, farmers can tel l their own history by
themeselves
 Socio-Tech spaces, channels for their voice
 Consumers have access to the process, and the chance to get
involved wi th the human history and social experience behind
thei r dai ly products.
 Farmers are discovering new marketing tools.
 The narratives of farming are renewed.
 Re-appreciation of rural environments
 The key rol of farmers in daily living
Narratives

35. THE HUMAN SIDE OF TOMATOES
Seattle

36. THE HUMAN SIDE OF TOMATOES
Walla-Walla

37. THE HUMAN SIDE OF TOMATOES
Oakville

38. THE HUMAN SIDE OF TOMATOES
Yakima

39. RURAL-URBAN HIBRIDITY
 Tradi t ional approaches where ci t ies (moderni ty)
and count ryside (stagnat ion) are completed
isolated.
 New generat ions are breaking wi th this point of
view.
 Impulse the conceptions of hibrid spaces
 Contribute to the socio-territorial reconfigurations.
 Rurbani ty: new (key) concept to understand
some socio- ter ri torial changes in agr icul ture.
 Youth mul t i t rajectories
 They are in permanent movement.
 They conceive the two spaces as complementary, than
opposed
 ICT providing spaces to connect the rurbanity
 Mobile phones are the main tool of rurbanity
Rural
Urban
Rural Urban

40. YOUNG FARMERS AND ICT
Mapping the social and technological
t raj e c to ri e s o f “ rurban” youth
Thank you!
Matias Ezequiel Centeno
matiascto@gmail.com
centeno.matias@inta.gob.ar
www.inta.gob.ar/sanluis
www.geninternet.com.ar