What Determines Farmers’ Response towards Adopting New Technology in KP? by Dr. Shahnaz Akhtar, KP Agricultural University, Peshawar
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

What Determines Farmers’ Response towards Adopting New Technology in KP? by Dr. Shahnaz Akhtar, KP Agricultural University, Peshawar

on

  • 754 views

Presented on February 10th, 2013 at the Second Research Competitive Grants Conference in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Presented on February 10th, 2013 at the Second Research Competitive Grants Conference in Islamabad, Pakistan.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
754
Views on SlideShare
754
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

What Determines Farmers’ Response towards Adopting New Technology in KP? by Dr. Shahnaz Akhtar, KP Agricultural University, Peshawar Presentation Transcript

  • 1. What Determines Farmers’ ResponseTowards Adopting New Technology in Khyber Pakhtun-khaw? Principal Investigator Dr. Shahnaz Akhtar Professor, Institute of Development Studies KPK Agricultural University, Peshawar Email: drshahnazakhtar@aup.edu.pk Contact: 0333-9108864 Co-Investigator Sohail Khan sohailpfi@yahoo.com
  • 2. Acknowledgements We are extremely grateful to USAID, IFPRI, PSSP and all Partner organizations for the financial support, time, effort and observation about the need to encourage research environment in our country; especially among the academia. We are also thankful to 300 farmers who have willingly shared the sacred information of their cropping practices, cost of production and perceptions. I am personally thankful to Dr. Noor Khan, Dr. Malik M. Shafi, Mohammad Sohail (RA), M. Arif and Jawad (my supervisees) for their contributions in this research.
  • 3. Why New Technology….. “…… it is envisaged that the next breakthrough in agricultural productivity would be due to recent developments in plant molecular biology, genetic engineering, and rapid advancement in genomics.’ However the question remains if the farm would show response to all such efforts that the dream of the advancements in agriculture would materialize.” Iqbal and Muneer (2005)
  • 4. Our task is to learn…… On the outbreak of a new technology;  Few Farmers respond positively;  What factors motivate them?  While Few other don’t respond;  What Factor stop them?
  • 5. Earlier Studies have Identified the Determinants as;S.N. The Determinants The References Socio-economic conditions, Nelson 1993;1 Renovated institutions and individual capacities Rosenberg 1994 Ajzen and Fishbein, 1990; Leathers and Smale, 1992; Risk factor, Feder and Umali, 1993; Davis ,1996;2 Nortan and Bass, 1997 Byerlee and Polanco, 1999;3 Profitability Guerra et al., 2007 Transport & Communication network,4 Khan (1998) extension services Awareness about the existence and availability of new Smale and Heisa, 1999;5 technology Marra et al., 2001 (Ruttan, 1996; Monu, 2000 Age, experience capital formation, & Farmers’ HRD6 Malik (2005)7 Characteristics of the innovation itself Pannell et al. 20068 Mass media and interpersonal communication Jan and Imran, 20099 Timely availability and credit facilities Ahmad (2007)10 Ease in following (How to do of) technology Khan (2011)11 Farm Size and Tenancy Status Khan (2011)
  • 6. Our Research Explores even Further…..…..S.N. The Determinants Remarks1 Land Fragmentation Distance Between Farm and main2 linking road Currently under investigation by my Ph.D. & Distance Between Farm and input- M. Phil students3 output market4 Farm Size and tenancy System5 RIWAAJ=Standard Practice An experiment started by one is copied by all Climate Change……6 Farms are in process of changing enterprises Innovators Beware of!! KHAN JEE AVATAR ‘Khan Jee’ when earns extra money, eagerly7 - measured by farmers’ investment spends to maintain his social status choices forgetting to maintain the capital formation.
  • 7. Data collection scheme and the progress made!Three Districts: Peshawar, Charsadda, MardanThree Crops: Wheat, Maize, Sugarcane300 farmers almost equally divided among the districts andcrops
  • 8. Data collection scheme and the progress made Data is being collected in Two Phases:Phase I: Baseline Data“What Questions”, e.g. farm size and no of fragments; tenancy status;cost of production, yields and returns from the three crops; otherincome sources, new technologies adopted lately; and preference forinvestment etc. data collection in Phase I is complete
  • 9. Data collection scheme and the progress madePhase II: Focus Group Activity Inquiring the“Why Questions”,e.g. Perception, recent examples, reasons for adopting new technology, sources of information and extension, expectations, experience in terms of changing patterns trends One Focus Group each in the three districts has been conducted!!
  • 10. Area Percent of the Yields Gap Crop (000) Hec total Tons/hec In (%) Wheat 658 1.6 Some Basic Maize 386 1.8 Facts: Sugarcane 99 90 + of 1268 45.2 30 + 2008-2009 Rice 43 2.0 Gram 31 0.4 Agriculture Tobacco 36 2.8 in Barley 15 1.0 KhyberPakhtukhwa Under Main Crops 1268 Current 509015 30 + Fallow Bureau of Statistics Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA IN FIGURES at http://www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk/Departments/BOS/KP-in-Fingures.php
  • 11. Thank you for your attention
  • 12. Appendixes
  • 13. Selected LiteratureNelson 1993; Rosenberg 1994 “Investments in S&T are known to pay off most strongly for countries and regions with highly integrated technical and economic systems able to diffuse and apply results of new research. Challenging socio-economic conditions in the developing communities adversely affect any efforts of adopting and diffusing new technologies. In this situation the question is how any breakthrough is possible?” Earlier experiences advocate combinations of  technological improvement with  renovated institutions and  individual capacities of the technology recipients.
  • 14. Selected Literature• Ahmad (2007) examined adoption and constraints in the use of HYVs by farmers in district Peshawar and Charsadda during 2004. They assumed that regardless of favoring climatic conditions the farmers were not getting satisfactory profit from their activity due to non-adoption of new agricultural technologies. The constraints in adoption of new varieties according to them were mainly lack of awareness and of the know-how, inadequate and untimely availability of seed, and lack of credit facilities. They suggested a dynamic role to be played by the extension services in order to achieve the desired goal.
  • 15. Selected Literature• Khan, 2013• KP’s share in countrywide maize production has been on the decline. It accounted for 68 percent of total maize produce in 1996 which decreased to 30 percent in 2006-2007 and was recorded below 20 percent in 2010-2011. While the maize yield has been more than 5400 kg per hectare in Punjab it was less than one third in KP during 2010-2011.
  • 16. ReferencesArifullah, S. A. (2010). Pakistan’s Crop Sector: An Economic Evaluation. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing AG & Co. ISBN: 978-3-8383-4021-0. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/ref=gno_logo.Batz, F. J., K. Peters, and W. Janssen. 1999. The Influence of Technology Characteristics on the Rate and Speed of Adoption. American Journalof Agricultural Economics, 21(2): 121-130Iqbal, M. and M. Ahmad. 2005. Science and technology based agriculture vision ofPakistan and prospects of growth. Proc. PSDE 20th AGM.10-12 January 2005,Islamabad.Khan, M. M. J., Janhua Z., M. S. Hashmi., M. S. Hashmi. (2011). Land Distribution, Technological Changes and Productivity in Pakistan’sAgriculture: Some Explanations and Policy Options. International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences Vol. 1, No. 1, 2011, pp. 51-74.Nelson, R., ed.. 1993. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Rosenberg, N. 1994. Exploring the black box: Technology, economics, and history.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Statistical Book 2011 of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)UNSIAP (United Nations Statistical Institute for Asia and the Pacific). INTRODUCTION TO METHODS FOR RESEARCH IN OFFICIALSTATISTICS. Manual for the Research-based Training Program (RbTP) Regional Course.http://www.unsiap.or.jp/document/intro_methods_rtp.pdfGovt. of Pakistan. (2010). Economic survey: Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, govt. of Pakistan Islamabad.Khan, N. M. (1998). The Causes of Slow Diffusion of New Agriculture Technologies in Kurram Agency in KP.(An Unpublished MSc (Hons)Thesis). NWFP Agricultural University Peshawar. 110 - 113.Ahmad Mansoor, M. Akram,; R. Rauf and I. Ali Khan, (2007). Adoption of and Constraints In Use Of High Yielding Varieties: A Case Study OfFour Villages Of District Peshawar And Charsad. Sarhad J. Agric. 23 (3)., 2007Bureau of Statistics Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA IN FIGURES 2011. Available athttp://www.khyberpakhtunkhwa.gov.pk/Departments/BOS/KP-in-Fingures.phphttp://tahirkatlang.wordpress.com/tag/kp-farmers/Jan Mirza, Muhammad Imran (2009). MESSAGE CONSUMPTION AND ADOPTION OF AGRICULTURAL INNOVATIONS IN NWFP,PAKISTAN. Global Media Journal. No. II (II), (Fall 2009)at http://www.aiou.edu.pk/gmj/MESSAGE%20CONSUMPTIONEND.asp