Why Social Protection is Not Enough to Effectively Address Poverty Reduction in Pakistan

Pakistan is behind many other countries in the Asia region in reducing poverty. Dedicated poverty reduction Programmes so far were mainly done by NGOs using livelihood and microfinance approaches and since 2008 through the Benazir Income Support Programme’s cash transfer scheme. Recently, the office of the Prime Minister established Ehsaas Strategy which combines the various poverty reduction and social protection approaches in the country under one Programme. This paper argues that a stronger focus on effective income generating poverty reduction Programmes would be needed to make poverty reduction more successful.

Analysis of Farmers’ Field Schools As an Alternative Extension Strategy to Benefit Resource Poor Farmers from Existing Agricultural Technologies in the Central Region of Nwfp, Pakistan

Agriculture is the backbone of Pakistan’s economy. It provides food, fiber and shelter to its growing population. However agricultural production is very low due to many reasons. This is mainly the responsibility of agricultural extension organizations to disseminate the advanced technologies among the farming community and motivate them for adoption at their fields. To achieve this objective, many extension strategies have so far been tried from time to time but none of them seems to be effective in serving the farmers through increasing farm productivity and improving their income. Therefore, the government of NWFP has introduced an extension approach known as Farmers Field Schools (FFS) in all the 24 districts of the province through Agriculture Department (Extension). The proposed study was designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the FFS as an alternative strategy to benefit the resource poor farmers from the existing agricultural technologies. The study was conducted in the central region of the province which comprises districts of Peshawar, Mardan, Swabi, Charsadda, Nowshera, Kohat and Hangu. The population for the study consisted of all the FFS farmers and concerned EFS in the study area. For this purpose all the seven districts were selected and from each district all the four FFS were taken. Then, a complete list of member farmers of each FFS was obtained from Agriculture Department (Extension). Ten farmer respondents were selected from each FFS. Thus making a total of 280 respondents. In addition, all the EFS working in the study area comprising Field Assistants (FAs), Agriculture Officers (AOs), District Officers Agriculture (DOAs) and Executive District Officers (EDOs) Agriculture were taken as EFS respondents that made a sample of 70 respondents. Analysis of the data reveal that amongst various extension activities conducted under FFS farmers perceived crop protection and production technologies were rated 1st and 2nd with mean values 3.17 and 3.13, respectively by farmer respondents while briefing sessions / special topics and crop production technology were rated 1st and 2nd with mean values 3.86 and 3.81, respectively by EFS respondents. Farmers’ participation in nursery raising techniques was ranked 1st with mean value 3.30 whereas according to EFS respondents EFS’ facilitation was seen in nursery raising techniques and sowing methods of crops which were placed as 1st and 2nd with mean values 4.16 & 4.06, respectively. Greatest linkages of FFS farmers were developed with forest department with mean value 3.08 as reported by farmer respondents whereas EFS respondents marked that highest linkages were developed between extension and farming community under FFS with mean value 4.16. The farmer respondents ranked the strengths of FFS as ‘improves knowledge of farmers’ , ‘helps farmers in learning by doing’ and ‘discourages the use of pesticides at 1st, 2nd and 3rd with mean values 3.60, 3.53 and 3.49, respectively. The weaknesses of FFS were ‘heavy financial burden on the implementation of FFS programme’, ‘time consuming process’, and ‘weekly routine to attend school is difficult’ and were ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd with mean values 4.02, 3.69 and 3.67, respectively as reported by farmer respondents. The major strengths of FFS were ‘demand driven extension approach’, ‘discourages the use of pesticides’ and ‘helps farmers in learning by doing’ which were ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd with mean values 4.09, 3.99 and 3.91, respectively as reported by EFS respondents. The weaknesses of FFS were ‘heavy financial burden on the implementation of FFS programmes’, ‘less use of mass media’, ‘weekly routine to attend school is difficult and ‘low level of participation on the part of farmers’ and were ranked 1st, 2nd (for each statement) and 3rd with mean values 4.40, 3.93 and 3.87, respectively as reported by the EFS respondents.