systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ... systems research - the IDRC Digital Library - International ...
o restricted sample size, related to high number of drop-outs, or to unexpected statistics on adopters and nonadopters; o civil unrest that limit field surveys; o natural calamities such as drought, floods, and earthquakes that hamper field work and distort data (e.g., price); o complexities of allocation of land to crops (e.g.? the third-season crop in Bangladesh is divided into several plots of different crops, has mixed crops per plot, and has different crop mixtures per plot); and o changes in cropping systems during the course of the study, which amounted to an unanticipated induced technological change (private sector). Scope of methodolog for future impact studies on farming systems research The issue of matching the scope of future impact study objectives to time and resources was examined. Agreement was reached on the following few additional points: o The need for a restatement of the value of forms of ex-ante analysis. These might include partial budgeting with explicit assumptions with regard to the impact of new technology on adoption, yields, projected costs, and prices. These assumptions can be made with transferable baseline data or, if necessary, with educated guesses. Sensitivity analysis may be added. Other sources are rapid rural appraisal and the use of secondary sources of data. o The need for concurrent development of methodology to fulfil1 the needs created by designation of hypotheses and objectives. This process was exemplified by the Sri Lanka study, hamstrung though it was in application. o The need to give serious consideration to the incorporation of additional assessments. These include equity and gender consequences at the household level, the sustainability of benefits of technological adoption, and macro impacts (e.g., net capital flows and changes in input flows to the industry concerned).
hlem bers o The need to improve docunlentation to further understand the processes and attendant costs of FSR impact studies. o The need to give careful consideration to the con~position of the FSR impact team, by bearing in mind the need for farmer participation throughout these studies (i.e., there must be an appropriate mix of biological and social scientists). o The need to emphasize the partnership that is required between farming systems researchers and extension officers to ensure that the extension staff are available and ready to cooperate in promoting the adoption of new technologies. The studies showed too often that these links did not exist, especially when the two groups were in separate departments. In Thailand, the required links arose from personal contacts. In Isabela, Philippines, extension workers were diverted from FS researchers by technological change promoted by the private sector. Group 2: Policy V. T. Xuan - Vietnam (convenor); F. A. Bernardo - Philippines; S. A. Miah - Bangladesh; S. B. Mathema - Nepal; M. 0. Adnyana - Indonesia; J. Hardie - IDRC; R. Kirithaveep - Thailand; B. Shinawatra - Thailand; M. Agalawatte - Sri Lanka; and W. D. Dar - Philippines. Issues related to policy implications of the FSR approach were discussed at length. Based on these discussions and the FSR lessons learned from the participating countries, several issues were raised and corresponding recommendations were made. Institutionalizing the FSR approach o To institutionalize the approach at both the national and grassroots levels, there is an urgent need to sell and promote FSR-based ideas to policymakers. This can be achieved by acquainting the policymakers with the results of the FSR programs (i.e., impact studies and information and data on returns to investments). Various other advocacy efforts must also be pursued. A strong political will is a must. o The FSR approach must be adopted on a broader perspective. It is not sufficient to concentrate on the horizontal dimension; there must be a focus on the vertical dimension as well. The vertical dimension would allow promotion of rural agri-based industries and provide opportunities
- Page 211 and 212: Table l. Chronological sequcnce of
- Page 213 and 214: Table l. Chronological sequence of
- Page 215 and 216: Impact studies A number of studies
- Page 217 and 218: some simple statistical tests to as
- Page 219 and 220: assets). Patterns of food consumpti
- Page 221 and 222: Production functions for first-seas
- Page 223 and 224: and nonadopters indicate that there
- Page 225 and 226: E~zdowr~tcnt of l~ouselrol~f assets
- Page 227 and 228: variety, inadequate attention was p
- Page 229 and 230: Table 1. Farming system research si
- Page 231 and 232: Table 4. Comparison of levels of in
- Page 233 and 234: Table-6. Compariso~i of le\.els of
- Page 235 and 236: Table 9. Estimated production funct
- Page 237 and 238: Table 11. Factor shares of first-se
- Page 239 and 240: Table 13. Factor slirlres of third-
- Page 241 and 242: Table 15. Endownlent of farm assets
- Page 243 and 244: IAIPACT ASSESShlEhT OF FARMING SYST
- Page 245 and 246: Depending on the adequacy of rainfa
- Page 247 and 248: Demograpllic cllaractehtics. The co
- Page 249 and 250: The major farm implements owned by
- Page 251 and 252: Effect of RWCS on household cash fl
- Page 253 and 254: Table 1. Average cash expenses per
- Page 255 and 256: Table 5. Selected clia~~acteristics
- Page 257 and 258: Table 7. Comparative pcrforinance o
- Page 259 and 260: hiem bers Discussion and Recommenda
- Page 261: Guideline 4: FSR impact projects sh
- Page 265 and 266: Members what is right depends on po
- Page 267 and 268: Decentralization and farming system
- Page 269 and 270: o More program and less project fun
- Page 271 and 272: Bangladesh Mr. RaGqul Islam Banglad
- Page 273 and 274: Dr. N.F.C. Ranawecru Di\ision of .-
- Page 275 and 276: CFTSSF CLSU CSD CSSAC CVIADP CVRP-I
- Page 277 and 278: PIADP PCA PCARRD PHARLAP PSC PTA RA
- Page 279 and 280: Production Team Editor : Michael Gr
o restricted sample size, related to high number of drop-outs, or to<br />
unexpected statistics on adopters and nonadopters;<br />
o civil unrest that limit field surveys;<br />
o natural calamities such as drought, floods, and earthquakes that<br />
hamper field work and distort data (e.g., price);<br />
o complexities of allocation of land to crops (e.g.? <strong>the</strong> third-season crop<br />
in Bangladesh is divided into several plots of different crops, has<br />
mixed crops per plot, and has different crop mixtures per plot); and<br />
o changes in cropping <strong>systems</strong> during <strong>the</strong> course of <strong>the</strong> study, which<br />
amounted to an unanticipated induced technological change (private<br />
sector).<br />
Scope of methodolog for future impact studies on farming <strong>systems</strong> <strong>research</strong><br />
The issue of matching <strong>the</strong> scope of future impact study objectives to time and<br />
resources was examined. Agreement was reached on <strong>the</strong> following few additional<br />
points:<br />
o The need for a restatement of <strong>the</strong> value of forms of ex-ante analysis.<br />
These might include partial budgeting with explicit assumptions with<br />
regard to <strong>the</strong> impact of new technology on adoption, yields, projected<br />
costs, and prices. These assumptions can be made with transferable<br />
baseline data or, if necessary, with educated guesses. Sensitivity analysis<br />
may be added. O<strong>the</strong>r sources are rapid rural appraisal and <strong>the</strong> use of<br />
secondary sources of data.<br />
o The need for concurrent development of methodology to fulfil1 <strong>the</strong> needs<br />
created by designation of hypo<strong>the</strong>ses and objectives. This process was<br />
exemplified by <strong>the</strong> Sri Lanka study, hamstrung though it was in<br />
application.<br />
o The need to give serious consideration to <strong>the</strong> incorporation of additional<br />
assessments. These include equity and gender consequences at <strong>the</strong><br />
household level, <strong>the</strong> sustainability of benefits of technological adoption,<br />
and macro impacts (e.g., net capital flows and changes in input flows to<br />
<strong>the</strong> industry concerned).