 |
|
|
|
Most IFAD projects in the region include components for the dissemination of technological packages, or the distribution of inputs such as fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, etc. to improve productivity. Evaluations have reported that in many instances these packages were either not available or not relevant. Furthermore, if projects included adaptive research for the development of these packages, then this normally lagged so far behind in the implementation process that the results were not available to influence the extension messages.
In Lesotho (LE 199), the Local Initiatives Support Project (LISP) included a component to improve crop productivity by means of a low input package, adaptive research, soil conservation and irrigation. Uptake was disappointing because the farmers considered the package to be both labour and capital intensive; also, it had not been appraised under local conditions. By the Mid-term Evaluation, (MTE), soil conservation activities were minimal and only interest in small-scale irrigation schemes was promising. In Zambia (104/206 ZA and SRS 007 ZA), input supplies for smallholders were popular and provided a useful method of increasing productivity. In Mauritius (078 MT), research into food crops did not produce useful results, mostly because local farmers were not involved in the practical determination of viable options; local knowledge was not given sufficient recognition.
The development of tested packages is extremely important, as it is often the basis for improved food security and income gains. Confirmation must take place prior to project activities, so that packages are ready for dissemination before the extension service becomes active. Such packages need to be flexible so that they can be tailored to individual farmer's circumstances. Input supplies need to be considered in the context of technological packages and credit availability; coordination is required to achieve design benefits. When soil conservation activities, which do not show short-term returns, are to be encouraged as a necessary adjunct to changes in farming practices, then compensation may be required to ensure the adoption of these practices. It is much preferred if the packages blend local adaptive research with the best existing practices, so that they represent a realistic, useful and acceptable step forward for the target groups.
-
The specification of technological packages should be treated as a dynamic
process with continuous interface with the institutions that can affect
the overall viability of the recommendations, e.g., macro-economic and
sectoral policy makers.
- Before technology packages can be extended, they need to be made specific to local circumstances and should be carefully "tuned". A programme of on-farm demonstrations and a gradual process of introduction is preferred. Even then, the financial viability of the intervention should be proven, using selected farmers.
- Additional capital and labour for technology packages may prove beyond the capacities of poor farmers; this needs to be considered during project design.
- The risk element in adopting new practices should be carefully assessed. Frequently, established practices have evolved to minimize risk and require lower inputs than the suggested variants. This includes marketing risks.
Select any of the following related project profiles for background information: 199-lE, 121 SZ, 104 ZA, 078 MT.
