Resultados experimentales

While environmental scientists have been investigating technical innovations that would prevent soil erosion, and economists have been calculating cost efficiency of those new practices, other more important aspects of adoption such as social and psychological impacts on a farming community have received little attention. Adoption of a sustainable farming system used to be seen as a technical problem. Technological or technical

problems can be solved, but the real problem that is more difficult to address is the social issues that may accompany the technology (Salamon et al., 1997).

Consequently, the practical importance of a new farming practice has drawn attention from many diverse disciplines to consider why some farmers are willing to adopt new practices, while others are not. Agricultural scientists have assessed all technical aspects of new practices, while economists have calculated long- and short-term financial consequences of different farming practices. Sociologists also have been studying the socio-psychological and socio-economic characteristics of adopters and non-adopters, and other social factors that influence farmers’ decision making. All these studies have provided very useful information about both positive and negative

consequences of adopting new farming systems, although there are always many questions to be answered. Adoption or acceptance of a new farming practice usually takes a whole series of “micro-decisions (Chibnik, 1987). Each micro-decision is influenced by its own circumstances. In other words, many small factors combine to influence adoption or non-adoption of new farming practices.

2.2.4.1. Organizational factors for technology transfer

Successful information dissemination and technology transfer are a result of the integration of multiple factors that occur at political, technical, and organizational

interfaces (Garfield et al., 1996). Many organizations—including government agencies, non government organizations, private businesses, farmers’ associations, universities and research institutions—offer extension services in their own ways. Therefore, identification of those individual organizations’ perceptions, strategies, resources, and interactions are crucial to developing strategic extension approaches for a sustainable agriculture technology transfer system (Hanyani-MIambo, 2002; Crowder and

Anderson, 1996). Nevertheless, it is not very easy to develop those approaches as these organizations do not always share common goals. It has to be recognized that there can be many conflicts among the players within an agriculture system. Where organizational goals are similar, a group extension approach works well by sharing resources (Crowder and Anderson, 1996). However, many players are challenged to work together and, therefore, enormous amounts of time and resources can be wasted

due to the lack of cooperation among those organizations. Often, the challenge is personal or institutional—for example, personal lack of willingness to work together, competitive attitudes, and insecurity. Sometimes, in some extension systems, there is also a lack of willingness to learn about individual farming environments, and their specific problems, which leads to the technical failure of technology transfer and limited adoption of new technology (Hanyani-MIambo, 2002). Furthermore, all of these

organizations have their own political backgrounds or lobbies. Especially in developing countries, political factors can result in issues like unbalanced funding, inappropriate technology promotions, and corruption within the agriculture system (Anderson and Feder, 2003). Potential political control over these organizations may affect the values, rewards, and collaboration among them. All these issues—including organizational structure, mandate, budget allocation, political control and communication among all participants—contribute to power struggles and individualism within organizations that lead to poor working relationships, corruption, and unsustainable linkages among those organizations. It ultimately creates poor extension services. Coordination of all of these factors and issues is not easy, nor does it necessarily lead to success, but it is important to have a system that supports and encourages it.

2.2.4.2. Financial factors for technology transfer

Funding is definitely the most powerful influence for technology transfer. In most countries, especially developing countries, agricultural extension services have long been provided by governments and funded by taxpayers (Van den Ban, 2000). In Mongolia, extension services are provided mainly through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. However, in many developed countries, a variety of ways of financing extension services have emerged lately, mainly as the result of privatization and decentralization of extension systems (Garfield et al., 1996; Wilson, 1991). Regarding the services that are provided to farmers, the source of funding may have an effect on what kind of extension activities or services may be offered and which kind of

information and technology is promoted. Unfortunately, the information-transfer process is expensive and very dependent on funding sources. Van den Ban (2000) suggests that financing mechanisms for extension can influence organizational decisions

including their goals, target groups of farmers, methods/approaches to be employed, information to be delivered, and cooperation with other institutions. Therefore, some extension agents and organizations can be very political and narrowly focused on only technologies that are promoted from major funding or political support. Government funded extension systems usually offer public extension services from which everybody can benefit and it is often free of charge. Public good is not traceable and information can be freely passed (Wilson, 1991). In contrast, there are privately funded extension services, and their service can be accessible to the public as well as to the targeted audiences. Often, private extension services are not free. Nonetheless, privately funded extension services and information are focused on promotion of their private businesses and production lines (Van den Ban, 2000; Beynon et al., 1998). Generally, private

businesses view their investment in agricultural extension services as a tool to reach their clients to achieve their business goals such as selling pesticides and machinery. In addition, government extension agencies try to achieve social and environmental

development in agricultural practices that are promoted, whereas private firms usually focus on helping individual farmers to increase their productivity and income (Marsh and Pannell, 1998). Consequently, it is important to have public extension services through government agencies to service those who are not able to hire private consultants.

2.2.4.3. Motivational factors for technology transfer

With incentives, the hope is that the transfer of technology will be enhanced and adoption will be sustained by providing some needed resources regardless of their source (Maglinao and Phommasack, 1998). Incentives should stimulate and encourage one to take action and work harder for something or someone. There are many forms of incentives. Government subsidies are one of the most common and effective incentives for technology transfer (Garfield et al., 1996). Generally, it has been observed that small farmers have inadequate resources and they are assumed to be incapable of

implementing new technologies and making changes in their farming practices

(Maglinao and Phommasack, 1998). Therefore, subsidies, particularly for farm inputs, have been provided as an incentive to effect wider farmer participation in new

technology transfer activities (Haggman et al, 1999; Maglinao and Phommasack, 1998).

The success of transferring a new innovation or technology is evaluated by its acceptance and sustained adoption by the target clientele as mentioned earlier.

Especially in a top-down approach, government subsidies or incentives can be very effective in increasing adoption. However, one of the main concerns of adoption through incentives is sustainability: will adoption and application of a new practice remain if the incentive is terminated? Often incentives, especially with government subsidies, result in rapid short-term adoption of new technology. Consequently, incentives must include consideration for a careful plan and assessment of their future sustainability.

2.2.4.4. Constraints to technology transfer

The problems related to improved technology transfer are numerous and well documented. Maglinao (1996) pointed out that success in technology transfer is

possible when researchers, extension workers, and farmers work together, and interact well with each other. In addition, both researchers and extension workers need to understand the socio-economic dimensions of the farmers, as poor understanding of factors that influence farmers’ decision has often caused the failure of the transfer and adoption of a new technology (Kaimovitz, 1991; Sutherland, 1999). Therefore, other factors affecting farmers’ behavior cannot be neglected. In most countries, there is a large gap between farmers and researchers. Involving all parties and encouraging adoption equally in the extension program and the decision-making process can be helpful in filling these gaps and increasing adoption.

No technology can totally solve farm problems in the short-term (Kaimovitz, 1991).

Technologies are created to solve specific problems that have occurred in farming, but that technology does not guarantee that it will not cause another problem. Often, as one issue is addressed by new technology, another problem arises as a result of

implementing the new technology (Roling and Wagemakers, 1998). Indeed, there is no end to farm problems and the need for innovation and development of new technologies or practices. It leads to the endless process of adoption and modification. The

recommended technologies should be technically feasible, economically profitable, and locally acceptable in their socio-economic domains (Sutherland, 1999). However, both

farmers and researchers should be prepared for, or expect to see, a potential problem after using the same practice for a long period. Therefore, the lack of understanding among researchers and extension personnel about farmers’ socio-economic and psycho-cultural circumstances results in a failure of new technology development, transfer, and adoption. Farmers’ misinterpretation and incorrect perception also can cause failure of adoption.

There are many barriers to technology transfer and its adoption including cultural

barriers, language differences, different scientific concepts, and different stakeholders in the system (Sutherland, 1999). They can either play against or in favor of a new

technology. However, to overcome these constraints, a participatory approach can be used including dialogue and diagnosis among researchers, extension workers, and farmers to understand their problems, constraints, and socio-economic background (Kaimovitz, 1991; Sutherland 1999). It is hoped that the results obtained from on-farm research in which farmers participate in managing, evaluating, and developing a

technology will help farmers and enhance the technology transfer and adoption process.

2.2.5. Linkages among researchers, farmers, and extension personnel for