transfer of technology vs. farmer to farmer

9

Click here to load reader

Upload: natalia-lozano

Post on 20-Jun-2015

74 views

Category:

Food


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

CASE STUDY NO 02: SUGARCANE IN ASIA

AGRC7049 Extension and Participatory Practice

Natalia Lozano BMS (c) of Rural [email protected]

Page 2: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

USED EXTENSION MODEL:TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY (ToT)

One species

Training and Visit (T&V)

Page 3: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY (ToT)

Strong hierarchy

http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6946e/x6946e05.jpg

Page 4: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY (ToT)D

ISA

DV

AN

TAG

ES High operational expenses

No beneficial impacts

Poor level of engagement

Low level of participation

No consideration of social issues

Page 5: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

PROPOSED EXTENSION MODEL:FARMER TO FARMER (FtF)

http://practicalaction.org/images/45187-kamayoq.jpg

Farmers learn from each other about new technologies.

“bare-footed” vets in Kenya and Pakistan, “kamayoqs” in Peru

Respect of the cultural and social context of farmers

Emphasis on active farmer participation and learning by doing.

Pillars: farmer innovation and farmer solidarity

Page 6: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

PROPOSED EXTENSION MODEL:FARMER TO FARMER (FtF)

Farmer is a community’s active member, dedicated to agriculture

No preference of education level or genre

HORIZONTAL EXTENSION‘..Farmers as the main actors, decision-makers, researchers, testers, adapters and promoters..’ (Hess, 2007)

To be a “bare-footed” vet:

Motivation and Leadership skills

http

://2.

bp.b

logs

pot.c

om/-

4wm

3nID

yiA

M/T

e5M

KbX

cG3I

/AA

AA

AA

AA

Adc

/5S

tcC

oLke

K8/

s160

0/te

st.p

ng

Page 7: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

FARMER TO FARMER (FtF)F

tF F

IRS

T S

TE

PS

1. Selection of Ag. innovation

2. Selection of promoters (kamayoqs)

3. Testing and adaptation of innovation with promoters

4. Training to farmers promoters

5. Supporting the sharing of experiences among farmers

Page 8: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

PERU: FARMER TO FARMER (FtF)

Practical Action’s Kamayoq School in Sicuani, Cusco - Peru

De

La T

orre

(20

08)

MINISTERIAL RESOLUTION No. 0224-2012-AG -. Sets out the registration of Kamayoq, Yachachiq and others farmer’s promoters of Andean cultures in the record of Technical Assistance’s Providers of the National Institute of Agrarian Innovation (INIA)

Page 9: Transfer of Technology vs. Farmer to Farmer

ReferenceGautam, M, 2000 'Agricultural extension: the Kenya experience, an impact evaluation', The World Bank, Washington D.C, USA Gustafson, D, 1994 'Developing sustainable institutions: lessons from cross-case analysis of 24 agricultural extension programmes' Public Administration & Development Vol 14, 121-134

Hellin, J, De La Torre, C, Coello, J & Rodriguez, D. 2006 ‘The kamayoq in Peru: farmer-to-farmer extension and experimentation’ LEISA Magazine 22.3, September 2006

Hess, C. 2007 ‘Reader: Extension and Research Approaches for Rural Development Volume II: Good Practices and Case Studies’ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). Bonn, Germany