Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:52:06.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IMPACTS OF CROP IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH ON FARMERS' LIVELIHOODS: THE CASE OF WINTER-SOWN CHICKPEA IN SYRIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 February 2013

AHMED MAZID ,
KAMIL SHIDEED ,
MOHAMED EL-ABDULLAH ,
GHASSAN ZYADEH  and
JUMA'A MOUSTAFA
AHMED MAZID*
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria
KAMIL SHIDEED
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Aleppo, Syria
MOHAMED EL-ABDULLAH
Affiliation:
Damascus University, Faculty of Agriculture, Syria
GHASSAN ZYADEH
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension Directorate, Syria
JUMA'A MOUSTAFA
Affiliation:
Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension Directorate, Syria
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: A.Mazid@cgiar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This study presents farmers’ evaluations of the performance of winter-sown chickpea technology developed by ICARDA relative to traditional spring planting, and assesses impacts of this technology on farmers’ livelihoods in Syria. Ascochyta blight, insects and weeds were the most important factors affecting productivity of winter-sown chickpea, according to 480 farmers. Among package components, crop varieties were widely adopted and most farmers adopted other components. The winter-sown chickpea area is expanding, particularly in drier regions that do not traditionally grow chickpea. Adoption was higher for better-off farmers – poorer farmers generally prefer to see positive effects first. Adoption over time is accelerating, with obvious benefits: yields have increased by 18% in drier areas and 32% elsewhere in Syria. Winter-sown chickpea technology increased incomes for all adopting households with greatest impact among poorer farmers. All gains are important because chickpea contributes 22% of total household income and should increase with further increases in package adoption.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2013 , pp. 336 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bellon, R. M., Adato, M., Becerril, J. and Mindek, D. (2003). The Impact of Improved Maize Germplasm on Poverty Alleviation: The Case of Tuxpeno-derived Material in Mexico. FCND Discussion Paper No. 162. Washington, DC: IFPRI.Google Scholar
Bourdillon, M., Hebink, P., Hoddinott, J., Kinsey, B., Marondo, J., Mudege, N. and Owens, T. (2003). Assessing the Impact of High-yielding Varieties of Maize in Resettlement Areas of Zimbabwe. FCND Discussion Paper No. 161. Washington, DC: IFPRI.Google Scholar
Campbell, B. M., Jeffrey, S., Kozanayi, W., Luckert, M., Mutambo, M. and Zindi, C. (2002). Household Livelihoods in Semi-Arid Regions: Options and Constraints. Jakarta, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Discussion Paper 296. Sussex, UK: Institute for Development Studies.Google Scholar
Diagne, A. and Demont, M. (2007). Taking a new look at empirical models of adoption: average treatment effect estimation of adoption rates and their determinants. International Association of Agricultural Economists 37:201–210.Google Scholar
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2004). Eradicating Hunger: Moving from Pilot Projects to National Programmes to Meet the World Food Summit Goal. Field Operation Division's Discussion Paper. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
IAEG (The Impact Assessment and Evaluation Group) (1999). Impact assessment of agricultural research: context and state of the art. Paper presented at ASARECA/ECART/CTA Workshop on Impact Assessment of Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa, 16–19 November 1999, Entebbe, Uganda.Google Scholar
ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas) (1987). ICARDA Annual Report, 1987. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
IFPRI (The International Food Policy Research Institute) (2004). Monitoring, Evaluation, and Impact Assessment of R & D Investments in Agriculture. Learning Module (Working Document). Washington, DC: IFPRI.Google Scholar
Hossain, M., Lewis, D., Bose, M. L. and Chowdhury, A. (2003). Rice Research, Technological Progress, and Impacts on the Poor: The Bangladesh Case (Summary Report) Environment and Production Technology Division. Washington, DC: IFPRI. Available from: http://www.ifpri.org/divs/eptd/dp/papers/eptdp110.pdf.Google Scholar
Kerr, J. and Kolavalli, S. (1999). Impact of agricultural research on poverty alleviation: conceptual framework with illustrations from the literature. In Proceedings of the ETPD Discussion Paper 56. Washington, DC: IFPRI.Google Scholar
Kijima, Y., Otsuka, K. and Serunkuuma, D. (2007). Assessing the Impact of a NERICA on Income and Poverty in Central and Western Uganda. FASID Discussion Paper Series on International Development Strategies No. 2007-10-001. Ibaraki, Japan: University of Tsukuba.Google Scholar
Mazid, A., Amegbeo, K., Shideed, K. and Malhotra, R. S. (2009). Impact of Crop Improvement and Management: Winter-Sown Chickpea in Syria. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Pala, M. and Mazid, A. (1992). On-farm assessment of improved crop production practices in northwest Syria: I. Chickpea. Experimental Agriculture 28 (2):175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shideed, K. H. and El Mourid, M. (eds.) (2005). Adoption and Impact Assessment of Improved Technologies in Crop and Livestock Production Systems in the WANA Region. The Development of Integrated Crop/Livestock Production in Low Rainfall Areas of Mashreq and Maghreb Regions (Mashreq/Maghreb Project). Aleppo, Syria:ICARDA.Google Scholar
Van den Ban, A. W. and Hawkins, H. S. (1988). Agricultural Extension. London, UK: Longman Group.Google Scholar