CC BY
30Scientific Journal Impact Factor
IMPACT OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOL TRAINING ON LIVESTOCK FARMERS IN KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
Ahmad Fahim Jabari ibn Abdul Jabar Second year economy master student of Termez state university Email: afahim2008@gmail.com Supervisor: Dr.B.Tursunov
Abstract: The farming systems in the study area were diverse. Rice and vegetables in the lowlands and upland rice and perennial crops (rubber, fruits and agro-forestry) in the mountainous areas have been widely promoted. Higher cropping index and increasing households' gross income were evidence in the project villages compared to non-project villages. Mostly rice was combined with duck or fish in lowlands and perennial crops combined with maize or upland crops was introduced to uplands in the project supported areas. In the non-project areas, lowlands occupied by lowland rice, and uplands by either rubber or upland rice and some extents of maize. There was no difference in livestock types and systems between the two areas.
Keywords: farming systems, agricultural economics, production, Development
Аннотация: Системы земледелия на исследуемой территории были разнообразными. Широкое распространение получили рис и овощи в низинах и на возвышенностях. Рис и многолетние культуры (каучук, фрукты и агролесоводство) в горных районах получили широкое распространение. Доказательством более высокого индекса посевов и увеличения валового дохода домохозяйств были в проектных деревнях по сравнению с непроектными деревнями. В основном рис сочетался с уткой или рыбой в низинах, а многолетние культуры в сочетании с кукурузой или горными культурами были введены на возвышенности в районах, поддерживаемых проектом. На непроектных территориях низменности заняты низинным рисом, а на возвышенностях - каучуковым или высокогорным рисом, а также некоторыми участками кукурузы. Между двумя районами не было разницы в типах и системах животноводства.
Ключевые слова: системы земледелия, экономика сельского хозяйства, производство, развитие.
The agricultural economics literature provides various estimates of the number of farms and small farms in the world. This paper provided a more complete and up
INTRODUCTION
Scientific Journal Impact Factor
to date as well as carefully documented estimate of the total number of farms in the world, as well as by region and level of income. It used data from numerous rounds of the World Census of Agriculture, the only dataset available which allows reader to gain a complete picture of the total number of farms globally. The paper provided estimates of the number of family farms, the number of farms by size as well as the distribution of farmland by farm size. These estimates find that: there are at least 570 million farms worldwide, of which more than 500 million can be considered family farms. Most of the world's farms are very small, with more than 475 million farms being less than 2 hectares in size. Although the vast majority of the world's farms are smaller than 2 hectares, they operate only a small share of the world's farmland. Farmland distribution would seem quite unequal at the global level, but it is less so in low- and lower-middle-income countries as well as in some regional groups. These estimates have serious limitations and the collection of more up-to-date agricultural census data, including data on farmland distribution is essential to having a more representative picture of the number of farms, the number of family farms and farm size as well as farmland distribution worldwide. The challenge of feeding the world's growing population without further damaging the natural resource base is becoming increasingly urgent, and must be met in ways that also allow adaptation to and mitigation of climate change. Agriculture provides not only food, but also fuel, fibre and a wide range of ecosystem services. This paper discussed the principles and practices of agro ecology, and how mainstreaming they can potentially meet the challenges facing agriculture and food production. The academic discipline of agro ecology emerged over a century ago. Subsequently, in response to the social and environmental problems caused by the global industrial agricultural and food system, it has become the foundation of both a set of land management practices and a vibrant social movement. The science of agro ecology is the study of living organisms and their inter-relationships in the context of agriculture and land use, and can be seen as the scientific basis of sustainable agriculture. Agro ecology not only defines, classifies and studies agricultural systems from an ecological and corresponding socio-economic perspective, but also applies ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agro ecosystems (Altieri, 1995). This means that it is very useful as a theoretical and practical approach to increasing the sustainability of current agri-food systems. Agro ecology has come to greater prominence since the publication of the 2009 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) which
Scientific Journal Impact Factor
advocated the use of agro ecological approaches in sustainability initiatives. The following year, the United Nations (UN) Special Reporter on the Right to Food also highlighted agro ecology as a viable approach for working towards food security (De Schutter, 2010).The increasingly high profile of agro ecology is reflected in the growing body of evidence on high performing agro ecological management practices. For example, a 3-4 years back study (Pretty, Toulmin and Williams, 2011) examined 40 initiatives employing agro ecological production methods in 20 countries, involving 10.4 million farmers. These included agro ecological approaches to aquaculture, livestock and agro forestry, conservation agriculture, and crop variety improvements with locally appropriate cultivars and cropping systems. Analysis of project outcomes demonstrated not only an average crop yield increase of 113%, but also numerous environmental benefits, including carbon sequestration and reductions in pesticide use and soil erosion. Agro ecological practitioners design food production systems which aim to maintain the functions that natural systems provide, both internal and external to production, and which are robust, productive and equitable. This means integrating instead of segregating, closing systems and relying on local inputs, increasing biological and genetic diversity, and regenerating instead of degrading. Agro ecosystems managed according to these principles look very different from industrial agricultural systems, and are based on a different paradigm. Increasing the use of agro ecological approaches in order to enhance the sustainability of food production would demand social and institutional changes in agricultural communities, the commercial frame work of agriculture, the wider food system, and policies for agriculture, development and trade. The UN Special Reporters on the Right to Food identifies scaling up agro ecological approaches as one of the main challenge of our time, noting both a need for increasing the areas cultivated using agro ecological practices and an enabling frame work for farmers using these practices (De Schutter, 2010).There are significant barriers to achieving this. They include the economic viability of agro ecological approaches in competition with industrial approaches, an international economy dominated by neoliberal narratives, and the vertical, integrated structure and entrenched political interests of agri-businesses. Although informed citizens and markets are powerful mechanisms for shaping resource use and production, and for stimulating creativity and innovation by communities, concerted government action is needed to speed up the spread of agro ecological production, especially while some countries are still moving their agricultural sectors in the opposite direction. Supportive policies will be
Scientific Journal Impact Factor
required if crop and livestock production systems are to be managed as ecosystems, with management decisions fully informed of environmental costs and benefits.
Agricultural Development Economics Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Sarah K. Lowder, Jakob Skoet and Saumya Singh, April 2014
i. Agriculture employs 80 per cent of Afghanistan's 30 million people, but three decades of war cut agricultural productivity by three percent every year, and droughts in the past ten years killed roughly half the nation's livestock.
ii. Today, Afghan agriculture has begun to recover. The country came close to self-sufficiency in cereals in 2009 and 2010, and 25 million head of livestock approaches the pre-war level of 28 million. Farmers are experimenting with new, potentially lucrative crops such as saffron, while learning to quadruple the yield of traditional favorites such as pomegranates.
iii. Afghan agricultural investment and active agribusiness have grown rapidly, spurred on by unexpected global demand for its products, ranging from fresh fruit and vegetable exports to India and the Middle East; raisins (with ISO-9000 certification) to America; concentrated juices to Canada, Britain, Austria and the region; and vigorous sales at trade fairs from Kabul to Dubai to Dushanbe and Moscow.
iv. Eight years of failed agricultural development is being reversed. Poor prioritization of projects, duplication of effort and a lack of cooperation from donors have been replaced by a practical, Afghan-generated, agricultural plan that has the full backing of the international community.
v. Today, Afghans provide the assessments, priorities and diagnostics which only they know best, while the donors follow with financing and technical expertise. Four key ministries (Agriculture, Energy & Water, Rural Rehabilitation and Development, and Counter Narcotics) have been grouped into a team, the Agriculture and Rural Development Cluster (ARD), to more swiftly and efficiently improve rural economics.
vi. Natural resources will be better managed through reforestation, rural electrification and expanding irrigation. Improving rural roads, another ARD priority, will increase farmer access to markets and local governance is being strengthened to better serve the agriculture sector. Agricultural research and extension reform will introduce new, more profitable products and increase harvests from traditional crops, plus introduce better techniques for dry-land farming while value chains are being
FARMING AND CULTIVATION IN AFGHANISTAN
Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, R VOLUME 1 | ISSUE 4
educational, natural and social sciences O ISSN 2181-1784
Scientific Journal Impact Factor SJIF 2021: 5.423
built linking fields to farms, to markets, factories and airports.vii. Economic growth and food security depend upon natural resource management, increasing agricultural production and productivity, improved physical infrastructure and market development. This is the path to poverty reduction, licit crops and national security. This is the mission of the Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock. viii. But our vision cannot be achieved alone. It will require the concerted effort and support of our regional neighbors and international partners. This paper identifies four priority areas 4for regional and international support with recommendations which complement the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, the Agriculture and Rural Development Cluster Strategy and the National Agricultural Development Framework are designed to take forward the regional aspects of outcomes which were supported by regional and international partners at the London and Kabul Conferences. Fourth Regional Economic Cooperation conference on Afghanistan in Istanbul 2010.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The aim of this research was to understand how the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach provided an empirical frame for the research. By reflecting on experiences of FFS participants in East Africa, the research tried to answer how the FFS learning experience play out in the daily lives of participants and their families and the role that FFS play in assisting participants to take control over their own development and enhanced well-being. Conceptually the research was framed by constructivist line of thoughts, adult education and transformative learning theories. The research applied a mixed methods approach with a variety of qualitative and quantitative tools including participatory identification of indicators of empowerment. Data analysis from the quantitative survey work indicated a relationship between farmer participation in FFS and empowerment. The study thus argued for an empowerment route to well-being, triggered by group based learning. The research further indicated significant impact of FFS in terms of building the capacity of people to make choices and decisions that ultimately lead to increased uptake of agricultural innovations, access to services and markets as well as collective action. Qualitative data revealed significant social impacts of FFS in terms of changes in everyday life of participants, transformation of self-concept, change in gender roles and relations, customs and traditions, community relations and an increase in household economic development. A number of pedagogical tools applied in the FFS were found to be instrumental in facilitating transformative learning and empowerment. Major conclusions of the study were the need for
92
Scientific Journal Impact Factor
investment in human capacity and the importance of an appropriate mix of technological and social advancement for development. The implications of the research were relevant within the fields of rural development, gender studies and for transformative learning and adult education theory. Further, the study contributed knowledge on how to measure empowerment in the poverty setting. The farming systems in the study area were diverse. Rice and vegetables in the lowlands and upland rice and perennial crops (rubber, fruits and agro-forestry) in the mountainous areas have been widely promoted. Higher cropping index and increasing households' gross income were evidence in the project villages compared to non-project villages. Mostly rice was combined with duck or fish in lowlands and perennial crops combined with maize or upland crops was introduced to uplands in the project supported areas. In the non-project areas, lowlands occupied by lowland rice, and uplands by either rubber or upland rice and some extents of maize. There was no difference in livestock types and systems between the two areas. There were many additional crops introduced (lychee, mango, pineapple, tangerine) and growing in the project area. Most of the farmers in project participating villages had better understanding on recommended farming practices and activities compared to that in the non-project area. There were gaps in knowledge and technology dissemination in the non-project areas, and the farmers in the project area received farmer training, study tours and information. Some recommended technologies by the project with on-farm experiments were not adopted by participating farmers in project area, while some abandoned and old technologies are seen still being used in these farms indicating that farmers select suitable technologies that match with their needs and resources. Farmers in the project area had opportunities to attend farmer trainings and study tours to other outstanding on-farm research locations in the country, but that opportunity was scanty for those in the non-project area. The knowledge and awareness among the farmers were better with participating in agricultural activities than listening to researchers' views and presented at seminars alone and hence farmers in the project area appeared to be better in the adoption of technologies with on farm research activities than those in the non-project area. Therefore, on-farm trials were conducted with the farmer participation, which will improve farmers' knowledge and exposure to technologies targeted by the project. A constraint for the continuation of promoted technologies is the non-availability of some key inputs, such as seeds, specific varieties, etc. The arrangement of these inputs in the farming areas would enable to increase agricultural productivity and farmers'
Scientific Journal Impact Factor
incomes and livelihood.
This paper evaluated the impact of a pilot farmer-field-school (FFS) program on farmers' knowledge of integrated pest management (IPM) practices related to potato cultivation. They used both re-aggression analyses controlling for participation and a propensity score matching approach to create a comparison group similar to the FFS participants in ob-servable characteristics. Results were robust across the two approaches as well as with different matching methods. They found that farmers who participate in the program have significantly more knowledge about IPM practices than those in the non-participant comparison group. They also find that improved knowledge about IPM practices has a significant impact on productivity in potato production. This paper fined that FFS participation significantly enhances knowledge on pests, fungicides, and resistant varieties - all instrumental in implementing IPM practices. The robustness of the positive results of FFS participation on knowledge is demonstrated by the fact that two separate approaches used for estimating the effect of FFS yield the same result: a fourteen-percentage point increase in knowledge score for FFS participants. While samples of participants were too small to detect statistically significant differences, they also found suggestive evidence that the FFS approach was more effective than the traditional transfer-of-technology approach in imparting knowledge of technical issues related to IPM to farmers. Gains in knowledge were 86% higher with FFS that with the traditional approach used in the program. They showed that farmers with higher levels of knowledge have significantly higher levels of productivity, and estimated that, by increasing knowledge, FFS participation can raise the average potato seed output/input ratio by 4.1, or approximately 52% of the average value in a normal year. Finally, they end with a cautionary note that because the FFS pilot in Peru was started only recently, they did not examine the extent of knowledge diffusion from FFS participants to other farmers.
The survey was designed and undertaken as a composite of sample survey exercises of focus group interviews on key informant panel settings and household interview of different units of samples, selected through multi-stage random sampling techniques. This section of the report describes the methods used in carrying out the outcome monitoring.
METHODOLOGY OF OUTCOME RESEARCH
Scientific Journal Impact Factor
CONCLUSION
This study provides important insights into and important evidence on the impact of farmer field schools in Kabul province. The research was designed using a quasi-experimental design technique - a combination of provisions for comparing the findings under "Before-and-After" and "With-and-Without" approach, the study evaluated and FFS project of National Horticulture and Livestock Project funded by World Bank. The objectives of the study was to Examine the type livestock improved practices received by the target farmers, to examine the number of the livestock farmers confirm understand the practices and to find out the number of the farmers adopted the improved practices.
1. Database of NHLP, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Project 2021
2. World Bank, Technical Annex for the Emergency Horticulture and Livestock Project, May 2006
3. According to UN Comtrade. See World Bank, "Understanding Gender in Agricultural Value Chains: the Cases of Grapes/Raisins, Almonds, and Saffron in Afghanistan", June 2011
4. Abdul Samad Nazari - Regional Coordinator of NHLP MAIL 2020 (Focus on different agricultural sectors in Afghanistan)
5. Dr. Hamed Parsa, Lecturer in Balkh University - Microbiology
6. According to UN Comtrade. See World Bank, "Understanding Gender in Agricultural Value Chains: the Cases of Grapes/Raisins, Almonds, and Saffron in Afghanistan", June 2011
7. Central Statistics Office.http://cso.gov.af/Content/files/ 12-4.pdf Accessed in December 2011.
8. Central Asia One Health Project, National Economic Impact Report, Tajikistan, September 2011
9. The four pillars are: (i) Natural Resource Management; (ii) Agriculture Production and Productivity; (iii) Economic Regeneration; and (iv) Program Support and Change Management.
REFERENCES
