Transfer of crop protection technologies in developing countries

An appropriate way of evaluating agricultural extension systems is to study their end product or message. One would expect the ideal product to be professional, objective, practical, reliable, up-to-date, market-driven, environment-friendly, integrated and accessible. It should improve farmers’ managerial abilities and stimulate their use of knowledge (Ausher, 1996). Obviously such a message could be generated when all three components, namely growers, research and extension are involved in its formulation, diffusion and adoption. Extension’s particular niche in this context would be the identification of knowledge gaps, initiating ideas for technology development, responsibility for applied research, and disseminating technologies to producers. During the last two decades the performance and outcome of agricultural extension met with an unfortunate crisis in the generation and transfer of technologies in both industrialized and developing countries. By and large, agricultural extension systems are slow in adjusting to the changing environment, characterized by a proliferation of factors within the once much simpler farmer-extension-research relationship. Nowadays, agricultural extension has to cope with the challenges to intensify and diversify production and promote at the same time market-oriented, environment-friendly and sustainable production systems. Ausher, (1997) indicated that the technology development capability of extension is being depleted of its assets: the problem-oriented, empirical, pragmatic and “cheap and nasty” approach. Followed by the field-level expertise, a knack for integrative field diagnosis, field-centered interdisciplinary activity and accountability.