Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change … · 2019-07-09 · Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change adaptation: opportunities and

Full Terms amp Conditions of access and use can be found athttpswwwtandfonlinecomactionjournalInformationjournalCode=tcld20

Climate and Development

ISSN 1756-5529 (Print) 1756-5537 (Online) Journal homepage httpswwwtandfonlinecomloitcld20

Technology transfer and adoption for smallholderclimate change adaptation opportunities andchallenges

Laura Kuhl

To cite this article Laura Kuhl (2019) Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climatechange adaptation opportunities and challenges Climate and Development

To link to this article httpsdoiorg1010801756552920191630349

Published online 28 Jun 2019

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change adaptationopportunities and challengesLaura Kuhl

School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs and International Affairs Program Northeastern University Boston USA

ABSTRACTTechnologies help build farmer resilience to climate change but the relationships among technologytransfer adoption vulnerability and resilience are not well-understood This paper empiricallyexamines the technology transfer process for smallholder farmers in Honduras from an adaptationperspective It addresses two questions (1) How does technology transfer contribute to pathwaysto resilience for smallholder farmers (2) What challenges do these efforts face in meeting diversefarmer needs and overcoming barriers to technology adoption by the most vulnerable to climatechange These questions are analysed in the context of United States governmentrsquos Feed theFuture initiative Interviews with smallholder farmers were conducted regarding experiences withtechnology transfer adoption choices and perceptions of climate change The study found thatwhile adoption rates were high overall the pace of adoption was still slow demonstrating atension between the urgency of climate change and the pace of smallholder adoption The studyfound that many technologies increase resilience but may not always be adaptive in the long-termand that significant resources are needed to successfully transfer technologies to smallholderfarmers This study provides evidence of ways agricultural technology projects contribute topathways to resilience and demonstrates barriers to their success

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 23 February 2018Accepted 5 June 2019

KEYWORDSClimate adaptationresilience Hondurastechnology adoptiontechnology transferagriculture

1 Introduction

Adoption of new technologies is a critical component of agri-cultural adaptation (Christiansen Olhoff amp Traerup 2011Holt-Gimeacutenez amp Altieri 2013 Porter et al 2014) Farmershave utilized appropriate technologies to adapt to droughtand other climatic changes historically (Bryan Deressa Gbeti-bou amp Ringler 2009 Deressa Hassan Ringler Alemu ampYesuf 2009 Lybbert amp Sumner 2012 Mortimore amp Adams2001 Smit amp Skinner 2002 Tambo amp Abdoulaye 2012) butthere is growing recognition that past coping strategies maybe insufficient Farmers will need to adopt new technologiesparticularly as climate change increases the speed and scale ofchange some of which may need to be introduced to themthrough technology transfer (Howden et al 2007 Lipperet al 2014 Steenwerth et al 2014 Wheeler amp von Braun2013)

Despite the growing literature on technologies for agricul-tural adaptation that has identified the utility of various tech-nologies for addressing climate impacts the process oftechnology transfer and adoption for adaptation remains poorlyunderstood What is known based on studies looking at tech-nologies transferred through United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF)projects is that there is an emphasis on diffusion of domesticlsquolow-techrsquo solutions and a reliance on a wide diversity of tech-nologies which is a sharp contrast to the majority of climatetechnology transfer examples found in the literature whichtend to focus on lsquohighrsquo technologies from foreign sourcesand single technological solutions (Biagini Kuhl Gallagher

amp Ortiz 2014 Tessa amp Kurukulasuriya 2010) suggesting thattechnology transfer for adaptation displays different character-istics than mitigation-focused technology transfer and isworthy of additional study

A particular challenge for technology adoption for adap-tation is how to balance the pace of adoption necessitated bythe urgency of climate change (IPCC 2018) and the risk aver-sion associated with technology adoption for smallholder farm-ers This tradeoff leads to potentially complex dynamicsbetween technology adoption vulnerability (both climate-specific and broader social and economic vulnerability) andclimate resilience Understanding the relationships among vul-nerability resilience and technology adoption is essential fortechnology transfer for adaptation

This paper examines the process of technology transfer andadoption for smallholder farmers from an adaptation perspec-tive specifically focusing on this potential tension betweenurgency and risk aversion Based on an analysis of farmer inter-views in Honduras this paper seeks to contribute to the scho-larly debates on two questions 1) How does technologytransfer contribute to pathways to resilience for smallholderfarmers 2) What challenges do technology transfer for adap-tation efforts face in meeting diverse farmer needs and over-coming barriers to technology adoption by the mostvulnerable to climate change

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows Section 2presents the conceptual framework followed by the method-ology results and a discussion of the implications for therelationships among technology adoption vulnerability and

copy 2019 Informa UK Limited trading as Taylor amp Francis Group

CONTACT Laura Kuhl lkuhlnortheasternedu

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENThttpsdoiorg1010801756552920191630349

resilience The paper concludes with lessons learned for tech-nology transfer for adaptation

2 Conceptual framework

21 The role of technology in supporting adaptationand resilience

Farmers can increase their climate resilience through multiplepathways Resilience can be conceptualized in many waysbut is frequently described as a set of capacities allowing indi-viduals and communities to withstand both short-term shocksand long-term stressors (Beacuteneacute Headey Haddad amp von Greb-mer 2016) Resilience in agricultural systems depends on resi-lience at multiple scales from the scale of an individual plant tothe farm to the household as well as landscape and societalscales (Altieri Nicholls Henao amp Lana 2015 Bailey amp Buck2016 Cohn et al 2017) Many agricultural technologies aredesigned to reduce climate risk either by reducing sensitivityor exposure to climate impacts (Biagini et al 2014 Eichbergeramp Guerdjikova 2012 Zilberman Zhao amp Heiman 2012) Theagricultural sector is vulnerable to multiple climate impactsincluding increased heat droughts increased salinization andmore extreme events as well as broader system-level impactssuch as disruptions to agricultural supply chains caused byextreme events (Cohn et al 2017 Field Barros Stocker ampDahe 2012 2018) Technologies such as crop varieties withheat tolerance salinity tolerance drought resistance or fast-maturation as well as water technologies including irrigationwater conservation and storage technologies can all help tomitigate these impacts (Cohn et al 2017 Vermeulen et al2012) Management techniques which can also be introducedthrough technology transfer efforts including planting prac-tices soil and water management and changes in planting tim-ing can all be used to manage climate risks as well

In addition to increasing resilience at the plant level resili-ence at the farm level can be built through crop diversificationstrategies Much of the literature on technology for adaptationfocuses on specific technologies such as drip irrigation ordrought-resistant seeds (Christiansen et al 2011 Goldstein2015 Sharma amp Moehner 2011 Tambo amp Abdoulaye 2012Traeligrup amp Stephan 2015) However it is increasingly recog-nized that resilience requires redundancy and flexibility andtherefore a focus on a suite of technologies may be more con-sistent with reducing climate vulnerability than transfers ofindividual technologies (Fleischer Mendelsohn amp Dinar2011 Kassie Jaleta Shiferaw Mmbando amp Mekuria 2013Low Ostrom Simon amp Wilson 2003 Sayer amp Cassman2013) Technologies need to be carefully chosen to ensurethat technology transfer efforts do not increase vulnerabilityrather than reduce it (Chambers Pacey amp Thrupp 1989Dewulf 2013 Snapp Blackie amp Donovan 2003)

Increasing the diversity in agricultural systems can buildecological resilience It can also spread farmer risk in case ofa particular crop failure Farmers can also increase their econ-omic resilience by intensifying their productivity switching tohigher-value production and diversifying into new markets(Kuhl 2018) These strategies provide households with greaterincome less reliance on single sources of income and can also

directly improve their food security Finally households canengage in off-farm strategies to increase resilience Livelihooddiversification is a common risk management strategyalthough evidence suggests that smallholders have fewer oppor-tunities to engage in livelihood diversification strategies com-pared to larger landholders (Cohn et al 2017) While muchof the research on farmer resilience has utilized either physicalor economic indicators as described above social factors suchas social networks and perceptions of ability to manage shocksand stresses are also critical (Barrett amp Constas 2014 Beacuteneacuteet al 2016)

Most research on adaptation in the agricultural sector to-date has focused on incremental adaptation strategies thatreduce sensitivity or exposure to climate risks at the plant orfarm scale but transformational adaptation at larger scalesmay also be needed (Park et al 2012 Wise et al 2014 Fazeyet al 2015) Incremental adaptation is often conceptualized aslsquoextensions of actions and behaviours that already reduce thelosses or enhance the benefits of natural variations in climateand extreme eventsrsquo (Kates Travis amp Wilbanks 2012) whiletransformational adaptation is envisioned as longer-termlarge-scale rapid change including a directional shift in prac-tices and a significant deviation of the status quo (Beacuteneacute Corne-lius amp Howland 2018 Few Morchain Spear Mensah ampBendapudi 2017 Wise et al 2014) Adaptation strategiessuch as income diversification off-farm employment andmigration represent more transformational strategies Whiletechnologies are likely able to address many incremental adap-tation approaches it is less clear how (and if) technological sol-utions support transformational strategies

Each of the strategies described above from strategies toimprove ecological resilience on-farm to strategies to decreasefarmer risk and diversify livelihood strategies contribute to thepathways through which farmers can build their adaptivecapacity and resilience Technologies play an important rolein building these pathways but technologies alone are insuffi-cient to achieve these pathways to resilience See Figure 2 foran example of how the technologies in the case study contributeto pathways to resilience

22 The technology transfer process for adaptation

Technology transfer is the process of sharing information andresources in this case with the aim of helping farmers adaptto climate change According to the IPCC technology transferis defined as encompassing lsquothe broad set of processes thatcover the flows of knowledge experience and equipment formitigating and adapting to climate change among different sta-keholdersrsquo (Metz et al 2000) Technology includes both lsquohard-warersquo and lsquosoftwarersquo or knowledge and techniques needed tomake use and understand the hardware placing knowledgeand absorptive capacity or the ability to use external knowledgeat the centre of technology transfer (Abramovitz 1986 Boze-man 2000 Brooks 1995 Cohen amp Levinthal 1990 Ockwellamp Mallett 2012 Grubler 1998 Bell amp Pavitt 1993) The historyof technology transfer particularly in the agricultural sector isrich with examples of failed attempts to transfer technologyultimately because of a poor alignment between the technologybeing introduced and the needs or desires of the intended users

2 L KUHL

of the technology as Douthwaite eloquently chronicles in hisbook Enabling Innovation (Douthwaite 2002) Building onthe lessons of these past experiences will be critical to the successof technology transfer for adaptation

Although technology itself is critical the technology transferprocess is ultimately about relationships between the holders ofknowledge of a technology and the intended users of the tech-nology Depending on the symmetry of information sometechnology transfer efforts are better described as technologycooperation This term is preferred in some cases because ofthe lack of agency embedded in the concept of the technologytransfer in which the end users are passive lsquorecipientsrsquo Becausethe relationship between those introducing technology andthose adopting it is so key to the technology transfer processtechnology does not need to be new at the global level thenovelty to adopters is the critical aspect (Brooks 1995 Rogers1995) This is particularly true for adaptation where many ofthe technologies being introduced are relatively lsquolow-techrsquo butare still novel to intended users

Technology transfer is widely acknowledged as a criticalcomponent of sociotechnical change and a significant bodyof research has examined the process of technology transferin the context of climate change However most of that litera-ture has focused on mitigation which may display differentpatterns compared to adaptation particularly in developingcountry contexts One challenge is that the private sector istypically the most important actor in technology transfer (Gal-lagher Grubler Kuhl Nemet amp Wilson 2012 Lorentzen2009) but is often weak in developing countries Because incen-tives for private sector engagement are still poorly understoodfor adaptation other actors are more likely to play key roles intechnology transfer for adaptation (Biagini amp Miller 2013Pauw amp Pegels 2013 Tompkins amp Eakin 2012) In somecountries this role may be filled by government through struc-tures such as state-owned enterprises but many governmentsare also weak particularly in less-developed countries Inthese contexts NGOs and international organizations may pro-vide functions typically envisioned for firms such as providinggoods and services developing new technologies and testingnew processes and investing capital (Thomas amp Slater 2006Williams and Woodson 2012) Relatedly markets often donot function well resources are more constrained poor infra-structure acts as a barrier indigenous capabilities to developtechnologies are not as advanced project execution skills arelacking and the ability to mobilize finance is limited allessential enabling factors for technology transfer (Hayamiamp Ruttan 1985 Amsden 2001 Clark 2002 Arocena andSutz 2005 Lorentzen 2009 Williams and Woodson 2012Ockwell Sagar amp de Coninck 2014 Ockwell and Byrne2016) These factors make it more challenging to implementtechnology transfer efforts because an enabling environmentfor such transfers is weak

Another challenge is that adaptation strategies rarely rely onsingle technologies Agricultural production is more unstableand location-specific than industrial production because ittakes place in biological systems that are constantly evolvingnecessitating significant local adaptation (Biggs and Clay 1981Clark 2002 PCAST 2012) Rather than efforts that focus oninteractions between one firm and another technology transfer

for adaptation is more diffuse because agricultural systems indeveloping countries are characterized by a large number offarmers and decentralized producers (Biggs and Clay 1981) Assuch technology transfer efforts must focus on the transfer ofa whole suite of technologies which must be modified to meetthe individual needs of diverse farmers Although technologiesfrequently need to be adapted to local circumstances this is par-ticularly true in agriculture because smallholder productionoccurs in many different ecological niches (Cohn et al 2017Vermeulen et al 2012) At the same time characteristics of agri-culture also facilitate technology transfer and adoption Forexample annual crops provide frequent adoption opportunitiescompared to long-term technologies such as infrastructure

23 Linking technology transfer and adoption

The ultimate goal of technology transfer efforts is technologyadoption Adoption can be defined as lsquoa change in practice ortechnology used by economic agents or a communityrsquo (Zilber-man et al 2012) Many factors across scales contribute to suc-cessful technology adoption Stability of markets foragricultural products supply systems for inputs market infor-mation infrastructure and risk reduction mechanisms such asinsurance can all help to reduce the risk of adopting new tech-nologies (Aker 2011 Thomas amp Slater 2006) Extension ser-vices tailored to the individual needs of farmers attention tothe social dynamics of technology diffusion and a focus onthe enabling conditions needed to build missing marketssupply chains and linkages between farmers and marketshelp increase the adoption of technology (Foster amp Rosenzweig2010 Feder Just amp Zilberman 1985 Feder amp Umali 1993Rogers 1995 Ruttan 1996 Zilberman et al 2012)

Individual level factors also influence technology adoptionMany factors including risk tolerance education incomeand social networks contribute to producer managementdecisions (Foster amp Rosenzweig 2010 Feder et al 1985Hayami amp Ruttan 1985 Rogers 1995) These factors suggestthat economically or socially vulnerable individuals are lesslikely to adopt new technologies compared to more advantagedfarmers (Gershon Feder amp Umali 1993 Foster amp Rosenzweig2010 Rogers 1995 Smit amp Skinner 2002 Zilberman et al2012) However to support adaptation technologies need tobe adopted by those who are vulnerable to climate changeFrom the literature on adaptation we know that there is astrong correlation between those that are economically andsocially vulnerable and those that are more exposed to climaterisks often described as lsquodouble exposurersquo (Burnham amp Ma2016 Feola Agudelo Vanegas amp Contesse Bamoacuten 2015OrsquoBrien amp Leichenko 2000) This suggests that adoption oftechnologies to support climate resilience will be more challen-ging for those most vulnerable to climate change Climatechange itself may exacerbate this challenge Climate changeintroduces additional uncertainty (in terms of unknown cli-mate impacts and unknown responses) on top of the risk anduncertainty inherent in technology adoption For risk-aversefarmers this additional uncertainty may pose an additionalbarrier to technology adoption

Technology adoption is important step in the technologytransfer process but it does not imply that the technology

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT 3

transfer process is complete Diffusion of the technologiesbeyond the original recipients as well as modification andadaptation of the technologies to better meet local contextsare all critical components of the technology transfer process(Rogers 1995) It is also important to look at disadoptionwhich refers to an initial decision to adopt a new technologyand subsequent decision to abandon this technology Disadop-tion is different from non-adoption because an individual orig-inally chose to adopt the technology Examining patterns ofdisadoption provides insights into the reasons users may be dis-satisfied with a technology or it may not have met their needs

The three components discussed above are summarized in aconceptual model of successful technology transfer for adap-tation articulating how the technologies included in the casestudy contribute to pathways to adaptive capacity and resilience(Figure 1) This conceptual model forms the basis of analysisfor the empirical study

3 Methodology

The analysis is based on interviews and field visits with small-holder farmers that participated in the United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID) project called ACCESO(named because ACCESSO means access in Spanish) in Wes-tern Honduras between 2010 and 2014

31 Case selection

USAID-ACCESO was selected as a case study for severalreasons 1) it introduced a wide range of technologies andcrops to farmers 2) it targeted the most vulnerable farmers liv-ing in a region that is highly vulnerable to climate change and3) it operated at a fairly large scale (targeting 30000 house-holds) with an intensive model of technology transfer (consist-ing of weekly technician visits) USAID is the largestdevelopment partner in Honduras and this project representedthe largest-scale agricultural development project in thecountry While USAID-ACCESO was not a climate changeproject climate-smart agriculture was a cross-cutting themeand resilience was one of the key objectives of the projectAlthough explicit climate adaptation projects represent onemechanism through which to transfer adaptation technologiesthe amount of climate finance available is insufficient to addressadaptation goals As such it is important to understand the

potential as well as the limitations of other mechanisms fortransferring adaptation technologies including developmentprojects like USAID-ACCESO

32 Regional selection

Two of the six regions in which USAID-ACCESO was activewere selected The department of Lempira was selected becauseit has very high poverty rates limited access to markets moun-tainous terrain and high vulnerability to droughts all of whichpresent constraints to the pathways to resilience envisionedthrough the ACCESO project (see Figure 2) An analysis con-ducted by the International Food Policy Research Institute(IFPRI) found that it can takemore than 7 h for farmers in Lem-pira to reach the nearest market of more than 25000 inhabitants(Ifpri 2013) The department of Santa Baacuterbara was selectedbecause it has a variety of microclimates including lowlandareas with extreme heat various crop opportunities and signifi-cantly higher access tomarkets due to both its geographic proxi-mity to major cities and transportation infrastructure

33 Respondent selection

Interviews were conducted in November and December 2013with 100 smallholder farmers in the departments of Lempira(50) and Santa Baacuterbara (50) inWesternHonduras Respondentswere selected from registered project participants with asampling strategy designed to capture geographic and altitudinalvariation across the two departments To meet this goal villageswere selected across the departments that had at least five regis-tered participants in the project Within selected villages inter-view participants were randomly selected from amongregistered project participants in order to minimize bias in thesample (ie to ensure that the technicians did not select themost successful participants or the ones they knew the best forinclusion in the study) Best efforts were made to locate theselected participant When it was not possible to locate the par-ticipant a replacement was chosen from the same village byidentifying the next participant on the list It is important tonote that not all registered participants were actively engagedin the project By selecting randomly from the list of registeredparticipants it ensured that the study included participantswho originally registered but had since chosen not to continuewith the project It was important to select villages with at

Figure 1 Conceptual Model of Technology Transfer for AdaptationNotes Successful technology transfer is conceptualized as requiring three components 1) technologies that support adaptation 2) transfer mechanisms that can meet diverse farmer needs and3) strategies to overcome barriers to adoption Only when these components are in place are the conditions right for sustained adoption of adaptation technologies by the most vulnerable

4 L KUHL

least 5 registered participants because of the group model oftechnology transfer (See Section 42) and the social nature oftechnology adoption

34 Interviews

Semi-structured interviews with farmers were conducted by theauthor in Spanish After initial questions regarding the cropsgrown and area under cultivation farmers were asked to describeeach step in the production process from soil preparation andplanting to harvesting Follow-up questionswere asked to identifythe use of techniques and technologies that USAID-ACCESOintroduced When these techniques were identified participantswere asked when they started using them how they learnedthem what purpose they served how they compared to previoustechniques and whether they planned to continue using themThis open-ended format was used to help minimize bias thatcould have been introduced by farmers thinking that they weresupposed to be using certain technologies After determiningusage patterns questions explored farmer knowledge and aware-ness of new techniques Interviews addressed whether the adop-tion of new techniques had led to changes in the farmersrsquo livesincluding impacts on income costs and purchasing decisionsas well as non-monetary changes such as changes in time motiv-ation etc These questions were intended to contribute to theunderstanding of the contributions of technology adoption tothe resilience pathways for farmers Interviews also addressedexperience with climate change Farmers were asked whetherthey had observed differences in climate between now and thepast andwhat the impacts of these changes had beenon their pro-duction Frames such as lsquowhen they were a childrsquo or lsquobefore Hur-ricane Mitch (1998)rsquo were used to clarify the difference betweenlong-term trends and weather fluctuations Interviews continuedwith a discussion ofwhether any of the new techniques could helpaddress these observed impacts or if there were any other strat-egies that they knew of to manage these impacts Finally inter-views addressed farmer plans for the future and ifhow theyplan to use the information

Whenever possible results were triangulated to ensure thevalidity of responses Interviews concluded with a tour of thefarmerrsquos plot allowing for confirmation of the use of techniques

as well as identification of additional crops that the farmer hadomitted during the interview Follow-up and clarifying ques-tions as well as personal observation during field visits wereused to supplement data collected during interviews

In addition to the farmer interviews key informant inter-views with stakeholders engaged in the project as well as partici-pant observation were conducted to better understand theperspective of both sides of the technology transfer process Asdiscussed in Section 2 technology transfer is about the relation-ships between the originators and the recipients of the technol-ogy and as such it was important to gain insights into thestrategies used by the project to transfer technologies thesources of the technologies factors they considered importantfor the technology transfer and the barriers that they identifiedin the transfer process Twenty-eight interviews with stake-holders involved in USAID-ACCESO in various capacitieswere conducted (5 with government officials and other donors6 with USAID staff 5 with senior managersdirectors of the pro-ject implementer and 12 with field staff) Interviews discussedthe following themes their role with the project the challengesthe project faced barriers to technology adoption opinions onthe technology transfer model and perspectives on resilienceThe stakeholder interviews informed the analysis of the farmerinterviews but were not formally analyzed themselves

35 Analysis

The primary analysis is based on a qualitative content analysisof farmer interviews and consisted of identification of technol-ogy and crop adoption rates and patterns among differentgroups of farmers assessment of barriers and motivations foradoption impacts of adoption perceptions of climate changeand relationships among climate perception adaptationoptions and resilience With the permission of participantsall farmer interviews were recorded and transcribed Ninety-six of the 100 farmer interviews were analyzed The remainingfour interviews were excluded because of technical issues thatprohibited transcription

Interviews were coded using the qualitative data analysissoftware NVivo Interviews were coded based on demographicvariables identified in the literature as relevant to technology

Figure 2 Pathways to Resilience in USAID-ACCESONotes Technology transfer strategy of USAID-ACCESO and how it contributed to pathways to resilience

adoption including gender age and geographic locationBecause of the path-dependent nature of technology adoptioneach farmer was categorized as a staple crop coffee or horticul-ture grower based on the crops grown before the project startedand as non-adopters basic adopters or advanced adopters inorder to analyze adoption patterns for different groups of farm-ers Basic adopters were defined as those who adopted at leastone production technique for staple crops Advanced adoptersincluded those who had adopted at least one new crop or newtechnique associated with horticulture Dis-adoption (an initialdecision to adopt and then subsequent decision to stop usingthe new technique or crop) and future adoption plans werealso coded

Technology adoption choices were coded according to thefollowing themes favourite techniques least favourite tech-niques most challenging techniques to learn and additionaltechniques they were interested in learning Experience withthe technology transfer model were coded using the followingthemes how they learned of the new techniques awarenessof USAID-ACCESO and any positive or negative commentsregarding the project andor its technicians and comparativeexperiences with other projects Interviews were coded withthe following themes related to climate change climate obser-vations impacts on production and strategies to address cli-mate change

Adoption percentages were calculated for different types oftechnologies and crops and disaggregated based on farmercharacteristics Based on farmer responses motivations andbarriers for adoption were also analyzed qualitatively withspecial attention paid to differences across groups Farmer per-ceptions of climate change its impacts on production andadaptation strategies were analyzed to identify key climateimpacts of concern for farmers and the extent to which thetechnologies they were adopting addressed these concernsStrengths and weaknesses of patterns were determined basedon the consistency of farmer responses and analysis of thetext of the interview responses Based on these empirical resultsimplications for technology transfer to address vulnerabilityand build resilience and the limits or barriers to its successwere explored The analysis was structured based on the con-ceptual framework identified in Section 2 (Figure 1) of the pro-cess of successful technology transfer for adaptation

35 Limitations

While the qualitative nature of the interviews provided richinsights into farmersrsquo experience the relatively small samplesize precluded statistical analysis Additionally the data werecollected at a single point in time It would be illuminating tocompare results at different points in time allowing for greateranalysis of the pace and sequencing of adoption While inter-views at a single point in time can capture some of the resilienceimplications of technology adoption this approach did notallow for the empirical measurement of changes in resilience

More broadly technology adoption was measured by farmerself-reporting which could introduce bias Bias could also havebeen introduced because research was conducted in collabor-ation with USAID This collaboration provided essential accessto the farmers that were participating in the project and

increased the legitimacy of the study However there are clearlytradeoffs between the access and legitimacy afforded by colla-borating with USAID and the potential for bias this introducedSeveral techniques were employed to attempt to limit this bias1) random sampling was used to ensure that technicians werenot selecting participants that they felt would provide positiveperspectives 2) I was transparent with participants about myrole as an independent researcher and not an employee ofUSAID or its contractors 3) after an initial introduction bythe USAID technicians staff left the site of the interview andallowed the interview to be conducted privately 4) I explainedthat USAID was interested in feedback and improving the pro-gramme Because the project was only partway through andbecause a follow-up project targeting the same populationwas already being planned this was a significant motivator

The analysis was conducted in a single country Thus thefindings may not be generalizable to other contexts Similarlythe process of technology adoption is highly dependent onthe technology transfer mechanism (in this case the USAID-ACCESO project and its approach) Technology adoption pat-terns and the relationships between adoption vulnerabilityand resilience may be different with other technology transfermodels Finally while climate change was a component of theUSAID-ACCESO project it was not the primary objective ofthe project Technology transfer and adoption patterns wouldlikely look different in a project focusing on adaptation andresilience

Despite these limitations this analysis provides importantinsights into factors that influence technology adoption andthe relationships among technology transfer vulnerabilityand resilience for smallholder farmers in a tropical developingcountry context This analysis should be viewed as a theory-building study and the findings further tested and validatedusing other case studies and quantitative approaches

4 Context

41 The dry corridor of honduras

Honduras is the second poorest country in the Western Hemi-sphere second only to Haiti Nationally the poverty rate in2011 when the project began was approximately 66 andthe extreme poverty rate was 45 (USAID 2011) Much ofthis poverty is concentrated in the Western region whereUSAID-ACCESO operated Chronic undernutrition rates arealso very high at 50 for the region compared to a nationalaverage of 25 (USAID 2011) Western Honduras is part ofthe Dry Corridor of Central America named for frequentdroughts associated with the El Nintildeo phenomenon The moun-tainous terrain includes varied microclimates and is known forcoffee production with over 100000 coffee producers morethan 90 of whom are smallholder farmers (IHCAFE 2015)In addition to coffee most households produce maize andbeans Yields are low with average maize production of 223kilograms and bean production of 529 kilograms (IFPRI2013) Horticulture production is increasing driven by demandin urban centres and the emergence of supermarkets (Bloom2015 Key amp Runsten 1999) although very few participantsin USAID-ACCESO (6) sold horticulture prior to the project

6 L KUHL

demonstrating that poor farmers were not participating inthese opportunities (IFPRI 2013) Since 1994 with the passageof the Law of Agricultural Modernization Honduras has hadvery little public agricultural extension and technical assistanceto farmers particularly in the Western region has been pro-vided primarily through NGO projects or private sector inputproviders Recently the vulnerability of the Dry Corridor ofCentral America has been placed in the spotlight due to thelsquomigrant caravanrsquo of immigrants to the United States

42 The USAID-ACCESO project

USAID-ACCESO was a project implemented in Honduras aspart of the United Statesrsquo global food security and nutritioninitiative Feed the Future The goal of the project was toraise household incomes above $125 per person per day Theproject was based on a sustainable intensification strategy andemphasized high-value horticulture production Sustainableintensification approaches seek to increase productivity whiledecreasing negative impacts of agriculture (Campbell Thorn-ton Zougmoreacute Van Asten amp Lipper 2014 Garnett et al2013 Lin Perfecto amp Vandermeer 2008) As part of its strat-egy to improve agricultural production and reduce povertyUSAID-ACCESO facilitated the transfer of technologies tofarmers These included 1) new production techniques 2)new crops particularly horticulture and 3) new business pro-cessing and marketing techniques (See Table 1) As previouslydescribed USAID-ACCESO was not explicitly an adaptationproject although climate-smart agriculture was a cross-cuttingtheme and increasing household resilience was an objective

Project technicians met with farmers in groups of 5ndash10approximately every 10 days to transfer the tacit knowledgeneeded to select utilize and modify the technologies cropsand techniques Technicians were all Honduran nationalsmost of whom had been trained as agronomists A total of122 production technicians were employed by the project(USAID 2015) Unlike many technology transfer projectsthat select a specific technology and measure success by ratesof adoption of that technology (See (Douthwaite 2002) for agood example of failed technology transfer in agriculturaldevelopment) the project did not have a preselected technol-ogy Rather technicians worked with farmers to identify asuite of techniques and new crops that each farmer was inter-ested in adopting Analysis conducted by the project foundthat if farmers only adopted techniques for staple crops theaverage household would need 5 hectares to achieve the projecttargets while the average landholding was less than 05 hectaresThey concluded that only through the adoption of multipletechnologies including new crops could households moveout of poverty (USAID 2015) (Table 1) The project focusedon addressing knowledge barriers technical barriers and facil-itating the enabling environment for participation in agricul-tural markets all with the goal of helping farmers improvetheir yields incomes and livelihoods (See Figure 2) Althoughthe design of the project was not participatory the implemen-tation of the project at the household level did leave significantroom for individual farmer preferences

The average income of project participants at the begin-ning of the project was $089 per person per day Of the

34031 participating households 89 were below the povertyline 27857 were below the national extreme poverty line($181 per person per day) and an additional 2526 werebelow the national poverty line ($242 per person per day)(USAID 2015) Participants had an average landholding ofless than half a hectare and limited education (49 of par-ticipants had a less than 3rd grade level) (USAID 2015)Compared to the population of the region as a wholewhich had a poverty rate of 45 participants in the projectwere significantly poorer which was to be expected giventhat the project targeted those making below $125 per day

43 Interview participants

Study participants were compared to the overall population ofparticipants in USAID-ACCESO (Table 2) The distributionacross initial crops of interviewed farmers was similar to theoverall population Thirty-four percent grew only maize and

Table 1 Agricultural production technologies introduced through USAID-ACCESO

Technology Category Description Examples

Basic agriculturalpractices

These basic techniquesrepresented the corelsquotechnology packagersquointroduced to producersThey were appropriate formaize and beans but alsofor other crops

Soil preparation

Density planting(also for coffee)

Lime application

Appropriate fertilizeruse

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops andadvancedagricultural practices

Horticulture crops wereintroduced along withassociated techniquesThese techniques requiredhigher investments (interms of capital labour orknowledge) compared tothe basic practices

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Mulching and livebarriers

Integrated pestmanagement (alsofor coffee)

Improved seeds

Contouring andterraces

Transplanting (alsofor coffee)

Soil water and pestsampling (also forcoffee)

Coffee managementpractices

These techniques werespecific to coffeeproduction Because coffeeis a perennial opportunitiesto use some of thesetechniques only arose at keymoments

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Processing andmarketingtechniques

In addition to agronomictechniques producers wereintroduced to a wide rangeof business marketing andprocessing techniquesdesigned to improve theirinvestments

Business plandevelopment

Post-harvestprocessing and valueaddition

Access to financialservices

Organizationlegalization ofcooperatives

Classification ofproduction

The different crops techniques and technologies introduced by the USAID-ACCESO project are described here along with examples in each category

beans Fifty-five percent produced coffee almost all of whom(92) also grew maize and beans There was wide variationamong coffee producers for some coffee served as their pri-mary livelihood while others had limited production Eightpercent of the sample grew vegetables for sale before USAID-ACCESO started

The share of females in the sample is smaller than the sharein the project overall This discrepancy is not surprising as theproject included participants in both production and microen-terprises In Honduras most women do not consider them-selves to be farmers even if they are involved in farmingactivities and therefore more commonly self-selected into themicro-enterprise components of the project Because thesample for this study was drawn only from production clientsthere was a higher share of males Household size was also animportant characteristic for USAID-ACCESO because house-hold poverty was calculated based on the per-capita incomeof the household Since land was a significant constraint onproduction larger households required more efficient pro-duction to achieve the same per-capita income as smallerhouseholds

5 Results and discussion

51 Technologies that support adaptation

The first part of this analysis considers the technologies beingintroduced and how they support climate adaptation Premisedon the understanding that technologies for adaptation mustaddress climate impacts the analysis begins with a discussionof climate observations and projections in the region followedby an analysis of farmer perceptions regarding climate changeand the role of technology in addressing it It concludes with aconceptual model of the contributions of technology transfer tofarmer pathways to resilience

511 Climate observations and projectionsWestern Honduras has a wet and a dry season and is stronglyinfluenced by the El Nintildeo Southern Oscillation (ENSO)phenomenon a global variation in wind and sea surface temp-eratures that affects the climate of much of the tropics ENSOleads to large variations in temperature and rainfall withyears experiencing an El Nintildeo event causing warm and wetweather and the alternative pattern La Nintildea being associatedwith periods of cooling and drought As such in Western Hon-duras inter-annual temperature anomalies (15 C) are largerthan the observed warming trend (09 C) suggesting that

variability is currently the dominant pattern (Parker et al2014) Temperatures are projected to increase between 10and 25 C by 2050 with significant impacts on water resourceavailability Since 2007 rainfall patterns have been character-ized by a very unstable climate with rapid alternation of exces-sive wetness (over 10 anomalies) and dryness events (over 4anomalies) (Parker et al 2014) Although recently the regionhas experienced above-average rainfall (due to ENSO patterns)long-term projections suggest a 10ndash20 decrease in precipi-tation by 2050 While overall precipitation has increased thishas occurred in a smaller number of rainfall events a patternprojected to intensify with time (Magrin et al 2014 Parkeret al 2014) Consistent with observed changes climate modelsproject a shift in the peak in maximum temperatures from lateMarch to late April and a delay in the onset of the rainy seasonwith implications for agricultural production (Parker et al2014) These patterns suggest that while climatic changesmay be observable they are likely due to a combination of fac-tors including ENSO climate change and local land-usechange

512 Farmer perceptionsOne hundred percent of respondents had observed changes inthe climate in the past 2ndash3 years compared to the past (Table 3)The most commonly-used phrase was that the weather waslsquocompletely crazyrsquo now Sixty-three percent described the cli-mate as hotter and only 3 as colder each of those whoobserved a colder climate cited local reforestation effortsForty-five percent of respondents said that the climate has got-ten drier while only 5 said that it has gotten wetter Theremaining 50 did not describe changes overall although sev-eral commented that it has become wetter in winter and drier insummer

Thirty-one percent of respondents described the rain asmore intense and an additional 12 described it as more vari-able in its intensity Whereas farmers characterized rainfall inthe past as lsquosoft gentle and evenrsquo they described todayrsquos rainfallas lsquointense unpredictable and harshrsquo Participants remarkedthat it would rain as much in the span of a day or two aswould normally fall over a whole month Over 75 of respon-dents said that rainfall was less predictable and 54 commen-ted on a shift in the timing of the rainy season They describedhow in the past the first rain would always begin in the lastweek of May and they could be assured of planting at thattime Now rainfall patterns are more sporadic and it is difficult

Table 2 Comparison of study participants to all participants in USAID-ACCESO

Study Sample USAID-ACCESO participants

Initial Crops GrownMaize and beans only 34 38Coffee 55 56Other (including horticulture) 10 6

Female 14 20Average household size 53 54Total 96 34031

This table compares the study participants with the overall population of participantsin the USAID-ACCESO project Data for the USAID-ACCESO participants is drawnfrom the project baseline survey and final report (IFPRI 2013 USAID 2015)

Table 3 Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change and Alignment with ScientificRecords

Qualities ofweather

Farmerperceptions Alignment with scientific records

Temperature Hotter 63 HotterColder 3

Predictability ofrainfall

Less predictable75

Less predictable as well as a shift intiming

Shift in timing54

Amount of rainfall Drier 45 Recent period wetter than average butpredicted to become drierWetter 5

Farmers have observed many changes in todayrsquos climate compared to the pastwith negative impacts on their production These observations are in alignmentwith the scientific observational records

8 L KUHL

to know when the rains will arrive and whether they will beconsistent enough for a successful growing season Thesechanges made it challenging for farmers to identify clear trendsAlthough the observational record indicates a period of above-average rainfall recently it is not surprising that many farmersdescribe conditions as drier as the available water for pro-duction may have declined despite absolute rainfall increasesThese observations are consistent with what is described inthe climate literature as non-stationarity which means thatevents do not follow predictable patterns and donrsquot displaythe same statistical properties as expected historically (Millyet al 2008)

Almost all farmers believe that climatic changes have had anegative impact on their production Only three producersidentified positive outcomes related to opportunities to plantcrops that previously only grew at lower elevations The mostcommonly-identified problem was lack of rain and rainfall pre-dictability (27 respondents) Predictability of rainfall wasdeemed critical for labour coordination so as not miss the win-dow of opportunity for planting Sixteen respondents describedhow excessive or intense rain has negatively impacted their pro-duction particularly for coffee Nineteen producers expressedconcern that increased temperatures and rain led to higherpest and disease incidence such as potato blight Four farmersidentified increased heat as a negative impact Farmersexpressed concern that if temperatures increased high-elevation coffee might decrease in quality and lose the premiumprice it currently receives Farmers also observed that lower-elevation coffee is more susceptible to disease and speculatedthat the coffee rust epidemic could be related to climate changea link supported by the academic literature (Avelino et al 2015Gay Estrada Conde Eakin amp Villers 2006 Laderach et al2011) From this analysis it is clear that farmers in Hondurasare in need of adaptation technologies to help them managethe increasing climate shocks and stresses they are alreadyexperiencing and which are projected in the future

513 Technologies and pathways to resilienceWhile farmers were aware of climate impacts very few couldidentify ways to adapt to these changes The most commonresponse was that nothing could be done other than pray forrain Of identified adaptation options the most frequently(almost universally) cited was irrigation Those with irrigationdescribed the ways that it allowed them to plant and harvestwithout dependence on rainfall and attributed much of theirsuccess to its use Drip irrigation was viewed as a prerequisitefor horticulture adoption Drip irrigation can be a very effectiveadaptation strategy because it allows for highly controlledefficient water use and can help increase the resilience of small-holder farmers but is only an appropriate adaptation strategyfor some farmers depending on the resources they have avail-able Investing in irrigation is frequently not an individual-leveladaptation decision because it requires a community-level sys-tem to transport water from the source to the field (Hanif2015) Access to irrigation also decreased farmer anxietybecause they knew that they had an option if they needed itThose without irrigation expressed fatality regarding their abil-ity to adapt These perspectives highlight that irrigation maycontribute to resilience more broadly than just through its

impact on production by also impacting emotional well-beingand sense of self-efficacy

While USAID-ACCESO did introduce drip irrigation atechnology that farmers clearly identified as addressing anadaptation need this was not the only technology transferredthrough the project with the potential to build climate resili-ence Techniques introduced to increase yields of staple crops(many of which are also applied to the high-value crops)directly address climate impacts For example techniques toconserve soil and water will help during droughts Some ofthe other technologies transferred through the project focusedmore on building the capacity of households to withstandshocks and stresses associated with climate change Forexample connecting farmers to markets helped farmersincrease their incomes and build savings which they coulduse during bad seasons Figure 2 demonstrates the technologytransfer strategy of USAID-ACCESO and its various contri-butions to pathways to resilience

Although the technologies introduced can improve resili-ence there are limits to the extent they can address adaptationchallenges (Adger et al 2009 Dow et al 2013) For some farm-ers the risks associated with climate change may be too large toovercome through the types of adaptation technologies intro-duced through USAID-ACCESO For example lack of accessto water emerged as a fundamental constraint to the potentialfor irrigation technology to contribute to resilience Amongproducers that did not have irrigation (81) 29 said thatthey did not have access to water Even when a water sourcewas available producers needed to purchase drip irrigationEven for 1 tarea or 116 of a hectare this represented a signifi-cant investment of $48 (for context the average householdincome at the beginning of the project was $089 per personper day) (Hanif 2015) As drought risk increases in the regiondue to climate change water may become more of an absolutelimit to production Production may become more constrainedand in extreme cases agriculture may become untenable as alivelihood strategy More radical strategies and alternativeadaptation pathways such as a transition out of agriculturemay become necessary

Other strategies may be currently feasible but may not beappropriate in the long-term While horticulture may increaseresilience by rapidly raising household income and diversifyinglivelihood options the long-term feasibility of this adaptationstrategy may decline over time as water resources become morestressed Most horticulture is very water-intensive making it arisky investment unless water is available Identification of high-value crops that are less vulnerable to water stress particularlyintermittent water availability may be necessary Selecting moredrought-resistant varieties of crops could also help to expandadaptation limits Perennial crops such as avocados or otherfruit trees may be more strategic (Parker et al 2014)

When technology transfer occurs in isolation and not as partof a holistic approach to building resilience pathways adap-tation technologies may not achieve their goals For examplealthough it may be possible to achieve short-term gains withoutinvesting in land preparation and soil and water conservationpractices long-term adaptive pathways will likely requiresuch investments Only through transformations of socialstructures like land tenure arrangements can barriers to

adoption of these approaches be overcome (Feola 2015OrsquoBrien amp Selboe 2015 Pelling OrsquoBrien amp Matyas 2014)

52 Transfer mechanisms that can meet diverse farmerneeds and strategies to overcome barriers to adoption

As discussed in Section 2 identifying technologies to supportadaptation is not enough The next step in successful technologytransfer for adaptation is to identify and employ transfer mech-anisms that address diverse farmer needs and utilize appropriatestrategies to overcome barriers to adoption This section ana-lyzes the technology transfer mechanisms in USAID-ACCESOand how this influenced farmersrsquo adoption of the technologiespaying attention to differences across farmers

The model of technology transfer used by the USAID-ACCESO project differed from traditional firm-to-firm modelsof technology transfers in ways that are consistent with expec-tations of what technology transfer for adaptation would looklike USAID-ACCESOrsquos model of technology transfer facili-tated technology adoption but did not provide technologiesdirectly This model was initially poorly received by farmerswho were familiar with other organizations (primarily NGOsand faith-based organizations) in the region that donatedseeds or provided other tangible inputs Without tangibleincentives for participation it took longer to demonstrate thevalue of the technical assistance offered This was particularlytrue for the poorest farmers for whom the lack of donationsrepresented a more significant barrier to technology adoptioncompared to farmers who had more personal resources avail-able for investment

This model however led to more sustained adoption byincreasing the likelihood that farmers were making adoptiondecisions because they saw the value and were willing tomake the investments needed to maintain use Many farmersbegan to appreciate the value of the tacit knowledge beingoffered in this model of technology transfer Once farmerswere engaged in the programme their concerns shifted to thefrequency with which they received technical assistance orinterest in training on additional crops indicating an engage-ment with the approach The sustainability of the technologytransfer model was important to farmers and this approachleft them confident in their ability to continue to use the newtechniques after the project finished By supporting farmersto improve their production and engage in new livelihoodopportunities such as horticulture production for marketsthis model of technology transfer increased resilience to specificclimate impacts through the introduction of agronomic tech-niques but also contributed to farmer resilience more broadlyby empowering farmers Because farmers were not given anyinputs they gained confidence that the successes they observedwould continue to be achievable long after the end of the pro-ject This confidence then translated to increasing ambition anda feeling of empowerment as to their future and their own con-trol of that future Ultimately this empowerment may contrib-ute more to the resilience of farmers than any specific technicalskill gained through the project

Although the technology transfer methodology was flexibleand could be tailored to the needs and desires of individualfarmers and their land the project followed a fairly linear

model overall The project began by introducing techniquesfor staple crops (maize and beans) and progressed to higher-value horticulture crops while also working with coffee produ-cers The complexity of technologies increased across this gra-dient as did the level of investment and the risk associated withadoption but the payoffs also increased Processing and mar-keting techniques were introduced alongside agronomic tech-niques mostly for horticulture

The introduction of new production techniques for maizeand beans was often the entry point for technology transferAlmost every farmer grew staple crops (94 grew maize and78 grew beans) and many of the poorest farmers and thoseon themostmarginal land only grewmaize and beans thus tech-nology transfer of these techniques was critical for reaching themost marginal farmers These techniques formed the technicalfoundation for more advanced techniques and did not requirelarge (or any) financial investment Relatively basic technicalchanges including planting density proper fertilizer use andminimum tillage can dramatically improve yields The nationalaverage yield is 116 kilograms per acre Based on demonstrationplots the basic techniques introduced by USAID-ACCESOcould increase yields to 348 kilograms per acre and the completepackage of techniques could produce 1163 kilograms per acre(Lardizaacutebal 2013) Farmers observed significant yield increasesafter adopting basic practices and techniques estimating thatyields doubled In addition farmers were reluctant to reduceproduction for home consumption so improving efficiency ofstaple crop production was the only way to create space for hor-ticulture for land-constrained farmers

Although there was a strong logic for the order in whichtechnologies were introduced it did have some drawbacksThe sequencing of technology introduction also played animportant role in the pace at which technologies were adoptedSoil preparation techniques including weeding minimum til-lage contouring and raised beds were consistently identifiedas the most difficult techniques to adopt Because they requiredmore labour than spraying with herbicides many farmersviewed them as a costly investment Soil preparation alsorequired advance planning Farmers explained that they wereinterested in adoption but had missed a narrow planting win-dow (particularly if they did not have access to irrigation)Because soil preparation was the first step in the technologytransfer process it served as a barrier to overall adoption Anadvantage of starting with soil preparation however was thatit required no financial commitment which was importantfor limiting farmer risk exposure as it allowed time for thefarmer and the technician to develop a relationship and com-mitment to change before making expensive financial invest-ments In the long term starting with the most committedfarmers may prove to be very effective for widespread diffusionof the technology Social networks are critical for the diffusionof technologies and early adopters play an important demon-stration role (Rogers 1995 Strang amp Soule 1998) Farmers whoface more barriers can learn from the experiences of early adop-ters thus increasing their own chances of success and perpetu-ating a positive diffusion process

Another barrier to technology adoption identified by produ-cers and technicians was land ownership which is widelyacknowledged to be a barrier to agricultural technology

10 L KUHL

adoption (Gershon Feder amp Umali 1993 Gebremedhin ampSwinton 2003 Place amp Swallow 2000 Rogers 1995) Rentersworried that they might lose access to their land the followingyear creating a barrier for techniques requiring large upfrontinvestments of labour such as proper soil preparation raisedbeds and terraces They also expressed concern that landlordsmight raise rents if they improved the land creating a perverseincentive to adopt any techniques that would increase pro-ductivity Most of the literature on land ownership and technol-ogy adoption has focused on longer-term investments such asterracing rather than seasonal land preparation like minimaltillage (Nowak 1987 Place amp Swallow 2000) AlthoughUSAID-ACCESO promoted terracing and other long-terminvestments in soil and water conservation there was minimaladoption among either renters or landowners suggesting thatrenting was not in fact the primary barrier to adoptionAdditional research on the barriers to adoption of soil andwater conservation techniques would be helpful as these arelikely to play an important role in adaptation On the otherhand because renters paid to rent the land on which theygrew maize for household consumption they were particularlyinterested in yield-increasing techniques For example onefarmer reduced the land he rented by half by increasing hisyields saving 500 lempiras (approximately $25) per seasonwhich he invested in coffee and horticulture production Forthese producers adoption of new techniques led to lowerinput costs and the cost savings opened opportunities to investin more lucrative activities

53 Sustained adoption by the most vulnerable toclimate change

If technology transfer is to support smallholder adaptationproducers need to adopt the technologies In this sectionrates of technology adoption as well as patterns of adoptionare analyzed Particular attention is paid to who has adopteddifferent technologies and what they chose to adopt

Seventy-six percent of interviewees had adopted at least onetechnology or crop promoted by the project and an additional5 expressed plans for future adoption (Table 4) Consideringthe barriers smallholders face for technology adoption and theirrisk aversion the decision to adopt new technologies or crops isnot made lightly

A key way of distinguishing farmers is by their initial pro-duction staple crops coffee or already engaged in horticulture(Table 4) These groups had different rates of adoption and alsomade different choices as to what to adopt

Farmers growing only staple crops unsurprisingly mostcommonly adopted techniques associated with maize andbeans Despite the fact that the techniques for maize andbeans were the easiest to implement approximately 40 ofproducers had not adopted them Some producers hadstrongly-held beliefs about the process of growing traditionalcrops and were resistant to expert advice Farmers offeredlsquobecause this is how we have always done itrsquo to explain theircontinued use of traditional practices These relatively lowrates of adoption indicate the high barriers to technology adop-tion facing smallholder farmers

A significant percentage of farmers engaged in coffee pro-duction (55) Coffee producers were less likely to adopt tech-niques for staple crops but more likely to adopt horticultureSome coffee farmers were the most reluctant adopters Manycoffee producers were accustomed to minimal investments(including labour) which made annuals like vegetables lessappealing The behavioural change required to produce veg-etables was more difficult particularly for older coffee produ-cers During the study period a coffee rust epidemic hitCentral America damaging harvests and killing many plantsCoffee rust is a fungal disease and its frequency and severityare projected to increase with climate change (Avelino et al2015 Gay et al 2006 Laderach et al 2011) Many farmershad invested all their savings (and some had taken loans) topurchase new rust-resistant varieties They also invested signifi-cant time growing seedlings and planting them The coffee rustepidemic played a dominant role in the adoption of new pro-duction techniques and crops serving both as a barrier andan enabler of adoption Due to the lost income and investmentsrebuilding their plantations many coffee producers believedthey were not in a position to adopt new technologies orcrops and did not imagine they would be able to do so beforethe new plants produced a harvest This suggests that as climatechange worsens and events like the coffee rust epidemic becomemore frequent farmers may be less inclined or less capable ofadopting resilient technologies At the same time the epidemicalso served as a motivation for technology adoption

Despite the significant hardship and increased vulnerabilitycaused by the coffee rust epidemic it opened awindow of oppor-tunity Many producers were re-planting their plantations fromscratch providing an opportunity to adopt more sustainableplanting techniques such as proper plant spacing and appropri-ate fertilization Mature coffee plants only need to be replantedevery four to five years so opportunities to change behaviouron a large scale are rare Producers were interested in learningbetter management techniques to ensure that they donrsquot

Table 4 Adoption of technologies based on initial crops grown

Initial cropAdopted basic practices

(staple crops)Adopted coffee

practicesAdopted horticulture and

associated practicesNo

adoptionNo adoption butplanning to

Number ofparticipants

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Coffee 25 (51) 20 (38) 35 (66) 12 (23) 5 (9) 53Horticulture 7 (88) NA 8 (100) 0 0 8Other NA NA 0 2 (100) 0 2Total (of eligible) 53 (59) 20 (38) 59 (61) 23 (24) 5 (5) 96

This table identifies adoption rates for different types of technologies (including new crops for horticulture) based on the initial crops farmers grewProduction in a home garden for household consumption was not countedFour coffee growers did not produce maize or beans and were not included when calculating adoption percentagesParticipants received technical assistance for non-agricultural income-generating activities

experience similar crises in the future The rust epidemic alsoprovided an opportunity to diversify beyond coffee Sixty-sixpercent of coffee producers began growing horticulture for mar-ket production Younger producers were particularly interestedbecause they did not see a future in coffee due to the low prices inthe global market and the coffee rust epidemic These producerswere investing in horticulture at a larger scale than farmersgrowing only staple crops Because of their experience withcoffee they were familiar with producing for a market andaccustomed to taking risks and investing in their production

Farmers already growing horticulture crops had the highestadoption rates of any group with 100 adopting either a newhorticulture crop or new techniques associated with horticultureand all but one also adopting new techniques for staple cropsBecause horticulture production is highly correlated withimproved incomes (this was the whole basis for the project) itcan be assumed that those farmers already growing horticulturewere less poor than those only growing staple crops (althoughinterviews did not formally collect household income data)

Although the highest risk and the highest barriers to entryhorticulture crops and associated techniques were the mostcommonly adopted with 63 of farmers planting at least onenew crop (Table 5) Despite the higher barriers to adoptionthe pace of adoption for horticulture was faster as farmerscould observe results within a few months The impact interms of income gains was also most dramatic Horticultureproduction was also novel so news travelled quickly throughouta community If the early adopters continue to be successful itis likely that many other farmers will follow in their path Theprimary explanation offered by farmers for adoption was thathorticulture was lsquonewrsquo and lsquoexcitingrsquo This suggest that under

the right conditions even farmers that face significant barriersare willing to engage with technology transfer efforts Pepperspassionfruit carrots squash and tomatoes were the most com-monly adopted crops but in total 29 different new crops wereadopted (Table 5) Many farmers experimented with a widerange of new crops It was not uncommon to adopt three orfour or even more new crops Peppers and tomatoes were pop-ular with 28 and 22 of horticulture adopters adopting eachrespectively (adoption rates were similar irrespective of theinitial crops grown) These are central to the Honduran dietwhich meant that they were familiar to farmers and had localmarket demand While they required larger investments andwere more vulnerable to pests and disease they were alsohigher-value crops and it was possible to generate significantincome

Horticulture production was particularly interesting towomen Home gardens could play a role in exposing farmersto new techniques crops and measures to improve their pro-ductivity which could later pave the way to production forthe market Because there were fewer expectations regardingtheir prior farming knowledge female farmers were particu-larly open to the technical assistance offered by the projectIn households with little or no adoption women oftenexpressed more interest than their husbands in the new tech-niques suggesting that women could serve as an entry pointfor technology transfer

Staple crop producers were more likely to adopt avocadoesand bananas and plantains (29 compared to 6 for coffeegrowers and 13 for horticulture producers) because thesecrops did not require irrigation and these farmers were theleast likely to have access to irrigation or the ability to investin it Among coffee growers that adopted horticulture 41adopted fruit trees with passionfruit particularly high with 11adopters In contrast only 16 of non-coffee-producing horti-culture adopters adopted fruit trees and only 3 adopted pas-sionfruit Passionfruit was heavily promoted by the projectbecause of strong market opportunities something that coffeeproducers were particularly well-prepared to engage withCoffee producers also expressed preferences for perennialcrops like fruit tress because of the similarities in maintenanceto coffee

While many farmers had adopted at least one new techniqueor crop (76) the decision to adopt a new technology did notimmediately translate to significant improvements in wellbeingor other indicators of increased resilience to climate changeOnce farmers decided to adopt new technologies andorcrops most still required multiple years to adopt it on theirfull landholding and many adoption decisions were madesequentially necessitating multiple growing seasons Severalfactors contributed to the slow pace of adoption Frequentlyfarmers particularly those without irrigation only had oneplanting cycle annually They had a limited window in whichto adopt new techniques and there was a significant delaybetween adoption and observable results which slowed thediffusion process Many farmers were knowledgeable aboutvarious techniques and convinced of their utility but hadlearned about them after planting and therefore had to waituntil the following year to adopt them Some farmers hadonly adopted one or two technologies while a whole suite are

Table 5 Horticulture adoption

Initial Crop

Maize andbeans Coffee Horticulture Other Total

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

Pepper 24 29 38 28Passionfruit 18 31 0 23Carrots 18 29 0 22Squash 12 14 75 22Tomato 18 20 38 22Cabbage 12 26 13 20Radish 12 23 0 17BananaPlantain

29 6 13 13

Cucumber 12 14 13 13Green Bean 6 20 0 13Yucca 12 11 25 13Avocado 24 6 0 10Mustard 0 14 0 8Watermelon 0 0 63 8Eggplant 18 3 0 7Onion 12 3 0 5Non-adopter 16 (48) 18(34) 0 2 (100) 34 (35)Plan to adopt 3 (9) 5 (9) 0 0 8 (8)Dis-adoption 3 (9) 8 (15) 0 0 11 (11)

This table identifies which horticulture crops were adopted by farmers based onwhat they originally grew It distinguishes between adopters non-adoptersthose that had not yet adopted but had plans to adopt horticulture in the futureand disadoption

Percent of horticulture adoptersPercentages do not total to 100 because all disadopters were still active adop-ters of other crops

12 L KUHL

necessary to achieve significant gains in productivity Othershad adopted a range of technologies but only on a small frac-tion of their field Historically many agricultural technologieswith promising laboratory results failed to live up to expec-tations under the suboptimal conditions of most smallholderplots suggesting that farmer skepticism is warranted(Chambers et al 1989 Snapp et al 2003) For farmers incre-mental adoption served as a means of determining if technol-ogies that were successful elsewhere would be successful intheir own case Only once incremental adoption decisions arescaled up will adoption have a significant impact on resilience

6 Conclusion

This study looked at the process of technology transfer andadoption among smallholder farmers in Honduras to gaininsights into technology transfer and adoption for adaptationThrough a case study it sought to provide insights to two ques-tions 1) How does technology transfer contribute to pathwaysto resilience for smallholder farmers 2) What challenges dotechnology transfer for adaptation efforts face in meetingdiverse farmer needs and overcoming barriers to technologyadoption by the most vulnerable to climate change This analy-sis was conducted by looking at three components of the tech-nology transfer and adoption process 1) Technologies thatsupport adaptation 2) Transfer mechanisms that can meetdiverse farmer needs and strategies to overcome barriers toadoption and 3) Sustained adoption by the most vulnerableto climate change

The study found that many technologies increase resilience ingeneral by for example increasing farmer incomes in the shortterm but may not respond to climate impacts or be adaptive inthe long-term Climate information is important at both thefarmer and programme levels Explicit climate considerationsmay lead to better selection of technologies in programmes Dis-cussions with farmers of climate change and adaptation benefitsare also necessary to promote informed decision-making par-ticularly when technology adoption involves trade-offs betweenshort-term gains and long-term risks

Another finding was that significant resources are needed tosuccessfully transfer technologies to smallholder farmersespecially when targeting the most vulnerable as will frequentlybe the case for adaptation Despite a considerable investmentnamely $40 million and a full-time staff of over 200 technol-ogy adoption rates were not sufficient to bring the project targetof 12500 households above $125 per person per day by the endof the project period As discussed raising household incomesis only one measure of increased resilience which alone doesnot capture the full range of potential resilience impacts oftechnology transfer for adaptation but income is strongly cor-related with other measures of resilience and thus this indicatesthe substantial effort required to transfer adaptation technol-ogies to this population The diversity of farmer circumstancesand need for individualized training increased the amount ofeffort and limited the rapid scale-up of technology transferefforts While providing options met individual farmersrsquoneeds this diversity added to the challenge of transferring tech-nologies (Feder et al 1985 Kassie et al 2013 Zilberman et al2012) This challenge is likely to be common for many

adaptation technology transfer efforts as diversification is akey adaptation strategy and smallholder farmers occupy awide range of agro-ecological niches Diversity also led to chal-lenges of scalability For certain strategies to be successful (ieproduction for a market) a certain economy of scale isrequired potentially putting farmer resilience strategies andsystem resilience strategies in tension (Kuhl 2018)

The lsquohardwarersquo costs of technologies transferred were nothigh but the lsquosoftwarersquo costs particularly in the form ofcapacity-building and training were very high In the inter-national discourse a strong emphasis remains on the hardwareaspects of technology transfer but this case study suggests thatthe software components need to play a much larger role par-ticularly for vulnerable populations like the smallholder farmersin this case Most of the technology transfer discussions in theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) context have focused on larger more expensivetechnologies or technologies for which there are intellectualproperty concerns such as patented seed technologies (OckwellHaum Mallett amp Watson 2010 Technology Executive Com-mittee 2014 UNFCCC 2006) This research demonstratesthat even in the absence of the constraints of international tech-nology transfer significant domestic technology transfer effortsare needed to encourage adoption of climate-resilient strategies

Finally in terms of adoption a high percentage (76) ofHonduran farmers adopted at least one new technology indi-cating that technology transfer efforts were reaching farmersand the technologies met perceived farmer needs Howeverthere were important differences in adoption patterns acrossgroups of producers In line with existing literature (Foster ampRosenzweig 2010 Rogers 1995 Ruttan 2001) there was evi-dence that renters producers hit by coffee rust and maize pro-ducers with very few resources all of whom can be consideredparticularly vulnerable populations had lower rates of adoptioncompared to farmers with more resources

While certain farmers faced more barriers to adoption andneeded more time to adopt technologies than others therelationship between vulnerability and adoption was not uni-directional There was evidence of specific motivations thatdrove adoption for particular groups which could be used toencourage adoption among these populations They suggestthat different transfer mechanisms and incentives drive tech-nology adoption for these groups and strategies need to targetthem explicitly Transforming vulnerabilities into opportunitiesfor technology transfer will require a critical examination of theunderlying causes of those vulnerabilities and whether technol-ogy transfer mechanisms support or address these structures(Dewulf 2013) Doing so is likely to form an essential com-ponent of technology transfer efforts for adaptation becauseunless specific care is taken to ensure that technologies meetthe needs of the most vulnerable technologies can reinforceexisting inequalities and structural vulnerabilities

Despite overcoming numerous barriers to adoption thepotential contributions to resilience was limited by the slowpace of adoption A significant tension exists between theurgency of adaptation and technology transfer and adoptionrates particularly for smallholder farmers The technologytransfer literature suggests that we should be cautious in ourexpectations of the rate at which technological innovations

are adopted with most socio-technical transitions occurringover long periods of time such as decades (Grubler 1998Bell 2012 Park et al 2012) Evidence from this study supportsthis finding adoption of adaptation technologies takes yearsand the pace of adoption is slower for more vulnerable farmersdue to the greater constraints they face Concerningly evidencefrom the coffee rust epidemic suggests that farmers may be lesscapable of adopting climate-resilient technologies in the futureand the pace of adoption may decrease rather than increase asclimate impacts become more serious

In conclusion USAID-ACCESO in Honduras provides aninsightful case study of the numerous ways in which agricul-tural technology transfer projects can contribute to pathwaysto resilience for smallholder farmers It also demonstratessome of the barriers and challenges of technology transfer foradaptation and the need to ensure that technology transferfor adaptation receives sufficient resources in order to be suc-cessful in addressing climate vulnerabilities

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank USAID Honduras and Fintrac for facilitating thefieldwork conducted for this study Geacutenesis Sandres Suazo Cinthia Henriacute-quez Martiacutenez Anne Elise Stratton and Yirat Nieves for their researchassistance and all of the farmers that participated in the study Thisresearch also benefited greatly from the insights guidance and feedbackprovided by Kelly Sims Gallagher Jenny Aker and Rosina Bierbaum

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author

Funding

Funding support was provided by the NSF IGERT Water Diplomacy pro-gram (grant 0966093) a research grant from BP to the Center for Inter-national Environment and Resource Policy the Fletcher School theHitachi Center for Technology and International Affairs and Tufts Insti-tute for the Environment

Notes on contributor

Laura Kuhl is an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy andUrban Affairs and the International Affairs Program at NortheasternUniversity Her research focuses on adaptation and resilience policy indeveloping countries She received her PhD and a masters degree fromthe Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and abachelors degree from Middlebury College

Laura Kuhl httporcidorg0000-0002-1379-9435

References

Abramovitz M (1986) Catching up forging ahead and falling behindThe Journal of Economic History 46 385ndash406

Adger W N Dessai S Goulden M Hulme M Lorenzoni I Nelson DRhellipWreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to cli-mate change Climatic Change 93(3ndash4) 335ndash354

Arocena R amp Sutz J (2005) Evolutionary learning in underdevelopmentInt J Technology and Globalisation 1 209ndash224

Aker J C (2011) Dial ldquoArdquo for agriculture A review of information andcommunication technologies for agricultural extension in developingcountries Agricultural Economics 42(6) 631ndash647

Altieri M A Nicholls C I Henao A amp Lana M A (2015) Agroecologyand the design of climate change-resilient farming systems Agronomyfor Sustainable Development 35(3) 869ndash890

Amsden A H (2001) The rise of ldquothe restrdquo challenges to the west fromlate-industrializing economies Oxford University Press USA

Avelino J Cristancho M Georgiou S Imbach P Aguilar LBornemann GhellipMorales C (2015) The coffee rust crises inColombia and Central America (2008ndash2013) Impacts plausible causesand proposed solutions Food Security 7(2) 303ndash321

Bailey I amp Buck L E (2016) Managing for resilience A landscape frame-work for food and livelihood security and ecosystem services FoodSecurity 8(3) 477ndash490

Barrett C B amp Constas M A (2014) Toward a theory of resilience forinternational development applications Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences 111(40) 14625ndash14630

Bell M (2012) International technology transfer innovation capabilitiesand sustainable directions of development In D G Ockwell amp AMallett (Eds) Low-Carbon technology transfer From Rhetoric toRealticy (pp 45ndash72) Independence KY Routledge

Bell M amp Pavitt K (1993) Technological accumulation and industrialgrowth Contrasts between developed and developing countriesIndustrial and Corporate Change 2 157ndash210

Beacuteneacute C Al-Hassan R M Amarasinghe O Fong P Ocran J OnumahEhellipMills D J (2016) Is resilience socially constructed Empiricalevidence from Fiji Ghana Sri Lanka and Vietnam GlobalEnvironmental Change 38 153ndash170

Beacuteneacute C Cornelius A amp Howland F (2018) Bridging humanitarianresponses and long-term development through transformativechangesmdashsome initial Reflections from the World Bankrsquos adaptivesocial Protection program in the Sahel Sustainability 10(6) 1697

Beacuteneacute C Headey D Haddad L amp von Grebmer K (2016) Is resilience auseful concept in the context of food security and nutrition pro-grammes Some conceptual and practical considerations FoodSecurity 8 123ndash138

Biagini B Kuhl L Gallagher K S amp Ortiz C (2014) Technology trans-fer for adaptation Nature Climate Change 4(9) 828ndash834

Biagini B ampMiller A (2013) Engaging the private sector in adaptation toclimate change in developing countries Importance status and chal-lenges Climate and Development 5(3) 242ndash252

Biggs S D amp Clay E J (1981) Sources of innovation in agricultural tech-nology World Development 9(4) 321ndash336

Bloom J D (2015) Standards for development Food safety and sustain-ability inWal-martrsquos Honduran produce supply chains Rural Sociology80 198ndash227

Bozeman B (2000) Technology transfer and public policy A review ofresearch and theory Research Policy 29 627ndash655

Brooks H (1995) What we know and do not know about technologytransfer Linking knowledge to need In Marshalling technology fordevelopment (pp 83ndash96) Washington DC National Academies Press

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibou G A amp Ringler C (2009) Adaptationto climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa Options and con-straints Environmental Science and Policy 12 413ndash426

Burnham M amp Ma Z (2016) Linking smallholder farmer climate changeadaptation decisions to development Climate and Development 8(4)289ndash311

Campbell B M Thornton P Zougmoreacute R Van Asten P amp Lipper L(2014) Sustainable intensification What is its role in climate smartagriculture Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 8 39ndash43

Chambers R Pacey A amp Thrupp L A (1989) Farmer first Farmerinnovation and agricultural research London UK IntermediateTechnology Publications

Christiansen L Olhoff A amp Traerup S (2011) Technologies for adap-tation Perspectives and practical experiences Roskilde UNEP RisoeCentre on Energy Climate and Sustainable Development

Clark N (2002) Innovation systems institutional change and the newknowledge market Implications for third world agricultural develop-ment Economics of Innov New Techn 11 353ndash368

14 L KUHL

Cohen W M amp Levinthal D A (1990) Absorptive capacity A new per-spective on learning and innovation Administrative Science Quarterly35(1) 128ndash152

Cohn A S Newton P Gil J D Kuhl L Samberg L Ricciardi VhellipNorthrop S (2017) Smallholder agriculture and climate changeAnnual Review of Environment and Resources 42 347ndash375

Deressa T T Hassan R M Ringler C Alemu T amp Yesuf M (2009)Determinants of farmersrsquo choice of adaptation methods to climatechange in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia Global Environmental Change19 248ndash255

Dewulf A (2013) Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate changeadaptation Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change 4321ndash330

Douthwaite B (2002) Enabling innovation A practical guide to under-standing and fostering technological change London New York ZedBooks

Dow K Berkhout F Preston B L Klein R J T Midgley G amp Shaw MR (2013) Limits to adaptation Nature Climate Change 3(4) 305ndash307

Eichberger J amp Guerdjikova A (2012) Technology adoption and adap-tation to climate change- A case-based approach Climate ChangeEconomics 3 1250007

Fazey I Wise R M Lyon C Cacircmpeanu C Moug P amp Davies T E(2015) Past and future adaptation pathways Climate and Development1ndash19

Feder G Just R E amp Zilberman D (1985) Adoption of agriculturalinnovations in developing countries A survey Economic Developmentand Cultural Change 33 255ndash298

Feder G amp Umali D L (1993) The adoption of agricultural innovationsA review Technological Forecasting and Social Change 43(3) 215ndash239

Feola G (2015) Societal transformation in response to global environ-mental change A review of emerging concepts Ambio 44(5) 376ndash390

Feola G Agudelo Vanegas L A amp Contesse Bamoacuten B P (2015)Colombian agriculture under multiple exposures A review and researchagenda Climate and Development 7(3) 278ndash292

Few R Morchain D Spear D Mensah A amp Bendapudi R (2017)Transformation adaptation and development Relating concepts topractice Palgrave Communications 3 17092

Fleischer A Mendelsohn R amp Dinar A (2011) Bundling agriculturaltechnologies to adapt to climate change Technological Forecastingand Social Change 78(6) 982ndash990 Retrieved from httpwwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticlepiiS0040162511000345 doi101016jtechfore201102008

Foster A amp Rosenzweig M (2010) Microeconomics of technology adop-tion Annual Review of Economics 2 395ndash424

Gallagher K S Grubler A Kuhl L Nemet G ampWilson C (2012) Theenergy technology innovation system Annual Review of Environment ampResources 37 137ndash162

Garnett T Appleby M C Balmford A Bateman I J Benton T GBloomer PhellipGodfray H C (2013) Sustainable intensification inagriculture Premises and policies Science 341(6141) 33ndash34 doi101126science1234485

Gay C Estrada F Conde C Eakin H amp Villers L (2006) Potentialimpacts of climate change on agriculture A case of study of coffee pro-duction in Veracruz Mexico Climatic Change 79(3ndash4) 259ndash288

Gebremedhin B amp Swinton S M (2003) Investment in soil conservationin northern Ethiopia The role of land tenure security and public pro-grams Agricultural Economics 29(1) 69ndash84

Goldstein D (2015) Climate-adaptive technological change in a smallregion A resource-based scenario approach Technological Forecastingand Social Change 99 168ndash180

Grubler A (1998) Technology and global change Cambridge UKCambridge University Press

Hanif C (2015) Drip irrigation in Honduras Findings and recommen-dations- scaling up agricultural technologies from USAIDrsquos feed thefuture Washington DC USAID

Hayami Y amp Ruttan V W (1985) Agricultural development An inter-national perspective Baltimore MD John Hopkins University Press

Holt-Gimeacutenez E amp Altieri M A (2013) Agroecology food sovereigntyand the new green revolution Agroecology and Sustainable FoodSystems 37(1) 90ndash102

Howden S M Soussana J F Tubiello F N Chhetri N Dunlop M ampMeinke H (2007) Adapting agriculture to climate change Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences 104(50) 19691ndash19696doi0701890104 [pii]

IFPRI (2013) Honduras feed the future zone of influence baseline reportWashington DC IFPRI

IHCAFE (2015) [Instituto Hondurentildeo del Cafeacute] Web PageMetz B Davidson O R Turkson J K Martens J W van Rooijen S N

amp van Wie McGrory L (Eds) (2000) Methodological and technologicalissues in technology transfer a special report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press

Field C B Barros V Stocker T F amp Dahe Q (Eds) (2012)Managingthe risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adap-tation special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeCambridge University Press

IPCC (2018) Global Warming of 15degC An IPCC Special Report on theimpacts of global warming of 15degC above pre-industrial levels andrelated global greenhouse gas emission pathways in the context ofstrengthening the global response to the threat of climate change sustain-able development and efforts to eradicate poverty

Kassie M Jaleta M Shiferaw B Mmbando F amp Mekuria M (2013)Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in small-holder systems Evidence from rural Tanzania Future-OrientedTechnology Analysis 80(3) 525ndash540

Kates R W Travis W R amp Wilbanks T J (2012) Transformationaladaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insuffi-cient Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(19)7156ndash7161 doi101073pnas1115521109

Key N amp Runsten D (1999) Contract farming smallholders and ruraldevelopment in Latin America The organization of agroprocessingfirms and the scale of outgrower production World Development27(2) 381ndash401

Kuhl L (2018) Potential contributions of market-systems developmentinitiatives for building climate resilience World Development 108131ndash144

Laderach P Lundy M Jarvis A Ramirez J Portilla E P Schepp K ampEitzinger A (2011) Predicted impact of climate change on coffeesupply chains In The economic social and political elements of climatechange (pp 703ndash723) Berlin Springer

Lardizaacutebal R (2013) Manual de produccioacuten de maiacutez bajo el manejo inte-grado de cultivo La Lima Honduras USAID-ACCESO

Lin B B Perfecto I amp Vandermeer J (2008) Synergies between agricul-tural intensification and climate change could create surprising vulner-abilities for crops Bioscience 58(9) 847ndash854

Lipper L Thornton P Campbell B M Baedeker T Braimoh ABwalya MhellipHenry K (2014) Climate-smart agriculture for foodsecurity Nature Climate Change 4(12) 1068ndash1072

Lorentzen J (2009) Learning and innovation Science Technology andSociety 14 177ndash205

Low B Ostrom E Simon C amp Wilson J (2008) Redundancyand diversity Do they influence optimal management In BerkesF Colding J amp Folke C (Eds) Navigating social-ecological sys-tems building resilience for complexity and change CambridgeUniversity Press

Lybbert T J amp Sumner T A (2012) Agricultural technologies for cli-mate change in developing countries Policy options for Innovationand technology diffusion Food Policy 37 114ndash123

Magrin G O Marengo J A Boulanger J P Buckeridge M SCastellanos E Poveda GhellipVicuntildea S (2014) Central and SouthAmerica In V R Barros C B Field D J Dokken M DMastrandrea K J Mach T E Bilir M Chatterjee K L Ebi Y OEstrada R C Genova B Girma E S Kissel A N Levy SMacCracken P R Mastrandrea amp L L White (Eds) Climate change2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability Part B Regional aspectsContribution of working group II to the Fifth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on climate change (pp 1499ndash1566)Cambridge UK and New York NY Cambridge University Press

Milly P C D Betancourt J Falkenmark M Hirsch R M KundzewiczZ W Lettenmaier D P amp Stouffer R J (2008) Stationarity is deadWhither water management Science 319(5863) 573ndash574

Mortimore M J amp Adams W M (2001) Farmer adaptation change andlsquocrisisrsquo in the Sahel Global Environmental Change 11 49ndash57

Nowak P J (1987) The adoption of agricultural conservation technol-ogies Economic and diffusion explanations Rural Sociology 52(2) 208

OrsquoBrien K amp Selboe E (2015) The adaptive challenge of climate changeNew York NY Cambridge University Press

OrsquoBrien K L amp Leichenko R M (2000) Double exposure Assessing theimpacts of climate change within the context of economic globalizationGlobal Environmental Change 10(3) 221ndash232

Ockwell D amp Byrne R (2016) Improving technology transfer throughnational systems of innovation climate relevant innovation-systembuilders (CRIBs) Climate Policy 16(7) 836ndash854

Ockwell D Haum R Mallett A amp Watson J (2010) Intellectual prop-erty rights and low carbon technology transfer Conflicting discoursesof diffusion and development Global Environmental Change 20729ndash738

Ockwell D Sagar A amp de Coninck H (2014) Collaborative researchand development (RampD) for climate technology transfer and uptakein developing countries towards a needs driven approach ClimaticChange 1ndash15

Ockwell D G amp Mallett A (2012) Low-carbon technology transfer Fromrhetoric to reality New York NY Routledge

Park S E Marshall N A Jakku E Dowd A-M Howden S MMendham E amp Fleming A (2012) Informing adaptation responsesto climate change through theories of transformation GlobalEnvironmental Change 22(1) 115ndash126

Parker J Miller K Caballero Bonilla L A Escolan R M Muntildeoz E delRio Ahellip Seimon A (2014) Vulnerability and resilience to climatechange in Western Honduras Brattleboro VT USAID and TetraTech

Pauw P amp Pegels A (2013) Private sector engagement in climate changeadaptation in least developed countries An exploration Climate andDevelopment 5(4) 257ndash267

Pelling M OrsquoBrien K amp Matyas D (2014) Adaptation and transform-ation Climatic Change 133 1ndash15

Place F amp Swallow B (2000) Assessing the relationship between propertyrights and technology adoption in smallholder agriculture a review ofissues amp empirical methods CGIAR System-wide Program onProperty Rights and Collective Action

Porter J R Xie L Challinor A J Cochrane K Howden S M Iqbal MMhellipGarrett K (2014) Food security and food production systems

Presidentrsquos Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)(2012) Report to the president on agricultural preparedness andthe agriculture research enterprise Executive Office of thePresident Available at httpsfedbyscienceorgassetsreportsPCAST-Ag-Preparedness-Report-December-2012pdf

Rogers E M (1995) Diffusion of innovations New York NY Free PressRuttan V (2001) Technology Growth and development An induced inno-

vation perspective Oxford UK Oxford University PressRuttan V W (1996) What happened to technology adoption-diffusion

research Sociologia Ruralis 36 51ndash73Sayer J amp Cassman K G (2013) Agricultural innovation to protect the

environment Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(21)8345ndash8348 doi101073pnas1208054110

Sharma S amp Moehner A (2011) The evolution of lsquotechnologies foradaptationrsquo in the international climate change negotiations In LChristiansen A Olhoff amp S Traerup (Eds) Technologies for

adaptation Perspectives and practical experiences (pp 3ndash17)Roskilde UNEP Risoe Centre on Energy Climate and SustainableDevelopment

Smit B amp Skinner M W (2002) Adaptation options in agriculture to cli-mate change A typology Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies forGlobal Change 7 85ndash114

Snapp S S Blackie M J amp Donovan C (2003) Realigning research andextension to focus on farmersrsquo constraints and opportunities FoodPolicy 28 349ndash363

Steenwerth K L Hodson A K Bloom A J Carter M R Cattaneo AChartres C JhellipHorwath W R (2014) Climate-smart agricultureglobal research agenda Scientific basis for action Agriculture amp FoodSecurity 3(1) 11

Strang D amp Soule S (1998) Diffusion in organizations and socialMovements From hybrid corn to poison pills Annual Review ofSociology 24 265ndash290

Tambo J A amp Abdoulaye T (2012) Climate change and agriculturaltechnology adoption The case of drought tolerant maize in ruralNigeria Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 17277ndash292

Technology Executive Committee (2014) Technologies for adaptation inthe agricultural sector TEC Brief 4 UNFCCC Bonn Germany

Tessa B amp Kurukulasuriya P (2010) Technologies for climate changeadaptation Emerging lessons from developing countries supported byUNDP Journal of International Affairs 64 17ndash31

Thomas G amp Slater R (2006) Innovation agricultural growth and pov-erty reduction International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 2279ndash288

Tompkins E amp Eakin H (2012) Managing private and public adaptationto climate change Global Environmental Change 22 3ndash11

Traeligrup S amp Stephan J (2015) Technologies for adaptation to climatechange Examples from the agricultural and water sectors in LebanonClimatic Change 131(3) 435ndash449

UNFCCC (2006) Application of Environmentally Sound Technologies forAdaptation to Climate Change

USAID (2011) Feed the future Honduras FY 2011ndash2015 multi-yearcountry strategy Washington DC United States Government

USAID (2015) Final report USAID-ACCESO (April 2011-May 2015)Washington DC USAID

Vermeulen S J Aggarwal P K Ainslie A Angelone C Campbell BM Challinor A JhellipKristjanson P (2012) Options for support toagriculture and food security under climate change EnvironmentalScience amp Policy 15(1) 136ndash144

Wheeler T amp von Braun J (2013) Climate change impacts on globalfood security Science 341(6145) 508ndash513 doi101126science1239402

Williams L D A amp Woodson T S (2012) The Future of InnovationStudies in Less Economically Developed Countries Minerva 50221ndash237

Wise R M Fazey I Smith M S Park S E Eakin H C Van GarderenE R M A amp Campbell B (2014) Reconceptualising adaptation to cli-mate change as part of pathways of change and response GlobalEnvironmental Change 28 325ndash336

Zilberman D Zhao J amp Heiman A (2012) Adoption versus adaptationwith emphasis on climate change Annual Review Resource Economics4 27ndash53

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction

21 The role of technology in supporting adaptation and resilience



3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context






511 Climate observations and projections

512 Farmer perceptions

513 Technologies and pathways to resilience

52 Transfer mechanisms that can meet diverse farmer needs and strategies to overcome barriers to adoption

53 Sustained adoption by the most vulnerable to climate change

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change adaptationopportunities and challengesLaura Kuhl

School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs and International Affairs Program Northeastern University Boston USA

ABSTRACTTechnologies help build farmer resilience to climate change but the relationships among technologytransfer adoption vulnerability and resilience are not well-understood This paper empiricallyexamines the technology transfer process for smallholder farmers in Honduras from an adaptationperspective It addresses two questions (1) How does technology transfer contribute to pathwaysto resilience for smallholder farmers (2) What challenges do these efforts face in meeting diversefarmer needs and overcoming barriers to technology adoption by the most vulnerable to climatechange These questions are analysed in the context of United States governmentrsquos Feed theFuture initiative Interviews with smallholder farmers were conducted regarding experiences withtechnology transfer adoption choices and perceptions of climate change The study found thatwhile adoption rates were high overall the pace of adoption was still slow demonstrating atension between the urgency of climate change and the pace of smallholder adoption The studyfound that many technologies increase resilience but may not always be adaptive in the long-termand that significant resources are needed to successfully transfer technologies to smallholderfarmers This study provides evidence of ways agricultural technology projects contribute topathways to resilience and demonstrates barriers to their success

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 23 February 2018Accepted 5 June 2019

KEYWORDSClimate adaptationresilience Hondurastechnology adoptiontechnology transferagriculture

1 Introduction

Adoption of new technologies is a critical component of agri-cultural adaptation (Christiansen Olhoff amp Traerup 2011Holt-Gimeacutenez amp Altieri 2013 Porter et al 2014) Farmershave utilized appropriate technologies to adapt to droughtand other climatic changes historically (Bryan Deressa Gbeti-bou amp Ringler 2009 Deressa Hassan Ringler Alemu ampYesuf 2009 Lybbert amp Sumner 2012 Mortimore amp Adams2001 Smit amp Skinner 2002 Tambo amp Abdoulaye 2012) butthere is growing recognition that past coping strategies maybe insufficient Farmers will need to adopt new technologiesparticularly as climate change increases the speed and scale ofchange some of which may need to be introduced to themthrough technology transfer (Howden et al 2007 Lipperet al 2014 Steenwerth et al 2014 Wheeler amp von Braun2013)

Despite the growing literature on technologies for agricul-tural adaptation that has identified the utility of various tech-nologies for addressing climate impacts the process oftechnology transfer and adoption for adaptation remains poorlyunderstood What is known based on studies looking at tech-nologies transferred through United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF)projects is that there is an emphasis on diffusion of domesticlsquolow-techrsquo solutions and a reliance on a wide diversity of tech-nologies which is a sharp contrast to the majority of climatetechnology transfer examples found in the literature whichtend to focus on lsquohighrsquo technologies from foreign sourcesand single technological solutions (Biagini Kuhl Gallagher

amp Ortiz 2014 Tessa amp Kurukulasuriya 2010) suggesting thattechnology transfer for adaptation displays different character-istics than mitigation-focused technology transfer and isworthy of additional study

A particular challenge for technology adoption for adap-tation is how to balance the pace of adoption necessitated bythe urgency of climate change (IPCC 2018) and the risk aver-sion associated with technology adoption for smallholder farm-ers This tradeoff leads to potentially complex dynamicsbetween technology adoption vulnerability (both climate-specific and broader social and economic vulnerability) andclimate resilience Understanding the relationships among vul-nerability resilience and technology adoption is essential fortechnology transfer for adaptation

This paper examines the process of technology transfer andadoption for smallholder farmers from an adaptation perspec-tive specifically focusing on this potential tension betweenurgency and risk aversion Based on an analysis of farmer inter-views in Honduras this paper seeks to contribute to the scho-larly debates on two questions 1) How does technologytransfer contribute to pathways to resilience for smallholderfarmers 2) What challenges do technology transfer for adap-tation efforts face in meeting diverse farmer needs and over-coming barriers to technology adoption by the mostvulnerable to climate change

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows Section 2presents the conceptual framework followed by the method-ology results and a discussion of the implications for therelationships among technology adoption vulnerability and

copy 2019 Informa UK Limited trading as Taylor amp Francis Group

CONTACT Laura Kuhl lkuhlnortheasternedu

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENThttpsdoiorg1010801756552920191630349

2 L KUHL

3 Methodology

31 Case selection

4 L KUHL

34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context

6 L KUHL

Soil preparation

Lime application

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Improved seeds

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

2 L KUHL

3 Methodology

31 Case selection

4 L KUHL

34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context

6 L KUHL

Soil preparation

Lime application

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Improved seeds

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

3 Methodology

31 Case selection

4 L KUHL

34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context

6 L KUHL

Soil preparation

Lime application

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Improved seeds

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

3 Methodology

31 Case selection

4 L KUHL

34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context

6 L KUHL

Soil preparation

Lime application

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Improved seeds

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context

6 L KUHL

Soil preparation

Lime application

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Improved seeds

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

35 Limitations

4 Context

6 L KUHL

Soil preparation

Lime application

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Improved seeds

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

Soil preparation

Lime application

Crop rotation

Seed selection

New crops

Irrigation

Raised beds

Improved seeds

Pruning

Shade coffee

Soil driers

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

Qualities ofweather

Less predictable75

Shift in timing54

8 L KUHL

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

10 L KUHL

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

Maize and beansonly

21 (64) NA 17 (52) 9 (27) 0 33

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

Initial Crop

Adopted newcrops

17 (52) 35 (66) 8 (100) 0 60 (63)

29 6 13 13

12 L KUHL

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

Acknowledgements

Funding

References

14 L KUHL

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

16 L KUHL

Abstract

1 Introduction




3 Methodology

31 Case selection



34 Interviews

35 Analysis

35 Limitations

4 Context











6 Conclusion

Acknowledgements



ORCID

References

Documents

Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change … · 2019-07-09 · Technology transfer and adoption for smallholder climate change adaptation: opportunities and