A shift of attention from technology to process

“Are we changing the way we think and act?”  This question was raised by Dr. Katinka Weinberger, Head of CAPSA, in her closing remarks on the occasion of the Policy Dialogue on Technology transfer for smallholder farmers. We may have spent too much time and discussion on methods, rather than processes, and therefore failed to achieve broad farmer, extensionist and scientist interaction at all levels.

In responding to these issues, Dr. Weinberger sees a shift towards more attention being paid to processes, rather than technologies only. But there is still a scope in particular in the way we consider farmers as partners in the discussion. And thus, Dr. Weinberger urged all participants in the dialogue to work together to enable farmers to have access to the right technologies as well as the accompanying processes to put these technologies into use.

“This very eventful day highlighted two bottom lines of agricultural research – how to innovate without duplicating already established technologies and how to ensure that this knowledge benefits smallholder farmers,” she stressed.

There was also very strong agreement that technologies need to be location-specific and adapted to specific situations. In terms of policies, there was a strong call to distinguish between agricultural policies for subsistence and small-scale producers, and policies for farmers that are well integrated into markets.

Reporter: Fetty Prihastini, Publication Assistant, CAPSA, f.prihastini@uncapsa.org

“What opportunities are there to apply some of the knowledge acquired in the Policy Dialogue in your respective area?” Participants reflect on the day’s learning

Ms. Kate Lamb and Ms. Martina Spisiakova, who moderated the final session, selected ten participants to share their reflection on what they learned during the day-long meeting, what they are taking home and more importantly, what opportunities they see to be implemented in their respective work areas.

Mr. Bruce Wallner, Counselor of Agriculture, Australian Embassy, shared that technology transfer is not just about technology. It is about the production system, how to add value to small farmers, how to access and transfer technologies. “Today we learned that support to rural communities is needed, for example, in the form of subsidies from government,” he reflected. “We have also learned from good experiences of our scientists,” he pointed out. However, he concluded with a question whether policymakers have to just build new things or maintain existing technologies.

“What I have learned during this one-day meeting are other possible technologies that can help our smallholder farmers to compete with imported products,” reflected Mr. Tengku Dato’ Mohd Ariff, Director, Economy and Technology Development Research Institute, Malaysia Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI). In addition, he learned about economic issues, income in particular, of smallholder farmers. “As technology transfer has become more challenging and the needs for technologies are increasing, the framework of technology transfer has to change to be more participatory,” he added.

Representing non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Ms. Ohnmar Khaing, Coordinator, Food Security Working Group (FSWG), Myanmar, shared that her key learning was how to strengthen or build up the abilities and skills of smallholder farmers to absorb new technologies. She stressed that: “Agricultural investment and development have to respect socio-economic conditions and culture of smallholder farmers”.

Mr. Tashi Samdup, Director, Council for RNR Research of Bhutan (CoRRB), found all presentations and discussions very important.. However, knowledge transfer remains the most important of all. “I have learned that the Government of Nepal is facing challenges with human resources and providing financial support to smallholder farmer. To address this challenge, it has engaged the private sector to provide them with support,” he said. “This is a good lesson learned for us in Bhutan,” he concluded.

The most important lesson that Mr. Tek Bahadur Gurung, Director, Livestock and Fisheries, Principal Scientist, Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), is taking home is that the agricultural system in mountain area costs around two to three times more than in other areas. “I have also learned about organic and non-organic farming as well as lessons from the Green Revolution,” he added when reflecting over what he will take away from the Policy Dialogue and bring to his area of work.

“Technology transfer needs the cooperation with all stakeholders,” according to Mr. Ty Channa, Deputy Director, Cambodian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF). The linkage between extension workers, researchers and policymakers is very important. He stressed that the process of gathering information and then prioritizing most appropriate technologies, as introduced by SATNET Asia, is important to avoid the confusion of farmers.

Mr. Eklavya Prasad, Managing Trustee, Megh Pyne Abhiyan (MPA), India, represented an organization that works in flood-prone areas of North Bihar and that has a substantial population of smallholders. “The space created by CAPSA has reiterated and strengthened our resolution towards an 'out of box' approach to technology transfer,” he reflected. “At the outset of the policy dialogue, I was extremely skeptical as generally, discussions around technology transfer are technology-centric and heavy,” Mr. Eklavya admitted. “But it was heartening to be part of a balanced discourse where processes were given the same importance as technologies,” he added. While he agreed that process-oriented work can be time consuming, it can generate far more impact on smallholder farmers and ensure sustainability. He encouraged participants to continue this debate that is highlighting these crucial aspects of technology transfer on regular basis so that the 'out of box' thinking leads to impacting results. “This was my first meeting organized through SATNET,” he said. “It helped me tremendously to substitute ambiguities with clarity and motivated me and my network to be an active member of this group,” he concluded.

“One thing that I learned is how to moderate the conflict issue arising from technology transfer,” highlighted Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Chairman, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC). “Smallholder farmers have different level of knowledge and understanding and that is why the creation of the environment to enable farmers to absorb technologies is quite important,” he stressed. “I also learned about experiences in advocacy that make me think about advocating these issues with my Government to focus more on smallholder farmers,” he concluded. In his final remarks Dr. Ahmad stressed that market access of smallholder farmers still remains a major problem which needs to be continuously addressed.

“The issue of land access and country experiences of how the government can help farmers interested me most,” shared Dr. Zulkifli Zaini, IRRI Liaison Scientist for Indonesia and Plant Nutrient Specialist, Indonesian Centre for Food Crop Research and Development (ICFORD).

“The focus on rural farmers is becoming more and more important for policymakers in governments as well as researchers,” shared H.E. Mr. Ratu Seremaian Tunausori Cavuilati, Ambassador, Embassy of the Republic of Fiji. “What researchers and extension workers should know is what technology transfer or climate change mean to the farmer,” he pointed out. He concluded that knowledge transfer and the focus on South-South cooperation is very significant and needs to continue.

Finally, Mr. Shun-ichi Murata, Deputy Executive Secretary of UNESCAP, reflected on the day-long debate. He emphasized the need to think about the economic, social, and environmental aspects of technology transfer. Moreover, the gap between researchers, policymakers and farmers must continue to be addressed. “Rural development requires a long-term development infrastructure rather than a short-term one,” he said. “Another point to think about is the direction of the technologies transfer. Who will we target as extension workers? Young rural people or the old people?” he pointed out when referring to rural-urban migration in the view of more attractive opportunities.

Reporter: Mr. Him Khortieth, CEDAC, Cambodia, himkhortieth@cedac.org.kh

Improved technologies that have been shown to benefit smallholder farmers

Dr. Robert Holmer, Regional Director, The World Vegetable Center (AVRDC)-East and South-East Asia, facilitated a session with five speakers on improved technologies that have been proved to benefit smallholders.

How to pick the right technologies?

In her presentation, Dr. Simone Kathrin Kriesemer emphasized the complex issues in making agricultural technologies sustainable and available for the public. She also presented the analytical framework, developed through SATNET Asia, for identifying agricultural technologies that are sustainable, productivity-enhancing and suitable to the poorest and most vulnerable people.

Mr. Tomohide Sugino, Representative of the South-East Asia Liaison Office, JIRCAS, responded to the presentation by highlighting the importance of extension workers to understand which technologies are sustainable or not. “We need to make sure that extension workers can implement the methods to identify sustainable technologies,” he stressed. Dr. Kriesemer explained that there will be a comparison between technology and the “scoring of technology”, based on which sustainable technologies will be identified. A technology toolbox will be developed consequently and “extensionists for sure, will be involved,” Dr. Kriesemer pointed out.

Cassava boom in Southeast Asia

Dr. R.D.B Lefroy, Regional Coordinator and Upland Systems Specialist, Centro Internacional de Agricultural Tropical (CIAT), shared experiences from Cambodia and Laos in improving the sustainability, productivity and livelihood impacts of smallholder cassava production. He focused on the transformation of cassava from being a food crop to being a major cash crop. This is because cassava is increasingly being used as industrial raw material, providing animal feed and starch and modified starches for food, pharmaceuticals, adhesives, sizing, ethanol, and more. Thailand, followed by Viet Nam, have been the major leaders and beneficiaries of cassava. Other countries such as Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar are now benefiting as well. Yet, research and extension remains relatively minor relative to the importance of this “forgotten” or “orphan” crop.

Dr. Lefroy referred to the impact of new cassava varieties on farmers as a “cassava boom”. Improved varieties cover about 90 per cent of the area of planted cassava in Thailand and Viet Nam, the two largest exporters of cassava products. These varieties are now being adopted in many other countries in the region such as Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar. The key benefit is that minimal extension is required, if the planting material is available. Increased production, as a result of these improved varieties, have generated benefits worth about US$12 billion over the last two decades.

“But increased productivity, sustainability, and livelihood impacts rely on more than varieties,” Dr. Lefroy stressed. “There is a need to adopt improved measures such as soil fertility management, soil erosion control, labour productivity, pest and disease management, links to market and multiple use options,” he pointed out. These require adjustment for location and active extension for adoption.

Dr. Humayun Kabir, Chief Technical Advisor, Food and Agriculture Organization / IPM Project of the Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation and Livestock, Afghanistan, was curious to know what the average yield of cassava is when there is a major pest problem, and whether there is any correlation between the use of chemical fertilizers and increased yield under such conditions. According to Dr. Lefroy, the average production is 22-23 t/ha in Thailand and 17-18 t/ha in Cambodia. There is no evidence about the correlation between the use of fertilizers and increased yields.

Mr. Tomohide Sugino from JIRCAS pointed out that in East Timor farmers are able to produce 100 ton of cassava per hectare, especially in highlands, with high level of photosynthesis. But Dr. Lefroy was sceptical. According to him, even when we apply 50 ton of organic matter, we can only get 30-35 ton of cassava per hectare.

Indonesian rice check procedure

Mrs. Erythrina, Agronomist/Senior Researcher, Indonesian Centre for Agricultural Technology of Assessment and Development (ICATAD) and Dr. Zulkifli Zaini, IRRI Liaison Scientist for Indonesia and Plant Nutrient Specialist, Indonesian Center for Food Crop Research and Development (ICFORD), introduced a rice check procedure to accelerate adoption of integrated crop management in Indonesia.

Rice check is a dynamic rice crop management system that enables to check farmers’ practice with best practice to compare results, and learn through farmers’ group discussion to sustain improvements in productivity, profitability and environment safety.

Dr. Humayun Kabir from Afghanistan noticed that thousands of Indonesian farmers have been trained in integrated pest management (IPM). He was curious whether these were the same farmers that are to be trained in ‘rice check’. According to Dr. Zaini, ‘rice check’ is one of the technology components of IPM. IPM looks into how to effectively use pesticides. “However, after several years, in fact the use of pesticide has increased,” said Dr Zaini. “We need to integrate all technologies, not only IPM but use the overall concept to increase rice production,” he pointed out.

.

Dr. Majibur Rachman, from the Centre for Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific (CIRDAP) shared that Bangladesh uses a similar tool called ‘loan-check’. “If the check is managed by the Government, how is it useful to farmers?” he asked. According to Dr. Zaini, “in Indonesia, we work with ‘formal farmers’ groups’ that will receive a subsidy from the Government. We also work together with extension workers.”

Herbal pesticide technology for controlling insects and pests in vegetable crops

Mr. Pawan K Singh, Innovation Officer/Scientist, Sadbhav SRISTI Sanshodhan Laboratory and National Innovation Foundation (NIF) in India shared a successful example of a land-to-lab-to-land approach.

India accounts for 15 per cent of the total global vegetable production. But vegetable plants suffer heavily due to infestation of sucking pests, shoot and fruit borers, viral attack, fungal and bacterial infections. Farmers around the world rely mainly on chemical pesticides spending about US$ 9 million per year. Excessive use of pesticides have created many threats such as elimination of beneficial insects, depletion in microbial diversity, resistance in pests, deposition of toxic residues.

SRISTI, with help of NIF-India has documented a large number of herbal agricultural grassroots practices for controlling insects and pests. It engaged in validation of claims of innovators and developed value-added eco-friendly products. One of their key outcomes is the development of a herbal pesticide called SRISTI Sarvatra. It implies a simple and fast production, low cost equipment and can be easily adapted and produced in the field. It is cheaper than other herbal pesticide products. SRISTI Sarvatra is now being used by farmers in different areas of Gujarat.

The paddy thresher and zero tillage drill

Dr. Usman Mustafa, Chief, project Evaluation and Training Division, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE), Pakistan, presented the importance of mechanization for Pakistan’s national economy. The use of zero tillage (ZT drill) significantly reduces the cost of land preparation. The Paddy Thresher (PT) is important to reduce the high labour cost, save time and help improve rice quality.

The Agricultural and Biological Engineering Institute (ABEI) located at the National Agricultural Research Centre  (NARC) of PARC has designed and developed ZT drill and PT to suit farming conditions. To date, it made 5,500 ZT units available to farmers. During 2010, ZT drill was used on 0.325 m.ha out of 2 m.ha for sowing wheat. Recently, its price decreased mainly due to higher production, improved design and material.

The development process of ZT continues and requires a close collaboration among international, national and local stakeholders. ABEI played a pivotal role in development and dissemination of locally-demanded machines. A national network for agricultural mechanization needs to be established to coordinate farm machinery and R&D activities for efficient utilization of available resources along with new proposals to meet farmers’ needs. Dr. Mustafa also stressed the important role of the private sector to be particularly encouraged to contribute towards mechanization of Pakistan’s agriculture sector.

Zuziana Susanti, Indonesian Centre for Rice Research (ICRR), zuzianasusanti@yahoo.com

Improved processes to enhance adoption of technologies by smallholder farmers

Four presenters shared examples of improved processes to enhance adoption of agricultural technologies by smallholders.

Mobile extension for empowering smallholder farmers

Dr. K. D. Kokate, Deputy Director General (Agricultural Extension), Division of Agricultural Extension, Indian Council of Agriculture (ICAR) in India, showcased how the broad use of mobile phone has been used by ICAR to deliver new information and technologies to farmers in India. ICAR cooperates with nine telecommunication servers to facilitate information sharing on what farmers need. Dr. Kokate noted that this project provided many benefits to farmers.

For example, farmers can now communicate directly through text or voice massages with extensionists or experts. The project provides useful information in English, Marathi and Hindi language. The information covers disease diagnosis, seed availability, updates on commodity and market prices, farming techniques, weather forecasts, availability of fertilizers and many other issues. The success of this project lies in ICAR’s commitment to serve farmers by sending massages every Tuesday and Friday (two messages per farmer) and providing this service free of charge, without posing extra expenses on farmers.           

Solar powered aeration technology transfer for fish farmers

A student from the Department of Engineering Physics, Faculty of Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta in Indonesia – Mr. Agus Setiawan – shared his perspective on technology transfer for fish farmers, together with his professor – Dr. Ahmad Agus Setiawan. They stressed that successful technology transfer springs from good communication, which must be clear, honest and receptive. The higher the level of technology, the more intense communication is required with farmers. This particular project was conducted in the aquaculture centre in Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. It is based on collaboration between undergraduate students under the supervision of their lecturer, and an expert from the Student Community Services Programme (SCS).

The project disseminated solar powered aeration technology to fish farmers to help aeration in fish breeding and to assist future research projects on application of renewable energy. Local students assisted their community in project implementation as a way of bridging communication between academic, private and public institutions. They believe that their involvement can contribute to sustained relationships and collaboration among all stakeholders as an advantage in the future. The project received appreciation from participants as it empowers local students by involving them in technology transfer. It is a great opportunity to build students’ skills both in technical as well as communication aspects.

Decentralizing the farmer-to-farmer extension approach to the local level

Government extension services can sometimes be ineffective, inefficient and irrelevant for technology transfer, especially in remote areas. To address this issue, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation working in Nepal showcased how farmers are trained to provide agricultural extension services to other farmers by decentralizing the farmer-to-farmer extension approach.

Mr. Shiva Kumar Shrestha, Senior Programme Officer, Sustainable Soil Management Programme, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation presented the project and highlighted  its success in empowering local farmers as extensionists. The farmer-to-farmer approach has proved to be cost-effective in terms of service delivery mechanism, especially in remote areas. Ensuring transparency in planning and budgeting made this project get local support.

To conclude, Mr. Kumar noted some remaining challenges in agricultural extension. These include: limited capacity of local officials to support farmers; elite and political influences of the village development committee that might lead to funds being allocated to other sectors, particularly to infrastructure; and a gap in ensuring pro-poor focus in policies relating to agricultural extension and decentralization policy.

Indigenous knowledge system and organic technologies: farmers’ access to community technology learning in the Philipines

Dr. Gina Villegas-Pangga, lecturer from the Farming System and Soil Resource Institute, Agricultural System Cluster, College of Agriculture, University of the Philippines Los Banos, Philippines talked about indigenous agricultural practices in lowland and upland Filipino communities that have never been recognized and are being replaced by modern technologies.

“Local or Indigenous Knowledge is the knowledge belonging to a specific community or local group and that the people in a given community have developed over time, and still continue to develop,” said Dr. Villegas-Pangga.

Dr. Villegas-Pangga’s project was conducted to document the existing farmers‘ farming practices and technologies that are environment-friendly, economically viable  and that promotes sustainable agriculture. It aimed to increase the capacity of farmers, organic practitioners and other stakeholders in solving issues related to soil productivity and to enhance farmers’ responsiveness on the weakening balance of the agro-ecosystem due to intensive agriculture.

One example of an indigenous practice is the use of synthetic and natural materials such as banderitas (small flags) made from plastic or garments of different colors, sizes and shapes. These are attached to a long rope or plastic twine and placed across rice fields. The noise and movement created by the banderitas, as the wind passes through them, frightens birds and prevents them from feeding on maturing rice grains.

The project concluded that majority of the Filipino farmers in the region were encouraged to adopt and adapt farming practices and technologies if their efforts lead to an immediate economic yield. Some farmers are already getting organic labels from institutions such as the Organic Certification Center of the Philippines (OCCP).

Alfi Inayati, Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (ILETRI), alfi_inayati@yahoo.com

Improved synergies among innovation, delivery and receiving systems can facilitate better technology transfer to smallholders

On 13 February 2013, Dr. Kasdi Subagyono, Executive Secretary of the Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (IAARD) made his keynote remarks on behalf of Dr. Haryono, Director General of IAARD, Ministry of Agriculture, Indonesia.

Indonesian agriculture is dominated by smallholder farmers who own limited land of about 0.5 hectares and have low educational levels. However, Dr. Subagyono noted that the number of smallholder farmers increases year by year. In 2012, Indonesia was home to 15.6 million smallholders compared to 13.7 million in 1993! Government policies therefore remain extremely important in supporting smallholder farmers.

 

IAARD, as a centre for agricultural research and development in Indonesia, realizes that a key issue in transferring technologies to Indonesian farmers lies in the variety of agro-ecology, culture and socio-economic conditions. Through its activities, IAARD tries to develop new technologies suitable to these conditions and locations. Twelve research centers of IAARD cover all areas of agricultural research. To deliver technologies from researchers to farmers, IAARD has 33 Agricultural Technology Assessment Institutes (AIATs) which exist in every province in Indonesia.

Over the years, IAARD learned that for technology innovation system to work for smallholders, it requires generation of appropriate, demand-driven or even market-driven technologies that are needed by farmers and other end-users. As such, AIATs are organizing researchers and extensionists to work together and disseminate new technologies to farmers.  By involving farmers, AIATs conduct on-farm experiments at the village level so that farmers can directly learn how to apply new technologies and adopt them more easily.

IAARD has also developed an approach called Multi-Channel Spectrum Dissemination that engages various stakeholders in technology dissemination by involving institutions from the ministry level, local government, universities, the private sector and NGO.

Dr. Subagyono stressed that creation of synergies among innovation, delivery and receiving is a key for successful technology transfer. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can play an important role in this process. “A mutually beneficial business partnership between SME and smallholders farmers can be facilitated by providing incentives to drive more SMEs involvement in producing higher value-added and profitable products,” Dr. Subagyono shared. “With higher value-added, smallholders would also benefit and be encouraged to participate in the innovation process,” he concluded.

To close his statement, Dr. Subagyono emphasized that it is necessary to continuously improve research and development and facilitate international cooperation to ensure that technologies are timely and serve the needs of smallholder farmers.

Alfi Inayati, Indonesian Legumes and Tuber Crops Research Institute (ILETRI), alfi_inayati@yahoo.com

Food Security: a priority of Europe Aid

In her opening speech of the High Level Policy Dialogue on Technology Transfer for Smallholder Farmers (13 February 2013), Ms. Adelina Nicolaie, Programme Manager, Technology Transfer for Food Security in Asia, European Commission, emphasized the commitment of the European Union (EU) to fight food insecurity and malnutrition.

The European Union contributes to food security, agriculture and rural development of the least developed countries all over the world.  To this end, in the past few years 2010-2012, the European Union committed almost 3 billion euro through the bilateral country programmes. With the Technology Transfer Programme, EuropeAid provides 22 million Euro for enhancing technology transfer on food security for poor farmers in most food insecure countries of South and Southeast Asia.

The EU has also a great engagement in the global fight against malnutrition and its coordination mechanisms, and it is the main initiator for The Global Scaling Up Nutrition Movement (SUN). 

Ms. Nicolaie highlighted the importance of the High Level Policy Dialogue initiated by SATNET Asia, to bring together and engage policymakers, scientists and development practitioners in a constructive dialogue to better reach smallholders with improved technologies and to promote sustainable agriculture.

“The problems can’t be solved within a day but this meeting can contribute to answer at least few questions,“ Ms. Nicolaie pointed out.

Reporter : Zuziana Susanti, Indonesian Center for Rice Research (ICRR), Indonesia, zuzianasusanti@yahoo.com

Role of markets and value chains to support smallholders to access agricultural technologies

Dr. Upali Wickramasinghe, Regional Advisor on Poverty Reduction and Food Security, Center for Alleviation of Poverty through Sustainable Agriculture (CAPSA) led discussions on the role of markets and value chains to support smallholders to access agriculture technologies. He stressed that the world has over 500 million smallholder farmers who own land on less than two hectares and who often occupy marginal land far from markets, extension and basic services.

Issues around small holder farmers are complex and interlinked within socio-economic-political systems. The purpose of this session was to simplify these issues through research and case studies related to market and value chain options to support smallholders. To set the stage, Dr. Wickramasinghe shared an example of farmers from remote areas of Papua New Guinea, who use river to transport their produce (especially peanuts) to the market on tubes. Once arrived, women spend the whole night in the market without any facilities to sell their produce the next day. These are the types of people and communities we need to work with and promote market participation to improve their living standards.

Involving the private sector to commercialize bio-fertilizer in Bangladesh

Mr. Md. Nurul Amin, Director – Operations, IDE Bangladesh, presented a case study on involving the private sector to commercialize Bradyrhizobium (bio-fertlizer) technology: impact on soybean production in Bangladesh. IDE brings small-scale manufacturers and service providers to the market system to promote technology through the private sector. For this, IDE utilizes the market system approach developed by the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

Most development intervention bypass the market system and deliver services without involving the private sector, thus when the project finishes, everything collapses. The private sector needs to be brought into the market system and can function on its own when linkages between producer and the private sector are strong.

Mr. Amin also stressed the concept of the ‘Valley of Death’ where a government-funded research project conducts a research but fails to bring the private sector for dissemination of technology. On the other hand, the private sector shows limited interest to invest in basic research if it sees no clear benefit for itself.

In Bangladesh, the Department of Agriculture Extension (DAE) has developed bio-fertilizer technology and implemented it on a small scale since the 1970s. But because there was no private sector that would market the technology, its development stopped. In response, IDE brings together sellers of agricultural inputs, monitors the demand for bio-fertilizer and communicates the demand to DAE. DAE includes IDE’s information in its planning process for the production and marketing of the bio-fertilizer.

The research conducted by IDE shows positive results by proving a 15 per cent yield increase of soybean if using the bio-fertilizer. A 15 per cent increase in farmers’ income was also demonstrated, however, other factors contributed to this increase as well. With poultry development in Bangladesh, the demand for soybean has been increasing significantly. The use of bio-fertilizer has been increasing proportionately. Because the programme is in its very early stage, it is too early to draw conclusion on commercialization of and policy recommendations for the bio-fertilizer. However, it is clear that DAE cannot produce required quantity. Hence, it needs to bring the private sector in the process to promote scaling up.

Mr. Tengku Dato’ Mohd Ariff, Deputy Director Economy and Technology Development Research Institute of Malaysia Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI) and Mr. R.M. Herath, Agriculture Economist, Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka, were interested in what has been used as a nitrogen source in the absence of bio-fertilizer. According to IDE, farmers have used cow dung and urea as the main fertilizer. However, bio-fertilizer can replace urea given its promising results with soybean production. As long as the technology is available, affordable and accessible to farmers, the farmers will adopt the technology.

Dr. Johann F. Moltmann, Organizational Management Advisor from the GIZ/ASEAN Bio-agro Input Association of Indonesia, showed concern about how multi-national cooperation is driving contract farming by providing imported technology and inputs. He was particularly concerned about how farmers’ interest might be protected in this context. According to IDE, “The private sector and service providers from different sectors need to work together and provide required packaged inputs for small scale farmers”.

Dr. S. M. Khalilur Rahman, Member Director, Agriculture Economics and Rural Sociology Division, Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council (BARC) concluded that the key limitation why the production of bio-fertilizer has not been picked up is its short shelf-life compared to chemical fertilizer. This seems to be one of the reasons why the private sector does not want to engage in its production. There is no subsidy from the government to motivate the private sector to produce bio-fertilizer.    

Other countries, such as Myanmar, are facing a similar situation as Bangladesh with regard to fertilizer, as explained by Dr. Ohnmar Khaing, Coordinator of Food Security Working Group Myanmar.  Chemical fertilizer plays an important role in the farming system of Myanmar and a few private investors currently engage in production of bio-fertilizer.

Diversifying agriculture to high value crops in the Central Indian Tribal Belt

Mr. Kumar Ayan Deb, Coordinator of Knowledge, Monitoring and Learning, Collective for Integrated Livelihood Initiatives (CiNi), India, presented a joint study conducted by CiNi and BAIF India on experience of diversification of agriculture to high value crops with smallholders in the Central Indian Tribal Belt.

The objectives of the study were to:

• Identify innovative models benefiting small and marginal farmers through short gestation land based interventions on small plots.
• A situational analysis of factors facilitating adoption of high value agriculture by poor farmers.
• A source of learning for practitioners and policy makers for improved programme design.

The presenter stressed that the trial was not intended to secure seeds for farmers as farmers rely on private companies for seed supply. The cultivation of high value crop also focused on low land where land is easy to access. As part of the study, CiNi analysed the following models such as agro-horti-forestry promoted by BAIF, creeper-based vegetable cultivation promoted by SADGURU and market-oriented year-round vegetable promotion promoted by PRADAN.

Agro-horti-forestry

Forest trees are long-term crops that could not generate short- and medium- term income. Thus to help farmers get short-term income, BAIF Development Foundation India, introduced Jasmine plantation for 2,000 households. The local market could not absorb the production, thus BAIF helped organize collectivization of access to regional market (Delhi). Training of local people and logistical support played a vital role in enabling jasmine to access the regional market.

Creeper-based vegetable cultivation

The creeper-based vegetable cultivation project was initiated by SADGURU in Dahod, Gujarat for 2,000 households. The key strategy lies in providing individual support such as initial support cost and quality monitoring. The products are mainly targeted for the local market where a high demand for creeper demand already exists.

Market-oriented year-round vegetable promotion

The project on market-oriented year-round vegetable promotion was initiated by PRADAN for 3,000 households. The key strategy was organizing an agriculture production cluster, establishing a common nursery and collective procurement system to ensure the right quality, quantity and timing.

The presenter highlighted the following points that contributed to the success of the programme:

• Food security first – 96 per cent of early adopters are families with secured food from their own farm
• Organizational approach – importance of perseverant effort, creative use of subsidy,  working through challenges and ready to learn
• Significant returns from the models (69 per cent profit)
• Family labor – an opportunity cost (2-3 family members engaged in agriculture)
• Capacity building at various level (extensionists and farmers)
• Market’s role in various stages – access to timely input and defined time and field operation increases  adoption  by smallholders)

 However, there have been some areas that still need to be explored such as the reasons for early and late adoption, drop outs, risk mitigation, post-harvest losses and links with Government policy on revitalization of green revolution and the interest of small holder farmers.