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.
Nepal has a unique climate and landscape which makes it suitable for growing aromatic plants and processing essential oils. Low-volume, high-value products such as essential oil can supplement income for some of the poorest groups in Nepal. Distillation is an economical method of extracting essential oil from aromatic plant material which can be carried out with simple equipment close to the site of plant production. Even in remote locations large quantities of material can be processed in a short time. The photo on the right shows community members bringing winter green to the distillation unit.
In initial interviews conducted by Chelsea Johnson, barriers to the success of production have been acknowledged: the volatility of market prices of essential oils and the ability of farmers to act accordingly, lack of year-round processing, and competition from neighboring India. However, with technical support and farmer training in understanding market dynamics, the essential oil production can continue to grow. The photo on the left shows Mr. Harka Bahadur Bista, distillation unit manager, takes a look at a freshly processed chamomile essential oil.
