Fragile Ecosystems and Technology Transfer

R P Singh, Associate Director Extension

Fragile ecosystems are important ecosystems, with unique features and

resources. Fragile ecosystems include deserts, semi-arid lands, mountains,
wetlands, small islands and certain coastal areas. Most of these ecosystems are
regional in scope, as they transcend national boundaries. Mountain ecosystems
are susceptible to accelerated soil erosion, landslides and rapid loss of habitat
and genetic diversity. Mountains are an important source of water, energy and
biological diversity. Furthermore, they are a source of such key resources as
minerals, forest products and agricultural products and of recreation. On the
human side, there is widespread poverty among mountain inhabitants and loss of
indigenous knowledge. As a result, most global mountain areas are experiencing
environmental degradation. Hence, the proper management of mountain
resources and socio-economic development of the people deserves immediate
action.

About 10 per cent of the world's population depends on mountain resources. A

much larger percentage draws on other mountain resources, including and
especially water. Mountains are a storehouse of biological diversity and
endangered species. Mountains are highly vulnerable to human and natural
ecological imbalance. Mountains are the areas most sensitive to all climatic
changes in the atmosphere. Specific information on ecology, natural resource
potential and socio-economic activities is essential. Mountain and hillside areas
hold a rich variety of ecological systems. Because of their vertical dimensions,
mountains create gradients of temperature, precipitation and isolation. A given
mountain slope may include several climatic systems - such as tropical,
subtropical, temperate and alpine - each of which represents a microcosm of a
larger habitat diversity. There is, however, a lack of knowledge of mountain
ecosystems. The creation of a global mountain database is therefore vital for
launching programmes that contribute to the sustainable development of
mountain ecosystems.

Technology vs. Recommendations

To maintain and generate database and information systems to facilitate the

integrated management and environmental assessment of mountain
ecosystems, to improve and build the existing land/water ecological knowledge
base regarding technologies and agricultural and conservation practices, there is
a lot to accomplish in India. We have evolved many scientific recommendations
but only few are adopted as technology. Technology evolution and technology
transfer is two altogether different things. Throughout the twentieth century the
uses of the term ‘Technology’ have increased to the point where it now
encompasses a number of “classes” of technology:
Technology as Objects: Tools, machines, instruments, weapons, appliances - the
physical devices of technical performance.

Technology as Knowledge: The know-how behind technological innovation

Technology as Activities: What people do - their skills, methods, procedures,

routines

Technology as a Process: Begins with a need and ends with a solution

Technology as a Socio-technical System: The manufacture and use of objects

involving people and other objects in combination

Technology has a number of distinct characteristics:

1. It is related to Science: Although there is certainly a relationship between

science and technology, there is, except in certain high technology industries,
very little technology that could be classified as applied science. Technology is
marked by different purposes; different processes a different relationship to
established knowledge and a particular relationship to specific contexts of
activity. Change in the material environment is the explicit purpose of technology,
and not, as is the case with science, the understanding of nature; accordingly its
solutions are not right or wrong, verifiable or falsifiable, but more or less effective
from different points of view.

2. It involves design: At the centre of technology lies design. That “design is the
very core of engineering” is affirmed by the requirement that all degree
engineering courses should embody it. The design process in technology is a
sequential process which begins with the perception of a need, continues with
the formulation of a specification, the generation of ideas and a final solution, and
ends with an evaluation of the solution.

3. It involves making: The motivating factor behind all technological activity is the
desire to fulfil a need. For this reason all designs should be made or realized -
whether that be through prototype, batch- or mass- production or some form of
three-dimensional or computer model - if the need is to be truly fulfilled, the
design is to be legitimately evaluated, and the design activity is to have been
purposeful and worthwhile.

4. It is multi-dimensional: Not only may design and production involve co-

operation between different specialists (between, for example, designer,
production engineer and materials scientist), but may involve “technologists” in
performing a multitude of functions, such as working with others, operating within
budgets, persuading decision makers, communicating to clients and working to
deadlines.
5. It is concerned with values: Technology is informed by values at every point.
Value decisions may be called for not only in relation to the specific design
criteria (i.e. aesthetic, ergonomic and economic judgments, suitability for purpose
and ease of manufacture) but also in relation to the rightness or wrongness of a
particular solution in ethical terms.

6. It is socially shaped /shaping: Technological enterprises are determined

neither by advances in knowledge nor simply by the identification of needs, but
by social interests. Of the potential new technologies available at any one time
only a few are developed and become widely implemented. In this way
technology is shaped by society, by consumer choice. Yet it could also be argued
that technology shapes society - the technology of the motor car, for example,
has shaped our environment and our whole way of life.

The transfer of technology model (TOT) of agricultural research is typical of

both national and international agricultural research systems. In the TOT model,
all the key research decisions are made by scientists who experiment on
research stations or under controlled, simplified conditions in farmers' fields. The
resulting agricultural technology, such as pest resistant varieties and
recommendations on fertilization, is then handed over to the extension services
for transfer to farmers. Industrial and green revolution agricultures have been
well served by this model of agricultural research. Reductionist research, high
input packages and top down extension have led to successes: in the uniform
and controlled conditions of industrial and green revolution agriculture they have
raised output per unit of land. The simplifying tendencies of reductionist science
have meshed well with the ecological and social simplicity of standardized,
specialized farming systems.

However, the TOT model of agricultural research has had limited successes in
the context of complex, risk-prone, diverse environments where the majority of
the world's rural people are dependent on this type of traditional agriculture which
is mainly rainfed, on undulating lands and found in mountains, hills, wetlands and
the semi-arid and people live today. The physical and economic conditions on
research stations have, after all, been very different to those of resource poor
environments. For many agricultural technologies developed within the TOT
framework, failure rates have been and remain high: the research priorities often
turn out to be wrong, the packages are rejected, the technologies do not fit, are
non-sustainable or inequitable because of an emphasis on purchased inputs in
resource-poor contexts. Agricultural scientists tend to perceive farming systems
through the narrow window of their professional discipline. Their training has
taught them to look at the aspect of farming systems on which they specialize.
This is usually their main focus of attention when visiting a farm. However, there
are many internal linkages that matter in farming systems, particularly in the
complex farming systems that resource-poor farmers often want, but which
professional disciplines neglect. For example, the link between crops and
livestock is often described in terms of "left-overs", as "crop residues". But in
many farming systems, the stover, used as fodder, is a vital part of the crop and
of the farming system.

This disciplinary specialization often hides from professional view the risk
minimizing strategies built into traditional farming systems. Resource poor
farmers often try to reduce risk by complicating and diversifying their farms and
household enterprises. Furthermore, disciplinary specialists tend to adopt one or
two single criteria to measure performance, e.g. yield, pest resistance. But
farmers as managers of complex, risk-prone systems have many different criteria
which they weigh up and combine in the choice of crop varieties or in the choice
of farm or watershed management activities. When assessing improved pigeon
pea varieties in India, women farmers had some ten different criteria for
assessing varieties that had been advanced by ICRISAT scientists on the basis
of two criteria: yields and pest resistance alone. This raises the central question:
whose knowledge counts? Whose priorities and preferences count? Those of the
scientist or those of the farmer?

The professional challenge for the second decades of Twenty First Century

The professional challenge of both international and national public agricultural

research is to: acknowledge the mismatch between the TOT model of agricultural
research and the priorities and needs of the poorest sections of rural society; and
recognize and build on the potential of complex, diverse and risk prone farming
to meet the twin goals of sustainability and livelihood security.

In practice this means that outside professionals (scientists, donors, development

planners, policy makers...) should reject the arrogant dismissal of non-scientific
or people's knowledge without adopting the naïve, uncritical, view that grass root
organizations and farmers always know best. There is now considerable
evidence that experimentation is the norm rather than the exception among rural
communities, particularly — but not exclusively — in developing countries.
However, it is still heresy to many of today's agricultural scientists and
economists to suggest that farmers and grass root organizations have much to
say in the process of technology generation, diffusion and adaptation. Facing the
professional challenge also means that rural people should meet scientists on
terms of equality. Outside professionals have to recognize that ordinary people
have something to teach them and can become involved in key decisions relating
to R&D priorities (from plant and animal breeding to the overall design of diverse
farming systems and watershed management schemes).

The crisis of the TOT model has already led some agricultural scientists to
explore new approaches that hinge on farmer participation. These Farmer First
approaches reverse parts of the TOT model. Rather than blame farmers'
ignorance or farm level constraints for the non-adoption of agricultural
technology, a reversal of explanation points to deficiencies in the technology and
the very processes that generated it. A reversal of learning has researchers and
extension workers learning with and from farmers and rural people. Roles and
locations are also reversed, with farmers and farms central instead of research
stations, laboratories, scientists and abstract theories. Analysis, choice and
experimentation are conducted by and with farmers themselves, with researchers
and extensionists in a facilitating and support role.

To combine effectively the theoretical insights and technical power of western

science with indigenous knowledge, both Farmer First and TOT approaches are
needed in agricultural research seeking sustainable agricultures. The challenge
is to stimulate the creation of:

New institutional environments. Institutional support is essential for participatory

innovations to spread between and within institutions, and for innovators to gain
the confidence and freedom to act and share.

New learning environments for professionals and rural people to develop

capacities. An interactive learning environment encourages participatory
attitudes, commitment, and contributes to jointly negotiated courses of action.

Appropriate changes in the training and reward systems of scientists and

extension staff are required to encourage more equitable, participatory research
modes in collecting, conserving, genetic and species diversity and in designing
agro ecosystems that rely more on nature's diversity and resilience than on
capital intensive "solutions".

A systematic approach to getting things done

Many works have been done on planning and several programs have been
initiated by state governments and govt. of India for welfare of the farmers. The
rate of transfer of technology is not improving because the implementation
mechanism does not function properly. Now there is need to improve the
processing skills of the delivery managers/ facilitators. Since Agriculture is a state
subject therefore, there are different ways of functioning and different types of
hierarchy available in the country. Then it creates different types of processing
skills.

A systematic approach provides an opportunity to complete a task with a

common understanding. This approach treats a scientists/officer/ facilitator as a
Manager. Managers needed two kinds of skill: first in handling human relations
in their work groups; second in organizing themselves- becoming more aware of
long term problems, knowing when to act, when to ask permission first and when
to spend more time planning. The process of doing any job of work can be
broken down into a number of stages. First, obviously there must be a stimulus to
do something – an order from a boss, an opportunity or a danger seen, or a
desire to be filled.
The preparation stage itself comprises two or three distinct kinds of activity: first,
assembling the information; second, determining from the information what has
to be done. In a job of any size there is a third stage, of making detailed plans –
specifying how, when and where the various activities are to be carried out, and
who is going to do them. These stages of doing a job from a sequence, is called,
‘a systematic approach to getting things done’.
The stages of systematic approach
Information
This stage consists of specifying all the information relevant to your aims, which
you either know already or need to find out. Some types of information are: facts
(their probability, and the evidence on which they are based); ideas (including
possible ways of tackling the job); and degree of risk (How high are the stakes?
What do we lose if we go wrong?) Sometimes the highest risk lies in inaction,
delaying so that nothing gets done at all, and that too must be weighed.
What has to be done (WHTBD)
This stage consists of stating from the information, the main steps that have to be
taken to meet the objective, and establishing their priorities. Sometimes this
means fixing on an idea that was produced in the information stage. As long as
an idea is merely a possibility, it remains information. But when you decide to
follow it, it becomes as it were an order to yourself or to the group – in other
words, something to be done.
Planning
Systematic Approach breaks down the process of specifying how a job is to be
done, into two distinct stages. In the WHTBD stage the broad priorities are
established; the planning stage supplies the details which are necessary to carry
WHTBDs into action. The distinction is of great practical importance, especially in
a complex job, since if you do not establish all the WHTBDs first, you may get
into action on part of the job, before you realize what is involved, and have no
resources left for finishing it. The resource that runs out most easily is time. I
have a timetable for writing this book; if I forget that one WHTBD is to give my
colleagues a change to read it, I am likely to find the time is up and the job is not
finished.
A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH

TASK

AIMS
PURPOSES Why – What for – Whom for – Benefit?

END At the conclusion of this task

RESULTS

STANDARDS Measures, indicators of achievement

INFORMATION Facts – ideas – skills – resources

(Known & needed) – Options – risks

WHAT HAS TO BE DONE Steps, stages, sub-tasks?

PLAN who does what, now, when, where

ACTION Do it!

REVIEW Assess results against aims

What more to do relate to aims
Analyze success and difficulty so as to improve

(Coverdale Model)

Action
The action stage is where the plan is carried out. One benefit of systematic
approach is that it leads directly and methodically from aims to action, so that
someone who follows it is carried along the stream and is much less likely to
surrender to inertia, and discover reasons for doing nothing. Everyone knows
how great a problem this can be: one can think hard about digging the garden for
most of the weekend, but the garden is still horribly likely to remain undug!
Review
When the action is complete, it should be reviewed. Two sorts of questions need
to be asked:
1. About the job itself. Have we achieved what we set out to do? What more
has to be done? Can we improve the result?
2. About methods of work. Can we improve the way we worked? Where
were the snags and how can they be avoided another time? What were
the successful parts of the exercise, which we can adopt and use on other
occasions?
Summary
Systematic Approach is valuable for individuals, but it comes into its own when it
co-ordinates the work of a team. Its main benefits are:
1. It ties action to thought, so that thinking leads naturally into doing.
2. It lets one tackle large, complex problems in small bites, and so build up
confidence from progress.
3. It provides a deliberate method of learning from experience.
4. It helps one discover what stage other people are at, and keeps one’s
contribution in phase with the meeting.
5. It enables a group to co-ordinate their thinking and focus all their minds
simultaneously on one aspect of the topic.
6. It allows people who work together regularly to identify what stage of
systematic approach each does best and so move forward at the pace of
the fastest.
7. It provides a pilot for uncharted waters; when one is faced with a situation
right outside one’s experience, it provides at least somewhere to start.
8. Since it can be applied to open problems, it can be used on the very open
problems of human interaction.

References:

Chambers, R., Challenging the professions: Frontiers for rural development, Intermediate
Technology Publications, London, 1993.
MacRae, R.J. et al., "Agricultural science and sustainable agriculture: a review of existing
scientific barriers to sustainable food production and potential solutions", in Biological
Agriculture and Horticulture, 6:173-219, 1989.

Max Taylor, “Coverdale on Management,” Second edition,1992. Butterworth Heinemann Ltd,

Jordan Hill, Oxford OX28DP

Pimbert, M.P., Designing integrated pest management for sustainable and productive futures,
International Institute for Environment and Development, Gatekeepers Series Nº 29, Sussex,
1992.

Richards, P., "Farmers also experiment; a neglected intellectual resource in African science",
Discovery and Innovation, 1(1):19-25.