Draft Final ReportCARD Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development ... There is a need to support...

Project TCP/ARM/3103 funded by FAO

Milada Kasarjyan Gertrud Buchenrieder Jana Fritzsch Axel Wolz May 2009

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION NEEDS

ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL

RESEARCH AND EXTENSION SYSTEMS AND THEIR

STAKEHOLDERS IN ARMENIA

Dra

ft F

inal R

eport

ii

Table of contents

List of tables ............................................................................................................................................ ii List of figures ......................................................................................................................................... iii List of abbreviations............................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... iv

Summary ................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 2 3 Present Policy and Institutional Environment for Information and Communication

Technology (ICT) in Armenian Agriculture ..................................................................... 3 4 Characteristics of Interviewed Organisations and Institutions.......................................... 5 5 Communication Channels and Information Needs ........................................................... 8

5.1 Technical infrastructure............................................................................................ 8 5.2 Major sources of information................................................................................. 14 5.3 Communication means and information needs ...................................................... 15 5.4 Information provision and identified gaps ............................................................. 19 5.5 Organisations' strengths and weaknesses ............................................................... 21 5.6 International cooperation........................................................................................ 22

6 Institutional Setting and Network ................................................................................... 22 7 Existing and Potential Innovation Systems in Armenia.................................................. 25

8 Characteristics of the Focus Groups................................................................................ 26 8.1 Awareness of agricultural information and knowledge ......................................... 27 8.2 Major sources of information and knowledge........................................................ 28 8.3 Accessibility and information need........................................................................ 28 8.4 Experience and identified gaps .............................................................................. 28

9 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................ 29 9.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 29 9.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 30

Annex 1 List of organisations and persons interviewed ....................................................... 34 Annex 2 Classification of organisations ............................................................................... 35 Annex 3 Questionnaire and Outline for Farmers' group discussion (FGD)

used in the study..................................................................................................... 37 List of tables

Table 1: Main indicators of regional Agricultural Support Centres (ASC) activities ......... 4 Table 2: Types of surveyed organisations ............................................................................ 6 Table 3: Importance of different target groups among surveyed organisations................... 8 Table 4: Availability, and reliability of ICT infrastructure and competence of staff in using it (%), N=16.............................................................................................................................. 10 Table 5: Assessment of availability of hardware among surveyed organisations.............. 11 Table 6: Assessment of reliability of hardware among surveyed organisations ................ 12 Table 7: Assessment of staff’s competence using ICT among surveyed organisations..... 13 Table 8: Relevant sources of information among surveyed organisations......................... 14 Table 9: Communication means for external communication among surveyed organisations............................................................................................................................. 16 Table 10: Type of information provided by surveyed organisations ................................... 19 Table 11: Self-assessment of major strengths and weaknesses concerning ICT.................. 21

iii

Table 12: The most important organisations in the agricultural sector (scale 5 to 1), N=16 23 Table 13: The main characteristics of the FGD participants in the Shirak region, N= (7) .. 26 Table 14: The main characteristics of the FGD participants in the Ararat region, N= (10) 27

List of figures

Figure 1: The agricultural consultancy and information system in Armenia ........................ 5 Figure 2: Relative importance of different target groups for agricultural organisations (%, N=16) 7 Figure 3: Acceptance of communication means (%)........................................................... 17 Figure 4: Communication means for collecting feedback (N=16) ...................................... 17 Figure 5: Communication means to be improved, (% of interviewees) .............................. 18 Figure 6: Type and target groups of provided information (%), N=16 ............................... 20 Figure 7: Acceptance of provided information (% of respondents) .................................... 20 Figure 8: Cooperation with other organisations in the agricultural sector .......................... 24 List of Abbreviations

ACBA Agricultural Cooperative Bank of Armenia ACDI & VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in

Overseas Cooperative Assistance ADB Asian Development Bank AGORA Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture ASAU Agricultural State Agrarian University ASC Agricultural Support Centres (at the regional level) ASRC Agricultural Support Republican Centre CARD Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development FAA Federation of Agricultural Associations FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FGD Focus Group Discussion GDP Gross domestic product GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit ICARE International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education ICT Information and communication technology IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension System NGO Non-governmental organisations OIE International Episodic Organization PH International Project Harmony International RISE Rapid Integration of Software Engineering RSC Research Scientific Centre USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDA-FAS United States Department of Agriculture - Foreign Agricultural Service USAID United States Agency for International Development VOCA Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance

iv

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of all participants in the individual interviews and the group discussions. We are grateful to Mr. Asot Voskanyan, Mr. Arman Manukyan and Mrs. Nara Yaralian for their collaborative efforts in organising and scheduling the field work in Armenia. The study greatly benefited from extensive discussions and contributions from the Ministry of Agriculture. We are especially thankful to the First Deputy Minister of Agriculture Mr. Samvel Avetisyan.

The report was reviewed by several colleagues at the FAO. The authors wish to thank particularly Ms Karin Nichterlein, Agricultural Research Officer, for her continuous support.

v

Summary

This study aims at assessing the agricultural information and communication priority needs of major stakeholders of the National Agricultural Research and Extension System (NARES) and its clients in Armenia.

Prior to the field study, the 16 most important national agricultural organisations, including the Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia, were identified and contacted (on the managerial and ministerial levels). These contacts were visited later for face-to-face interviews (for the full list of the respondents, see Annex 1).

The structured questionnaire was designed to collect first-hand information about the organisational structure of the Armenian agricultural sector. Special focus was placed on the information and communication systems (both technical and technological) of the sector, their policies and strategies, and their stakeholders and linkages to farmers.

Besides the interviews, two focus group discussions were organised and conducted in the Shirak and Ararat provinces. Issues related to the awareness of agricultural information and knowledge, the major sources of information and preference, accessibility, experience and information needs were discussed with representatives of the local non-governmental organisations (NGOs), regional agricultural extension agents, and representatives of the farmers, women and youth.

We have identified a relatively well-established institutional structure of the agricultural consultancy and information systems under the Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia. This includes the Agricultural Support Republican Centre (ASRC) and the Regional Agricultural Support Centres (ASC) in all of the ten provinces. In addition, seven research centres operate within the ministry system (see Figure 1). The ASRC, ASC and the respective research centres receive their information and tasks from and provide information to the Ministry of Agriculture. The State Agrarian University of Armenia and other higher education institutions provide information to and receive information from the ASRC. The ASC collect and provide information and training to the regional agricultural extension agents. The regional agricultural extension agents in turn provide information and consultancy to the village agents and farmers. The latest strategy paper of Agricultural Sustainable Development (2006) presents the major policy strategies and measures to further improve the established system of agricultural consultancy and information in the agricultural sector of Armenia.

The Ministry of Agriculture, ASRC and two research centres participated in the interview. All other institutions that participated in the survey were in one way or another connected and cooperate with the established system.

Although considerable work has been done (see Table 1), due to technical and financial difficulties the established system functions at a low level of efficiency. Especially the use of the Internet as a tool of information exchange could be improved. Already 15 out of 16 interviewed organisations use email for official communication and 12 use websites to obtain agricultural information. Nevertheless, there is little coordinated communication and virtual exchange of information between the interviewed organisations. By establishing a virtual network of extension services, agricultural research and development organisations, stakeholders would greatly increase the effectiveness and speed of information flows. There is a low level of awareness of the existence of the FAO Depository Library although it even has a a subscription to the AGORA system that gives free access to most scientific literature in agriculture. There is a need to support the library in organising workshops, TV promotions to make it and the AGORA system better known to potential users.

vi

Moreover, the established system is peculiar in the sense of having little connectivity to the private sector and especially to processors. This might be one of the reasons for the identified primary information gap on reliable commodity-based information and statistics for future demand predictions. This creates difficulties for farmers who would like to receive information about the projected demand and supply of agricultural products. In its extreme, this can result in the substantial supply surplus or deficiency of a particular agricultural product for a year. The Ministry of Agriculture being the strongest key player of the agricultural sector is recommended:

• To facilitate and coordinate the flow of information to and from processors to all interested parties by implementing adequate policy measures.

Information Communication technologies (ICT) are well-adopted in all interviewed organisations. However, the organisations classified as state run (S1-S7, see Section 3) and agricultural media (M1-M2, also largely funded by the state) though relatively well-equipped with the necessary technology and internet connections, partly use obsolete computers and other equipment.

The necessary technologies and Internet connections are also available to ASCs. However, the village agents and regional agricultural extension agents lack Internet connectivity. Often telephones are also unavailable both to the village agents and regional agricultural extension agents visiting communities. To communicate with the ASCs, the agents have to drive to the regional centres or use their personal mobile phones. The limited number of staff and very low salary levels create additional difficulties and a lack of motivation. If modern technologies were provided, the agents would need adequate training to properly use them.

• In the short-run, the specialists of other educational and research institutions like Agrogitaspyur, International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education (ICARE), and Agricultural State Agrarian University (ASAU) could be more intensively integrated in the system to improve the situation.

• The establishment and implementation of distance training courses within the “University-Extension-Farmer” system may increase the efficiency of consultancy and information flows in the long-run.

1

1 Introduction

Armenia began its transition to a market economy in 1990, in a complex political and socio- economic situation. The transition was characterised by a sharp economic decline and increased poverty in the country. In 1993 the gross domestic product (GDP) reached its lowest point, that is, just 47% of its 1990 level. Poverty, which was not recorded at the beginning of the 1980s, increased dramatically at the end of the decade (World Bank, 2007).

With the collapse of industrial and economic contacts, the importance of agriculture for national survival increased dramatically. In a short time, several economic reforms were implemented, such as the privatisation of land and productive enterprises, price liberalisation, etc. The first step of these reforms was the privatisation of land, which started in 1991 (Spoor, 2004, Lerman and Mirzakhanian, 2001). By 1993, Armenia shifted from being an industrial country to an agricultural one. As a result of land privatisation, 332,608 peasant farms were created against the 860 Soviet-type solkhoz/kolkhozes that existed previously (CFOA, 2003).

Currently, one of the most important branches of the Armenian economy, the food and agricultural sector, provides 22.0% of the GDP, of which the share of agriculture is around 17.0% (Ministry of Agriculture, 2008).

The traditional public sector information sources have suffered considerably as a result of the economic and structural changes during transition. At present, the information and communication systems are not well-integrated into national strategies and programs. The common information and communication platform for knowledge and information sharing at different levels, comprising agricultural research and extension providers on the national and local levels, is still very weak.

The government understands the need to both develop a proper national agricultural information strategy and to improve the existing agricultural consultancy and information system based on the requirements of the relevant stakeholders. In order to support the government in this task, the Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO) has been assigned by the FAO to conduct an in-depth assessment and to provide recommendations within the framework of project TCP/ARM/3103 “Information and Communication Needs Assessment of National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems and its Stakeholders in Armenia”.

The objective of this study is to identify the information and communication needs of relevant institutions and stakeholders from the national agricultural research system, extension services, NGOs, farmers’ associations, and representatives from rural men, women and youth. Based on this assessment, recommendations and prioritised needs for various stakeholder groups will be deduced. Specifically, the study aims to accomplish the following tasks:

• Identify existing sources of agricultural information (including informal farmers’ networks, farmers’ organisations, etc.);

• Assess the availability and relevance of local and locally-adapted international information, including gender-specific data (in electronic format or hardcopy) necessary for the development of improved agricultural research capacity, efficiency and appropriateness in Armenia;

• Compile an inventory of existing and preferred tools, channels and actors;

• Assess the strength, potential and limitations (constraints) of the present information and communication capacities (including human resources, knowledge and infrastructure and relevant communication relationships) as well as policies and

2

strategies in research and research knowledge transfer (content development, training/education, feedback with society);

• Identify potential partners for the development of solutions, including, where possible, already active and interested donors;

• Carry out sufficient analysis and information production to facilitate the development of concrete project proposals for strategies, policies and content development for improved information and communication management by national agriculture research institutions and their partners.

By the end of January 2009, a draft outline of the questionnaire had been prepared and a list of the relevant organisations of the national research system had been compiled. These, together with a draft outline of the study, were submitted for FAO clearance, which was obtained at the end of February 2009. The Agricultural Support Republican Centre was named as a national counterpart.

An expert from IAMO visited Armenia from March 14-April 9, 2009 to carry out the structured interviews. A list of the organisations interviewed is attached in Annex 1 and a copy of the questionnaire and the outline for focus group discussions appears in Annex 3. The information obtained from these interviews, focus group discussions and the literature review was analysed and a draft of the report presented in mid-April 2009.

2 Methodology

The questionnaire was drafted in English and then translated into Armenian. In total, 16 organisations had been identified. Besides the Ministry of Agriculture, representatives of the 15 most important national agricultural organisations were contacted for face-to-face interviews. All interviewees were in managerial and decision-making positions, either as directors/presidents or project leaders. In the Ministry of Agriculture, the First Deputy Minister answered the questions (for the full list of respondents, see Annex 1). In total, 11 men and 7 women participated in the questionnaire survey. More than half of the respondents were younger than 45 years old, particularly those representing private organisations. The interviews were conducted in their offices and in the Ministry of Agriculture.

The questionnaire was structured into four parts covering the following aspects:

• Section A acquired basic information about the respective organisation, such as its type, its main tasks and functions, the importance of different target groups, its decision-making process, as well as the actual state of ICT infrastructure according to availability, reliability and the staff’s competence using it.

• Section B gathered information about the organisational structure in the Armenia agricultural sector in order to identify the main stakeholders and their expected contributions.

• Section C focussed on information cooperation and links between the various organisations interviewed, not only within but also outside of the agricultural sector.

• Section D enquired on the sources and channels of information and communication within and outside of the sector. The focus was on an inventory of existing and preferred topics, means of communication, identifying relevant sources, their feedback and acceptance, as well as strengths, opportunities and weaknesses of the present ICT capacity.

3

• Section E acquired information about the existing and potential information systems in Armenia.

All interviews were personally carried out. Hence, some aspects could be discussed in more detail while others could be easily clarified in case of any misunderstandings. In general, an interview lasted between 90-120 minutes. The data was coded and analysed at IAMO. All calculations were done with the software package SPSS.

The Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were conducted in the Agricultural Support Centres (ASC) of the Ararat and Shirak provinces. The discussions lasted for approximately 60-90 minutes and were organised according to the guiding questions. The resulting data was also analysed at IAMO.

3 Present Policy and Institutional Environment for Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) in Armenian Agriculture

The latest strategy paper on Agricultural Sustainable Development (2006, pp. 33-34) of the Ministry of Agriculture presents the major policy directions and related measures aiming at improving the established system of agricultural consultancy and information (see Figure 1) in the agricultural sector of Armenia. The policy measures are as follows:

(1) “Continuation of state assistance to resolution of issues related to information, consultancy, and academic and personnel provision in the sphere of agriculture”.

(2) “Enlargement of marz (province) extension services on a zoning principle and implementation of structural changes”.

(3) “Implementation of institutional reforms through integration of scientific, educational and consultancy structures at marz (province) level”.

(4) “Vocational training of staff on usage of modern technologies to be competitive in the labour market. Based on the current demand to prepare specialists of environmental protection and efficient use of natural resources, plant protection, technicians, forest hydrologists, quality expertise in agricultural colleges as a state reserve”.

(5) “through technical re equipment and strengthening of professional capacities of the national and marz (province) extension services, to raise the efficiency of the consultancy system, to reveal the primary needs of the farmers and to develop effective system to satisfy those needs”.

As mentioned above, to ensure the development of agricultural research, education and consultancy linkages, the Armenian Ministry of Agriculture established a system of agricultural consultancy and information under its direct control. Based on the established organisational framework (see Figure 1), the data from seven research centres, the State Agrarian University of Armenia, and other higher education institutions are expected to flow into the ASRC. The information flow is however not always regular, organised and structured and needs further technical improvements (e.g. virtual networking). Within the information and technology data bank of the ASRC, the data are stored, processed, and used for publications as well to identify and support further research and consultancy needs.

The ASRC works with the ten regional ASCs in close collaboration by providing information and consultancy services. Each ASC has six staff members working permanently in the office building, which are the director, accountant, office manager and three specialists. In addition, 10-15 agricultural advisers/consultants work for each centre. These staff members are not

4

necessarily permanently located in the ASC buildings but undertake regular visits to villages/farms to provide necessary consulting to farmers and village agents. Village agents cooperate with ASCs but are not employed by the ASCs. ASCs extension agents have good knowledge of agriculture. Part of the staff is skilled in using computers. The regional ASCs collect and provide information and training to its extension agents who in turn provide consultancy to village agents and farmers. Information is provided in printed leaflet formats (normally in Armenian language), in form of face-to-face communication, by phone, during training workshops and demonstrations as well as in a form of booklets and newspaper articles. Extension agents are also expected to provide information on agricultural products, problems and needs of farmers from all provinces and from village agents to the regional ASCs. The 145 regional agricultural extension agents provide consultancy services to 916 communities in all provinces (Ministry of Agriculture of Armenia, 2008). The main indicators of regional ASC activities for 2006 and 2007 are included in Table 1. Based on the ASCs extension agents’ statements, the number of agents in relation to the number of communities to be served is too low and not sufficient. The salaries are also very low and considered by the agents as being “just symbolic” causing additional difficulties and resulting in lack of motivation.

Table 1: Main indicators of regional Agricultural Support Centres

(ASC) activities

Activities /Year 2006 2007

Seminars 2,241 1,685

Consultancy services 18,222 25,650

Articles/Extension materials 407 679

Radio and TV programs 38 56

Establishment of associations and farmer groups

224 110

Business and other programs 733 508

Fact sheet development 305 334

Marketing intervention 2,114 2,361

Source: Ministry of Agriculture of RA (2008: page 66).

To inform farmers, agribusinesses, specialists and the general public on government agricultural policies, donor-funded development projects, new technologies, product prices, etc., the Information Department of the ASRC publishes the AgroGitutyun (AgriScience) research magazine and the AgroLratu (AgriReview) newspaper. Some of the regional ASCs publish their own newspapers.

5

Figure 1: The agricultural consultancy and information system in Armenia

Source: Ministry of Agriculture of RA (2008: page67). Notes: With regard to Figure 1, farmers are free and encouraged to inform village agents about

their needs (research, information, etc). The main forms of consultancy of extension and village agents with the farmers are face-to-face interaction and sometimes communication using phones. Some of the village agents themselves are the inhabitants of the same villages. That makes the contact to the farmers easier and increases the reliability and efficiency of collected feedback.

4 Characteristics of Interviewed Organisations and Institutions

Besides the Ministry of Agriculture of RA, 15 of the 16 identified agricultural organisations were interviewed. In Annex 2 a brief introduction to the mission of the interviewed

6

organisations is provided. This information is based on the personal statements of the interviewees as well, if available, on the information on their websites. Of the 15 organisations, seven operate under the direct control and predominant funding of the State (these carry the reference numbers S1-S7, see also Annex 2).1 Two organisations, ACDI/VOCA (Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance) and Project Harmony International (PH International) are branches of PH International and ACDI/VOCA in Armenian, two organisations are registered as foundations (CARD and ICARE), one as an NGO (Green Lane), one as a limited liability company (Ltd.) (Ecoglobe), one as a legal entity, that is the Federation of Agricultural Associations (FAA), which we classify as non-profit organisations (see reference numbers NP1-NP7 in Annex 2), and two, Agrolratu and Agrogitutiun, represent agricultural media (reference numbers M1-M2). Thus, organisations can be divided broadly into three major groups (see Table 2): (a) state organisations, (b) agricultural non-profit, membership-oriented organisations and (c) the agricultural media (which is the only agricultural newspaper and agricultural scientific research journal).

One area of interest was the target groups of the identified agricultural organisations. In general, the interviewed organisations focus particularly on private farms and agricultural enterprises, followed by scientists and extension experts, students and politicians (see Error!

Reference source not found.). As it turned out, processors, retailers, wholesalers, as well as consumers, rural youth and rural women are not well-targeted by these organisations.

Table 2: Types of surveyed organisations

Type of organisation Reference number Number of organisations

State organisations S1, S2, S3, S4,S5,S6,S7 7

Private non-profit organisations

NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7 7

Agricultural media M1, M2 2

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), point A3 of questionnaire.

1 A Depository Library has been established at the Armenian State Agrarian University (ASAU) with support of FAO. Agrogitaspyur has been established by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as an extension service and is, at present, integrated into the structure of ASAU. ICARE, founded by the US Government, is integrated into the structure of ASAU as well and has the legal status of a foundation. Agrolratu newspaper and Agrogitutyun magazine are published by ASRC. However, they have their independent decision making power. In the report we refer to them as interviewed organizations.

7

Figure 2: Relative importance of different target groups for agricultural

organisations (%, N=16)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

agric

ultu

ral e

nter

prises

private

farm

s

scient

ists/s

cholar

s

politicians

, adm

inistra

tors

exte

nsion

expe

rts

proc

esso

rs

cons

umer

s

who

lesa

le ope

rato

rs

retaile

rs

stud

ents

wom

en

yout

h

very important important unimportant

Source: IAMO Survey (2009)

8

Table 3: Importance of different target groups among surveyed organisations

Target groups * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

S1 Ministry of Agriculture 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 1 1

S2 ASRC 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 2

S3 ASAU 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 3

S4 Agrogitaspyur 3 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 3

S5 FAO Depository Library 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2

S6 RSC for Agrobiotechnology 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 1 1 3 1 1

S7 RSC for Vegetable and Technical Crops

2 2 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 3

NP1 ICARE 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1

NP2 FAA 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 1

NP3 Ecoglobe Ltd 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

NP4 Green Lane NGO 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2

NP5 CARD 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 1 2 2 3 3

NP6 ACDI/VOCA 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

NP7 Project Harmony 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 3

M1 Agrolratu 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

M2 Agrogitutyun 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2

Average level (to be cal.) 3 3 3 2 3 2 1.5 1 2 2 2 2

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), point A7 of questionnaire. Notes: 1: unimportant, 2: important, 3: very important

* 1: agricultural enterprise, 2: private farms, 3: scientists/scholars, 4: politicians, administrators, 5: extension experts/advisors, 6: processors, 7: consumers, 8: wholesale operators, 9: retailers, 10: students/future experts, 11: women, 12: youth.

5 Communication Channels and Information Needs

In this section, we discuss the actual state of technical infrastructure in the interviewed organisations, their major sources of information, the importance of the source and how they communicate information to the general public (external communication) and their own members (internal communication). Finally, the respondents were asked to assess their own information and communication strategies and the strengths and weaknesses of their organisation.

5.1 Technical infrastructure

First, information was collected on the actual state of ICTs, the results of which are summarised in Table 4. The respondents were asked about the availability of ICT infrastructure (see Table 5), the reliability of the various types of technical equipment (see Table 6) and the competence of staff in using it (see Table 7).

In general, all surveyed organisations are relatively well-equipped with the various types of communication technologies. However, compared to the organisations classified as NP1- NP7, the organisations classified as state run (see Section 3) S1-S7 and agricultural media M1-M2 (also largely funded by state), though relatively well-equipped with necessary technology and Internet connections, partly use obsolete equipment. The difference is

9

especially noticeable with respect to the availability of modern computers, laptops and webcams. Insufficient projectors are another difficulty for most organisations. Intranet services are used by only two organisations and for the time being, most organisations do not see a need for them. Telephones are the main source of internal communication, and when needed, addition communication is carried out through the Skype program.

Most of the available ICT are described as reliable. The only serious concern is the speed of internet connections, with 37.4% of the respondents describing them as only moderately reliable. The low speed creates difficulties, especially in sending and downloading files and accessing websites and documents.

In general, the staff is regarded as competent in using the available hardware, with most of them skilled or of a professional level (see Table 7). Only with respect to the use of computers, laptops and webcams do some of the organisations still have difficulties, as only part of the staff is skilled in using modern technologies.

10

Table 4: Availability, and reliability of ICT infrastructure and competence of staff in using it (%), N=16

Tele-phone

Mobile phone

Fax Copy

machine PC,

software Laptop, software

Printer Intranet Internet

LAN Scanner

Digital photo

camera

Digital video

camera

Web camera

Pro- jector

Availability - not available - insufficient - sufficient

6.3 0.0

93.7

0.0

12.5 87.5

0.0

12.5 87.5

6.3

12.5 81.3

0.0

37.5 62.5

31.3 25.0 43.8

0.0

12.5 87.5

87.5

0.0 12.5

0.0 6.3

93.7

12.4

6.3 81.3

6.3 6.3

87.4

12.5

6.3 81.3

56.3 12.5 31.3

6.3

50 43.7

Reliability - unreliable - mostly unreliable - reliable - very reliable - moderately reliable

0.0 0.0

86.7 13.3

0.0 0.0

87.5 12.5

0.0 0.0

87.5 12.5

0.0 0.0

80.0 20.0

0.0 0.0

87.5 12.5

0.0 0.0

81.3 18.2

0.0 0.0

81.2 18.8

0.0 0.0

50.0 50.0

0.0 6.3

50 6.3

37.4

0.0 0.0

86.7 13.3

0.0 0.0

86.7 13.3

0.0 0.0

85.7 14.3

0.0 0.0

71.4 28.6

0.0 0.0

93.3 6.7

Competence

- non-existent - somewhat - skilled - professional

0.0 0.0

33.3 66.7

0.0 0.0

37.5 62.5

0.0 0.0

31.2 68.8

0.0 0.0

40.0 60.0

0.0 6.3

25 68.8

0.0 9.1

18.2 72.7

0.0 0.0

43.8 56.2

0.0 0.0

100 0.0

0.0 6.2

25.0 68.8

0.0 0.0

42.9 57.1

0.0 0.0

33.3 66.7

0.0 0.0

35.7 64.3

0.0

14.3 28.6 57.1

0.0 0.0 6.7

93.3

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), point A14 of questionnaire. Note: The ‘moderately reliable’ category was originally not proposed in the questionnaire, but some respondents claimed this to be most appropriate to their situation.

37.4% of the respondents had difficulties choosing an answer from the listed categories and described the reliability of internet connection as ‘moderately reliable’.

11

Table 5: Assessment of availability of hardware among surveyed organisations

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), point A14 of questionnaire. Notes: 0: not available, 1: insufficient availability, 2: sufficient availability (Every employee who requires access has it.) Average levels refer to the median. Information on

speed of internet connection is missing; some of the organisations approximated it as about 100MBit, but were not really sure about.

Tele-phone

Mobile phone

Fax

Copy machine PC,

software

Laptop, softwar

e Prin- ter

Intra- net

Inter- net

LAN

Speed of internet connec-

tion

Scan- ner

Digital photo

camera

Digital video

camera

Web camera

Projec- tor

Ministry of Agriculture

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 1 2

ASRC 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 ASAU 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 Agrogitaspyur 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2

FAO Depository Library

0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

ICARE 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 RSC for Agrobiotechnology

2 2 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1

RSC for Vegetable and Technical Crops

2 2 2 2 1 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1

FAA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Ecoglobe Ltd 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 Green Lane NGO 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 CARD 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 ACDI/VOCA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Project Harmony 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 Agrolratu 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1 Agrogitutyun 2 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1

Average level 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 1

12

Table 6: Assessment of reliability of hardware among surveyed organisations

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), point A14 of questionnaire. Notes: 1: unreliable, 2: mostly unreliable, 3: reliable, 4: very reliable, 5 moderately reliable. Average levels refer to the median. Empty cells indicate that the respective means

of communication are not available.

Tele-phone

Mobile phone

Fax

Copy mach-

ine Per-sonal Com-puter, Soft-ware

Laptop com-puter, Soft-ware

Printer Intra-

net Internet

LAN

Pro-vide

speed of

inter-net

connection

Scanner

Digi-tal

photo cam-era

Digi-tal

video cam-era

Web camera

Project-or


3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 5 - 3 3 3 3 3

ASRC 3 3 3 4 3 - 4 - 3 - 3 3 3 - 3 ASAU 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 5 - 3 3 3 3 3 Agrogitaspyur 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 5 - 3 3 3 - 3


- 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 5 - - - - - -

ICARE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 RSC for Agrobiotechnology

3 3 3 - 3 - 3 - 2 - - 3 - - 3


3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 - 3

FAA 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 - 3 - 4 4 4 4 3 Ecoglobe Ltd 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 5 - 3 3 3 - 3 Green Lane NGO 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 5 - 3 3 3 - 3 CARD 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 - 4 4 4 4 4 ACDI/VOCA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 ProjectHarmony 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 Agrolratu 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 - 3 Agrogitutyun 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 3 - 3 3 3 - 3

Average levels 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3.5 3 - 3 3 3 3 3

13

Table 7: Assessment of staff’s competence using ICT among surveyed organisations

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), point A14 of questionnaire. Notes: 0: nonexistent, 1: somewhat, 2: skilled, 3: professional. Average levels refer to the median. Empty cells indicate that the mean of communication is not available.

Those classified as professional in using a specific technology, besides the knowledge of the use have as well sufficient technical knowledge of how to identify and correct accrued technical problems of computers, copy machine, fax machine breakdowns, etc. In addition, ICT professionals are considered the webmasters, website administrators, LAN administrators, information managers, etc.

Tele-phone

Mobile phone

Fax

Copy mach-

ine Per-sonal Com-puter, Soft-ware

Laptop com-puter, Soft-ware

Printer Intra-

net Internet

LAN

Pro-vide

speed of

inter-net

connection

Scanner

Digi-tal

photo cam-era

Digi-tal

video cam-era

Web camera

Project-or


2 2 2 2 1 1 2 - 1 - 2 2 2 1 3

ASRC 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 2 - 2 2 3 - 3 ASAU 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 - 3 - 2 2 2 2 3 Agrogitaspyur 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 - 3 - 3 3 3 - 3


- 2 2 2 2 - 2 - 2 - - - - - -

ICARE 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 RSC for Agrobiotechnology

3 3 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - - 3 - - 3


2 2 2 2 2 2 2 - 2 - 2 2 2 - 3

FAA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 Ecoglobe Ltd 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 - 3 Green Lane NGO 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 - 3 CARD 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 ACDI/VOCA 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 - 2 3 2 2 3 ProjectHarmony 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 3 3 Agrolratu 2 2 2 2 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 2 2 - 2 Agrogitutyun 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 3 3 - 3

Average level 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 - 3 3 3 3 3

- 14 -

14

5.2 Major sources of information

The respondents have been asked to identify their sources for getting information from an unstructured list of 24 different options. After having had identified the source, they were asked whether a particular source is only national, regional and national, international regional and national or only regional. It can be assumed that if the respective organisation has access to international sources, it is better informed about innovations of the sector. In addition, the organisations should assess whether that respective source for information had been of high importance and whether it had been ascribed a high level of quality. The results are summarised in Table 8,

Table 8: Relevant sources of information among surveyed organisations

Type of source Reference number

Number of

organisations

1 Television S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, NP2, NP4, NP5, 8

2 General newspapers S1, S2, NP1, NP4, 4

3 Radio S1, S2, S3, S4, NP2, NP4, NP6 7

4 Friends, informal S1, S4, S5, S6, NP1, NP3, NP5, NP6, NP7 9

5 Training courses, workshops

S2, S3, S4, S6, NP1, NP2, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7 10

6 Fairs S1, S2, S6, S7, NP1, NP3, 6

7 Agricultural newspapers S1, S2, S3, S4, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP6, M1, M2 11

8 Conferences S1, S2, S4, S5, S7, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, M2 11

9 Books S2, S3, S4, S5,NP1, NP4, 6

10 Extension experts S1, S2, S4, S6, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, M2 10

11 Scientists S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, M1

13

12 Professional journals S1, S2, S3, S7, NP1, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7 10

13 Farmers S1, S2, S3, S4, S6,S7, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, M1, M2

14

14 Own research S6, S7, NP1, NP5 4

15 Technical leaflets S6, NP3 2

16 Processors S1, S7, NP1, NP4, NP5, NP6 6

17 Wholesalers S1, S5, NP1, NP2, NP5, NP6 6

18 Retailers S1, NP5, NP6 3

19 Websites S1, S4, S6, S7, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7, M2

12

20 Emails S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7, M1

15

21 Fax S1, S3, S4, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7 10

22 Electronic newsletters S1, S2, S3, S4, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7, M2 11

23 CDs S2, S3, S4, NP1, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6 8

24 Video S3, S4, NP1, NP3, NP6 5

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), point D1 of questionnaire.

Organisations obtain their information from various sources. The usage level of television, radio and general newspapers is relatively low. This is explained by the fact that especially national sources do not often highlight or broadcast issues related to agriculture. There is only one national TV channel, ‘Hayastan 1’, which broadcasts weekly 25-minute agricultural programs. Though

- 15 -

15

original research is considered an extremely important source of information, because of financial difficulties only a few organisations use it. Farmers and extension workers are considered important sources of first-hand information, especially with respect to needs assessments. Most of the organisations use emails, electronic newsletters and websites for getting information. However, most of the organisations are able to access only free and general information, especially from international sources, as access to in-depth information often requires either membership in a network or payment. Just the FAO Depository Library was aware of the existence and had a subscription to the AGORA system that gives free access to most scientific literature in agriculture. Additionally, there is no coordinated communication and only very little virtual exchange of information among surveyed organisations.

5.3 Communication means and information needs

The interviewed organisations provide information about their own activities on two levels:

(1) They use external communication channels to reach other agricultural organisations, political institutions and the public in general.

(2) They use internal communication channels to reach their own staff members and clients, and in case of a pilot project, only to the project’s participants.

The organisations use a variety of means of communication for promoting their activities and information. The most common among these are participation in and organisation of training courses, workshops and conferences, the use of websites and emails, as well as telephone usage and personal contacts.

The communication means for providing information have been classified into three groups: (a) general means (numbers 1 to 5 in Table 9); (b) traditional professional means (numbers 6 to 16); and (c) modern electronic means (numbers 17 to 22).

In addition, respondents were asked who the main recipients of their information are, whether the information is free or not, what is the acceptance of a specific means of a communication. The main findings are summarised in Table 9 and Figure 3.

The acceptance of all used communication means is evaluated as medium to high. As not all organisations use all means of communication, it should be mentioned that only the organisations which use a specific mode of communication could answer the question about acceptance level. For example, videos are used, and only in very limited numbers, by the ASAU. Accordingly, the ASAU statement has a 100% level of acceptance.

The communication means comprising a personal face-to-face component such as personal contacts, extension experts, scientists and fairs are evaluated to have better acceptance than the modern electronic means such as email and websites or the traditional professional means such as books or newspapers.

In general, the provision of information, regardless of the means of communication, is either free or a very low price is charged. For example, the “Agrolratu” newspaper costs 100 Armenian drams, and “Ecoglobe Ltd” charges 1000 drams for the so-called certification package. The certification package contains printed information (in Armenian language) about certification requirements, standards for organic production, tariffs, etc. Both organisations stated that the price covers only the costs for used materials (paper, etc.). VOCA, which provides market price information on mobile phones, has established a price of 50 drams (1US$=370 Armenian drams) for an SMS, which is lower than the average SMS price in the country. In the case of conferences, a participation fee is charged. Trainings and workshops are generally free of charge and are covered from one’s own budget.

- 16 -

16

In an open question respondents were asked about the type of communications they use for obtaining feedback from their members, as well as from their clients (see Figure 8). For internal communications, the most often used means are personal contacts, telephones, trainings and reports. For collecting feedback from their clients’, telephones, personal contacts, field visits, face-to-face surveys and emails are the most commonly used. It is noticeable that organisations prefer to obtain feedback in conventional ways. Nevertheless, modern electronic communication means are becoming more popular. About half of the respondents already use emails for collecting feedback. The information gathered is primarily used for the improvement of the organisation and their services and for general data and information for statistical reasons.

Table 9: Communication means for external communication among surveyed organisations

Type of source Reference number

Number of

organisations

1 Letters S1, NP3 2

2 Telephone S1, S4, S6, NP1, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, M2

9

3 Television S1, S2, S5, S7, M1, M2 6

4 Radio S1, S7 2

5 Friends, informal S1, S4, S5, S6, S7, NP1, NP5, NP7 8

6 Agricultural newspapers S1, S2, S3, S6, S7, M1, M2 7

7 Training courses, workshops S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7

14

8 Fairs S1, S6, S7, NP2, NP5 5

9 Conferences S1, S3, S5, S7, NP1, NP2, NP4, NP5, NP7

9

10 Books S1, S3 2

11 Extension experts S2, S4 2

12 Scientists S3, S4 2

13 Professional journals S3 1

14 Farmers S3, NP2 2

15 Own research S3, 1

16 Technical leaflets S3, S4, S6, S7, NP4, NP5, NP6 7

17 Websites S1, S2, S3, S4, NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7, M1, M2

13

18 Emails S1;S2, S4, S5, S6, NP1, NP3, NP5, NP6, NP7

10

19 Fax S1, S6, NP1, NP5, NP6 5

20 Electronic newsletters S1, NP1, NP5, NP6 4

21 CDs S3, NP3, 2

22 Video S3 1


- 17 -

17

Figure 3: Acceptance of communication means (%)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Own research

Letters

Telep ho ne

Fax

Television

Radio

Perso nal contacts

Extension experts

Scientists

Professional journals

Agricultural newspaper

W orkshops/Trainings

Conferences

Fairs

Technical leaflets

Books

Electronic newsletters

E-mails

Websites

CDs

Videos

medium high


Figure 4: Communication means for collecting feedback (N=16)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Telephone

Personal contacts

E-mail, Internet

Field visits

During the seminars/trainings

Face-to-face surveys

Reports

Fax

Letters

Evaluation sheets


- 18 -

18

The majority of the respondents see a need for improving their means of communication by the more intensive use of modern electronic technologies, which includes special video-conferences, electronic newsletters, and the virtual exchange of information.

For the agricultural sector in general, all the respondents see a great need for improving various information and communication means in the country. Figure 5 summarises the answers.

TV, radio, Internet/emails are seen as the most important means of communication that need improved, followed by websites, technical leaflets, and information from processors.

Figure 5: Communication means to be improved, (% of interviewees)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100TV

Rad

io

Inte

rnet

, e-m

ail

Proce

ssor

s

Techn

ical le

aflets

Training

cour

ses/W

orks

hopsW

ebsite

s

Profe

ssiona

l Jou

rnals

Agricultu

ral n

ewsp

aper

s/jour

nals

Fairs

Acces

s to

GIS

info

rmat

ion

Own

rese

arch

Con

fere

nces

Electro

nic ne

wslet

tersFar

mer

s

Gen

eral n

ewsp

aper

s

Assem

blies,co

nfer

ence

s,m

eetin

gs

Who

lsale

oper

ator

sRet

aile

rsScien

tists

Books

Telep

hone


Organisations were asked whether they needed more detailed information about the agricultural sector, in which fields they see the major information needs, what are the major reasons for the information gap and what organisation, in their opinion, could fill that gap. In an open question, respondents could mention up to five different types of information gaps. Two major gaps were identified:

• Market information systems: lack of statistical information, especially national commodity-based statistics and international information on market organisations and practices.

- 19 -

19

• Timely information, especially on planned projects financed by international donors.

The main reasons for market information gaps are (1) the lack of necessary funds in order to access (buy) international information, and (2) the lack of reliable commodity-based national statistics. The language gap does not seem to be a problem, as in all organisations part of the staff speaks at least English and all the others both Russian and Armenian.

Respondents were not very sure who or which organisations could fill the information gap but most of them expect the Ministry of Agriculture of RA to coordinate and assign, for example the Armenian National Statistical Service, to collect and provide any missing information. Others see the private sector as the possible potential party which could order and pay for market research and the collection of missing information on national statistics.

5.4 Information provision and identified gaps

As discussed above, the interviewed agricultural organisations provide information to the external world, government agencies and the general public as well as exclusively to their members and clients. In this respect, the type of information they provided to whom and how they evaluate the acceptance of the provided information among the (intended) recipients was also asked about. With respect to the type of information, seven broad categories are identified (see Table 10).

Table 10: Type of information provided by surveyed organisations

Type of information Reference number

Number of

organisations

1 New technologies S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, NP1, NP2, NP4, NP5, NP7, M1, M2

13

2 Product prices S2, NP2, NP6, M1 4

3 Law and regulations with respect to agriculture

S1, S2, NP2, NP3, NP4, M1 6

4 Quality requirements S1, S2, S6, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, M1 8

5 Decision support S1, S4, NP5, M1 4

6 Management issues NP1, NP2, NP5, M1 4

7 Input prices S2, NP2 4


Different organisations provide different types of information: 13 of them provide information on new agricultural technologies (varieties, breeds, pest control, etc.), 6 provide legal advice, especially regarding new laws and regulations, and 8 provide information about quality standards (see Table 10). Not many provide information on management issues, input and product prices or decision support. All the information is provided on regular bases, depending on the level and the coverage of the activities of a particular organisation. The provided information on the organisations’ websites is as well regularly updated.

In addition, respondents were asked whether the information they provided was for members only or the general public as well (see Figure 6). Most organisations provide their information to members and clients only.

When asked about the acceptance rate of their information by the respective recipients (Figure 7), respondents consider acceptance as medium to high. Information about management issues,

- 20 -

20

decision support and laws and regulations seems to be less accepted than information on input and product prices and new technologies.

Figure 6: Type and target groups of provided information (%), N=16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

New

technologies

Product prices Law &

regulations

Quality

requirements

Decision

support

Management

issues

Input prices

Do not provide To members only To all


Figure 7: Acceptance of provided information (% of respondents)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

New technologies

Product prices

Law and regulations

Quality requirements

Decision support

Management issues

Input prices

medium high


In an open question, respondents were asked about the main reasons for the medium level of acceptance. They identified three major groups of information needs:

• First, respondents identified a mental problem, especially when it comes to management and decision support issues. An old mentality changes rather slowly, and people sometimes interpret advice as an attempt to take control over them and accordingly show resistance.

• In addition, agricultural organisations lack the financial means to set up the viable technical infrastructure needed in order to reach the recipients in a timely and cost-efficient manner.

- 21 -

21

• Finally, all the information has to be provided in Armenian to make sure that the recipients can understand it. The translations which the organisations often obtain from outside sources are of low quality and the intended users require further explanation.

Therefore, any ICT improvements should not only address the technical infrastructure, but also the selection of appropriate technologies, the teaching of skills and stronger efforts of the information providers to process information in a way and an appropriate language that is easily understood by the intended users.

5.5 Organisations’ strengths and weaknesses concerning ICT

The representatives of agricultural organisations were asked to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their own organisations in general and with respect to ICT in particular (Table 11). Up to five items could be listed. On average, three items were given. As the most important strengths, qualified and experienced staff members were identified, as well as young and motivated staff members and national and international networking. Some of the strengths were organisation–specific, such as the only agrarian university in the country (S3), the only agricultural newspaper (M1), the only agrarian scientific magazine (M2), the only organic production certification organisation (NP3), lobbying and networking (NP3) and (NP2), meaning the uniqueness and the comparative advantage of their specific organisation.

Table 11: Self-assessment of major strengths and weaknesses concerning ICT

Strength Weaknesses

Item N* Item N*

- Qualified and experienced staff

- Young and motivated staff

- National and international networking

- Lobbying and networking

- Other

11

11

6

2

7

- Lack of finance

- Limited operational funds

- Limited technical/technological capacity

- Insufficient foreign language skills

- Other

9

2

3

2

7

Total 37 Total 23

Source: IAMO Survey, 2009, points D8 and D11 of questionnaire. Notes: * N: Number of items given. Up to five items could be listed for each category.

The major weaknesses were related to the lack of financial means and operational funds and limited technical/technological capacity with respect to ICT. This in turn is related to the limited budget. Two of the organisations accepted that though part of the staff has a good command of English, insufficient foreign language skills for the rest of the staff is an organisational weakness. Other weaknesses can be mentioned. The RSC for Vegetable and Technical Crops lacks appropriate agricultural technology to use in their experimental fields (e.g., tractors). The Armenian only agricultural magazine “Agrogitutiun” is printed in black white (only the cover page is printed in colour). Ecoglobe experiences little growth, which may be related to the lack of awareness among farmers and the general public about the advantages of organic products. FAA suffers from insufficient staff at the managerial level. ICARE has just an English webpage, which forecloses its information to many who may be interested. Agrolratu seems to receive sparse information on true community life. Apparently the motivation to send in articles is low because Agrolratu can not pay for articles. Its staff has to travel to the regions to collect information.

- 22 -

22

5.6 International cooperation

In a separate question, the organisations were asked whether they were executing projects for national and/or international donors and how important these sources of funds were to their annual budgets. Many organisations were reluctant to provide information about what percentage of their budget comes from which source, but stated that international donor funds are at present vital for their survival. International contacts and collaboration are very common, and originate from the Ministry of Agriculture.

Within the framework of membership in international agencies, the Ministry of Agriculture works in close collaboration with the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the World Bank, International Episodic Organisation (OIE), Asian Development Bank (ADB), GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit) and many more. More than 50% of the Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development (CARD) and ICARE funds come regularly from the United States Department of Agriculture-Foreign Agricultural Services (USDA-FAS). VOCA implements projects with the US Government, the World Bank, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) funding. Green Line, an NGO, implements projects with funding from World Vision, the World Bank and other donors. Ecoglobe Ltd. receives 25% of its budget from international sources and ASRC receives 35% of its funds from the World Bank. ASAU implements projects with the support of the GTZ, while the FAA also receives about 40% of their funds from international sources.

6 Institutional Setting and Network

As illustrated above, the interviewed organisations focus on different topics and different target groups (stakeholders). Nevertheless, they were asked in an open question which organisations they themselves regarded as the most important ones within the agricultural sector. The respondents could rank up to five different organisations using a scale from 1 to 5. It is evident that this ranking might be biased due to the sample of organisations, but it still provides some indication about the most important organisations of the Armenian agricultural sector. Table 12 summarises the results on a weighted scale (i.e., those organisations listed first got five points, those listed second got four points, etc.).

- 23 -

23

Table 12: The most important organisations in the agricultural sector

(scale 5 to 1), N=16

Rank Name of organisation Weighted sum

1 Ministry of Agriculture of RA 67

2 Agricultural Support Centres 34

3 Armenian State Agrarian University 31

4 CARD 30

5 ASRC 19

6 FAA 17

7 ACBA 15

8 Agricultural Research Centres 10

9 Agrolratu 5

10 Agrogitutyun 5

11 Green Lane NGO 4

12 Ecoglobe Ltd 4

13 Chamber of Commerce 4

14 World Vision NGO 4

15 Ministry of Ecology 4

16 VOCA 3

17 Agricultural Colleges 2

Source: IAMO Survey, 2009, point B1 of questionnaire. Notes: ACBA = Agricultural Cooperative Bank - Credit Agricole Armenia, ASAU =

Agricultural State Agrarian University; ASRC = Agricultural Support Republican Center; CARD = Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development; FAA = Federation of Agricultural Associations; ICARE = International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education; NGO = Non Government Organization, VOCA = Volunteers in Oversees Cooperative Assistance;

The Ministry of Agriculture, as one of the key players of the agricultural sector, was listed as the most important organisation. Its role in supporting the development of the sector through adequate policies and strategies is fully acknowledged. The Agricultural Support Centres are in second place and play an important role in delivering information from politicians and scientists to agricultural producers. The Armenian State Agrarian University (ASAU) continues the list, followed by the Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development (CARD), the Agricultural Support Republican Centre (ASRC), the Federation of Agricultural Associations (FAA), the Agricultural Cooperative Bank of Armenia (ACBA), and Agricultural Research Centres (ARC) as the most important organisations.

- 24 -

24

Figure 8: Cooperation with other organisations in the agricultural sector

Source: IAMO Survey, 2009, point C3 of questionnaire. Notes: Only those organisations which were also in the sample are included in the figure.

ASAU = Agricultural State Agrarian University; ASRC = Agricultural Support Republican Center; CARD = Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development; FAA = Federation of Agricultural Associations; ICARE = International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education; NGO = Non Government Organization, VOCA = Volunteers in Oversees Cooperative Assistance.

Project Harmony in agricultural sector has had very little cooperation only with the Ministry and with some of grape producers. At present it does not work in agricultural sector but on community development.

The interviewed organisations were asked which organisations should be more active in supporting the Armenian agricultural sector. Again, in an open question, up to two organisations could be brought forward. Most of the respondents again expect the Ministry of Agriculture to encourage the development of the sector with financial support, but also by better coordinating access to information, advisory services and technical support. In addition, respondents see an urgent need for more active bank involvement, as well as other lending institutions. Agricultural organisations in Armenia do not work independently side-by-side, but are actively seeking various forms of cooperation among each other. The organisations were asked with which organisation they cooperate most in the agricultural sector. In an open question, respondents could list up to five organisations with a declining priority. The findings are summarised in Figure 8, whereby the peak of the line indicates the recipient partner of that collaboration. The findings clearly show that some organisations, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, CARD (Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development), ASAU (Agricultural State Agrarian University), followed by ASRC (Agricultural Support Republican Center), Agrolratu, Agrogitutiun, Ecoglobe Ltd, Green Lane NGO, FAA (Federation of Agricultural Associations) are more on the focus of collaboration, while others such as the Research Centre of Agro biotechnology, RSC for Vegetable and Technical Crops, ICARE (International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education), VOCA (Volunteers in oversees Cooperative Assistance) have less links of collaboration,. The fewest links have Agrogitaspyur and

- 25 -

25

the FAO Depository Library. FAO Depository Library faces several difficulties to be more intensively integrated in the information, communication and cooperation network. First of all it is badly equipped, having only one computer (the existing computer is used by the library manager, for the library visitors there is no possibility to look for a specific literature using computers). Second, there is a low level of awareness of the existence of the library and the possible literature it may provide. Third, the literature is in English language, even the abstracts are not translated in Armenian (there exist just a few Russian language literature). Organisations see it difficult to understand and use the literature (for example copy and provide some of the articles to their clients) without bearing extra costs for the translations.

Though this figure might not perfectly reflect reality because it only involves the network between the organisations in the sample, it still shows that almost all organisations collaborate with the network in one way or the other.

7 Existing and Potential Innovation Systems in Armenia

Respondents were asked about the products/services that are integrated in global systems and if they see any niche product/sector in agriculture that have shown strong innovation patterns. In addition, if they could give a hint which innovations are in demand, if there are any policies in the organisation to support innovations such as new products, new processes, etc., where they see innovation triggers in the agricultural sector and what are the hindering factors.

Most of the respondents see the established system of certification of organic production of fruits and vegetables as the main innovation, which is integrated in the global system. Another innovation is seen the introduction of new sorting and packaging technologies by the Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development and Federation of Agricultural Associations. The start of the production of non traditional crops such as broccoli, non traditional types of salads is another example. Currently, the research centres under the Ministry of Agriculture are introducing new technologies in horticulture and animal husbandry. New varieties of crops and valuable breeds of animals have been brought into the country. Over the last year, Armenian researchers have selected Akhtamar, Victoria, Armish wheat varieties, Mush, Sasun barley varieties, Kotayq 3, Kotayq 4 soyabean varieties, Armenian Greenhouse tomato varieties, as well as new varieties of pepper, eggplant, cucumber, melon, watermelon and squash. These imported varieties of crops and breeds of animals, are considered as well an integration into the global system.

The potential niche products are considered all the varieties of fruits and vegetables, both in fresh and canned forms and different sorts of Armenian cheese. Dried apricot and Armenian “Koniak” (brandy) are for the moment the niche product in international markets (especially Russia and USA). The main development triggers of the sector are seen in government-extension-farmer-linkages, increased awareness and knowledge of agricultural producers, processors and consumers, the demand for Armenian products, especially dried fruits and Armenian Koniak, in Russia, Georgia and USA.

The main hindering factors for the development of innovations and the agricultural sector are according to the interviewees’ lack of finance, lack of sufficient awareness and knowledge, lack of appropriate policies and strategies on governmental level, non willingness of farmers to cooperate, traditional ways of thinking. Most of the organisations stated they have strategy to promote innovation basically by workshops for exchange of ideas. VOCA has salary according to performance strategy by that encouraging the staff to be more innovative.

- 26 -

26

8 Characteristics of the Focus Groups

Focus group discussions were conducted in the Ararat and Shirak provinces to collect topical information from the representatives of local NGOs, extension agents, farmers, rural women and youth. The participants were rather heterogeneous with respect to membership in various associations and groups and rather homogeneous with respect to their main profession, i.e., being farmers. Only one woman participated in the discussion. The average age of the participants in the Shirak region was 44 and the average educational level was 14 years (see Table 13). In the Ararat region the average age of the participants was 41 and the average level of education was 13.6 years (see Table 14).

Table 13: The main characteristics of the FGD participants in the Shirak region, N= (7)

Age

in years

Education in years of school

attendance Sex

Main occupation

Membership

1 49 15 Female Farmer No

2 54 15 Male Farmer Credit group member

3 44 15 Male Farmer, Staff member of ASC

1. Member of Armenian national federation of beekeepers

2. Seed producers support group member

4 40 12 Male Farmer, Extension agent

Seed producers support group member

5 32 12 Male Farmer No

6 45 15 Male Farmer, Staff member of ASC

Director of Shirak NGO

7 46 15 Male

Farmer,

Director of Shirak Regional Agricultural Support Centre.

Board member of Armenian national federation of beekeepers

Average 44 14

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), Focus Group Discussion (FGD) outline. Note: Names are omitted from the list.

ASC = Agricultural Support Centre; NGO = non-governmental organisation.

- 27 -

27

Table 14: The main characteristics of the FGD participants in the Ararat region,

N= (10)

Age

in years

Education in years of school

attendance Sex

Main occupation

Membership

1 27 12 Female ASC staff member

No

2 41 18 Male Farmer, Extension agent ASC

No


4 44 15 Male Farmer Credit group member

5 46 15 Male Farmer, Accountant ASC

No

6 42 15 Male Consultant No

7 34 15 Male Farmer,

Journalist No



10 59 15 Male Farmer, ASC staff member

Member of producers association

Average 41 13.6

Source: IAMO Survey (2009), Focus Group Discussion (FGD) outline. Note: Names are omitted from the list.

ASC = Agricultural Support Centre

8.1 Awareness of agricultural information and knowledge

The participants were asked a guiding question and were encouraged to discuss it further if they considered information and knowledge to be important business inputs for their farm production. If yes, they were asked how important these inputs were and if they could give an example of how it has helped them improve their farm production. In addition, a question was asked about their awareness of the most important recent innovations in the agricultural sector.

In both groups the participants acknowledged that information and knowledge are important input factors for their farm production, yet it seems difficult for them to comprehend and accept relevant information. The main reason is that when it comes to information about the use of, for instance, new farm management or cultivation methodologies and technologies, farmers often show distrust and resistance. Participants stated that acceptance is higher when farmers participate in Farm Field Schools or have the possibility of at least seeing the results on Videos, on a TV or on the field of a neighbour. The woman participant in the Shirak region mentioned that she has implemented a new potato planting technique which she saw on a TV program. After the yield on her farm increased, the technique spread very quickly throughout the village.

The possibility of obtaining information on product market prices by sending an SMS message (a pilot project implemented by VOCA) is seen as the main innovation in the country’s agricultural sector. The market product information is updated on a daily bases. However, the cost of the information (cost of SMS message), though relatively low, is not affordable for all farmers. In addition, the project does not cover the markets in all 11 provinces, but rather only in 3 provinces.

- 28 -

28

The system is relatively new in the country, since December 2008, and is supported through project funding.

8.2 Major sources of information and knowledge

Next, the participants were asked about their main sources of agricultural knowledge and information. In both regions the main sources of information are informal contacts, ASCs, ‘Agrolratu’ newspaper, ‘Agrogitutiun’ magazine and the radio. Farmers receive additional information when they participate in international and national development projects such as the projects of CARD, etc. Generally, all these sources are trusted, but as mentioned above, the speed of acceptance of delivered information is often slow. Participants were also asked about which organisations should be more active in this field. The answers were similar and pointed to a more active role of existing sources. In addition, participants were asked about the preferred source and/or formats of the received information. Face-to-face communication, followed by telephone, TV, radio programs and electronic formats were named. Electronic formats, though appreciated, are not very often used. Internet is accessible to any person who has access to either mobile and/or regular phones (all the participants stated to have at least mobile phones). Using the phone lines and internet prepaid cards farmers have the possibility to be connected to the Internet. However, the number of those who own computers and know how to use them is very limited.

8.3 Accessibility and information need

Participants were asked if they felt they have access to sufficient information and knowledge to make optimal decisions about their farm production. They stated that though information, consultancy and support about new technologies and techniques is provided by the extension experts of ASCs, the main point of concern for farmers still remains the question of what to products, in which amount, and where to market it.

In addition, more detailed information, consultancy and alerts of disease/pest outbreaks are needed. Market information on product prices, though partly available, require improvement to cover the information from other regions as well. Participants stated they are willing to pay for better information to increase yields and improve their farm situation. However, their concern that without an established agricultural insurance system in the country, they may loose everything in case of emergency remains an issue.

8.4 Experience and identified gaps

Respondents were asked if they had ever participated in Farmer Field Schools, new technology demonstrations, etc. In both provinces such events were organised by different development projects, NGOs, Agrigitaspyur and the members of ASCs. Both the overall experience and feeling of usefulness of such demonstrations and schools were positive. Respondents stated that if a technique can be easily implemented in their farms without extra large costs, such events are highly valued. However, most of the technologies demonstrated, though very practical and useful, are not affordable for them. Thus, once the event or pilot project is finished, farmers do not continue to use the techniques demonstrated. In the Ararat region, participants stated that they had recently participated in a demonstration of technologies (tractors, etc.) for the efficient cultivation of small plots, which are typical for the Armenian agricultural land structure. Though the community would like to buy at least one such technology (a combined aggregate of a tractor and a plough machine) for the village, the price of US$ 50,000 not affordable. The limited access to credit is still one of the biggest problems for agricultural producers in the country.

- 29 -

29

To the question of, “What can groups like you do to improve the situation,” participants answered ‘not more than intensively sharing information and knowledge among ourselves’.

9 Conclusions and Recommendations

The aim of the study was to identify the information and communication needs of relevant Armenian institutions and stakeholders from the national agricultural research system, extension services, NGOs, farmers’ associations, and representatives of rural men, women and youth. Representatives of the 16 national agricultural organisations were interviewed, and the choice of organisations was approved by the FAO prior to the field work. The major emphasis of the structured questionnaire was on getting first-hand information on the actual state of technical infrastructure among the various organisations, their sources of information and how they provide information to the general public (external communication) and to their own members (internal communication). Similarly, their assessment of their organisation’s own information and communication strategies was elicited. In addition, questions were raised about key players and collaboration and networking with other organisations within and outside of the agricultural sector.

9.1 Conclusions

It can be concluded that Armenia displays a relatively well-established institutional framework for agricultural consultancy and information systems under the Ministry of Agriculture. This includes the Agricultural Support Republican Centre (ASRC) and the Regional Agricultural Support Centres (ASC) in all of the ten provinces. In addition, seven research centres operate within the ministry’s system.

The latest strategy paper of Agricultural Sustainable Development (2006) of the Ministry of Agriculture presents the major policy strategies and measures to improve the established system of agricultural consultancy and information in the agricultural sector of Armenia. These include: (1) the continuation of state assistance to resolution of issues related to information, consultancy, academic and personnel provision in the sphere of agriculture; (2) enlargement of marz (province) extension services and implementation of structural changes; (3) implementation of institutional reforms through integration of scientific, educational and consultancy structures at marz (province) level; (4) vocational training of staff on usage of modern technologies to be competitive in the labour market; (5) through technical equipment and strengthening of professional capacities of the national and marz (province) extension services, to raise the efficiency of the consultancy system.

The respondents confirmed that information and communication technology (ICT) is fairly well adopted in Armenia. In general, all surveyed organisations are relatively well-equipped with various types of communication technologies. However, when we compare private non-profit organisations (NP1-NP7 in Table 2) to the organisations classified as largely state-run (S1-S7) and the agricultural media (M1-M2), the latter two though relatively well-equipped with the necessary ICT partly use outdated or obsolete equipment. The difference is especially noticeable with respect to the availability of modern computers, laptops and webcams. Most of the available ICT is reliable. The only serious concern is the speed of most Internet connections. More than 37% of the respondents described it as being only moderately reliable. In general, staff members are regarded as competent in using the available hardware and software.

ICT is also available to Agricultural Support Regional Centres (ASC). The regional agricultural extension visiting and village agents located in the respective communities’ lack, however, Internet connections. Often telephones are not available either. This creates difficulties for the effective and fast organisation of their work.

- 30 -

30

Farmers and extension workers are considered important sources of first-hand information, especially with respect to needs assessments. Most of the organisations use emails, electronic newsletters and websites for obtaining information. However, there is no coordinated communication system, and the virtual exchange of information among surveyed organisations is uncommon. The respective organisations use a variety of communication tools for promoting their activities and information. The most common tools are participation in and organisation of training courses, workshops and conferences, the use of websites and emails, as well as the use of telephones and personal contacts.

The means of communication comprising a personal face-to-face component such as personal contacts, extension experts, scientists and fairs are evaluated to have better acceptance than modern electronic means such as email and websites, or the more traditional means of books and newspapers. Four major information gaps were identified:

• Market information systems: a lack of statistical information, especially national commodity-based statistics and international information on market organisations and practices.

• Information on donor funded projects implemented by different international and national organisations. Especially there is insufficient information on planned donor funded projects.

• Insufficient information and alert of disease/pest outbreaks.

• Market information on product prices, though partly available, requires improvement to cover all provinces.

The main reasons for the market informational gaps are: (1) the lack of necessary funds to access (buy) international information; and (2) the lack of reliable commodity-based national statistics. The language gap does not seem to be a problem, as in all organisations part of the staff speaks at least English and all the others speak Russian and Armenian.

The major weaknesses of the organisations were related to the lack of financial means and operational funds and for some of them the limited technical/technological capacity with respect to ICT. This in turn was related to the limited budget. The major weakness of the established model of information flow system is the missing link to consumers and processors. As the most important strengths of the organisations, qualified and experienced staff members, young and motivated staff members and national and international networking were identified.

9.3 Recommendations

One of the major conclusions of the interviews and focus group discussions (FGD) is that most agricultural organisations in Armenia do not have sufficient funds to improve the situation themselves. Especially the lack of information on national commodity-based statistics requires strong coordination by the Ministry of Agriculture. Recommendations are thus:

• To facilitate and coordinate the flow of information and communication among all relevant stakeholders including with the private sector and processors. Consequently, the Ministry of Agriculture has to improve the design of information and communication system by implementing adequate policy measures to better integrate private sector and processors in the system.

In order to support the work of the Regional Agricultural Support Centres it is further recommended:

• To create an information and communication platform for agriculture to facilitate the networking and exchange among public and private stakeholders involved in agricultural development including ARC staff using video-conferences and electronic discussion when appropriate.

- 31 -

31

• To more intensively integrate the specialists of other educational and research institutions, e.g. Agrogitaspyur, International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education, Agricultural State Agrarian University in the agricultural advisory system by assigning and contracting them for trainings (when appropriate distance trainings to ASC staff) and consultancy to the government and the private sector. The International Centre for Agriculture Research and Education has reach experience on and owns RISE extension software which was tested in the field and is adapted to local conditions. ICARE can be supported to organise workshop trainings for ASC staff, village agents, other interested parties to share their knowledge and experience.

• To establish and implement distance training courses for ASC staff members, farmer groups on farm management, new technologies, etc. within the “University-Extension-Farmer” system. This will likely increase the efficiency and speed of consultancy and information and communication flow.

• To improve the rural communication infrastructure at the community level through government support and/or financing to provide access to ICTs to agricultural extension and village agents (mobile phones, computers and internet connection for village agents) and create alert service via internet and mobile phones.

• To integrate the processors and consumers (consumer organisations) in the agricultural information and communication system by allowing consumers and processors to monitor and analyse safety and quality of agricultural products and provide transparent information on their findings. Consequently, the Government has to design and implement adequate support measures to integrate processors and consumers in the information and communication system by for example providing them with regular TV programs and hours, websites.

• To train the staff of ASC regional agricultural support centers as well as village agents in using modern information and communication technologies (ICT). This should also include training on how to identify relevant information, how to identify both reliable and unreliable sources of information, and how to process technical and other information in such a way that it can easily be understood by the respective stakeholders.

• To improve the quality of feedback mechanisms by more intensively integrating modern technologies in users - information providers system (e.g. farmers to village agents, village agents to extension agents, extension agents to ASC, any of the clients to respective information provider organisation). The continuing education of the respective staff members’ (ASC staff, village agents) in ICT and foreign language skills should be part of the human resources development program.

• To help ASRC receive support in documenting and processing its vast stock of information in a systematic manner and in a way that it is easily comprehensible to the end-users. Presently, ASRC does not know how to spread its information effectively due to financial constraints.

• To support the FAO Depository Library to organise workshops, TV promotions to make it and AGORA system better known to potential users. To financially support the library to translate the abstracts (for the beginning and later the part of the literature) of existing literature in Armenian language. To better equip the library with computers. Here the financial support of FAO is needed until the system is well established.

The collection, selection, documentation, storage, processing and dissemination of useful and reliable information are costly. Therefore, any user should pay for it but phasing in of payments is recommended. When developing new information systems, attention should be given to the organization and workflows for content development, system maintenance and resources needed for it. The government might support the development of information systems if there is a quick economic benefit (increased income which may lead to poverty reduction) to especially final users (agricultural producers). However, after the system is well established and known to users, the maintenance of the system should be financed by users of information.

- 32 -

32

Finally, agricultural organisations should make use of the various means of communication in a more flexible manner. For farmers, information in any form (technical leaflets, demonstrations, trainings, field schools) needs to be provided in Armenian language. For ASC staff members, information can be provided and communicated in Armenian and in Russian languages. The forms of information and communication may be different (electronic formats, distant trainings, video conferences, technical leaflets, books). For all the other interviewed organisations information provision and communication may take place in Armenian, Russian and English languages.

- 33 -

33

List of references

Lerman, Z., and A. Mirzakhanian. 2001. Private Agriculture in Armenia, Lexington Books,

Lanham

Community Finance Officers Association (CFOA). 2003. Armenian Country Paper, Land Policy. Tbilisi: South Caucasus Regional Land Policy Conference.

Spoor, 2004: Land reform, poverty and inequality, A pro-poor approach to land policies, UNDP Armenia White Paper.

Ministry of Agriculture. 2008. Agriculture of Armenia, Limush Printhaus, Yerevan.

Ministry of Agriculture. 2006. Agricultural Sustainable Development Strategy Republic of Armenia (revised version). http://www.minagro.am/doc/agstrategy_eng2.pdf (accessed 28.02.09).

Armenia State Agrarian University (ASAU). 2009.Structure of "Agrogitaspyur" department. www.armagrar-uni.am/eng/eng-page=personal&p=7.htm (accessed 03.02.09).

Agricultural Support Republican Center (ASRC). 2009. Agricultural information and consultancy. http://arm.agrowebcac.org/asrc ((accessed 03.02.09).

Center for Agribussiness and Rural Development (CARD). 2009. www.card.am (accessed 05.02.09).

Ecoglobe Ltd. 2009. Welcome to Ecoglobe Ltd. http://www.ecoglobe.am/ (accessed 03.02.09).

Federation of Agricultural Associations Union of Legal Entities (FAA ULE). 2009. FAA’s mission. www.faa-ule.am (accessed 05.02.09).

Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia. 2009.Ministry structure and functions. http://www.minagro.am/eng/default.asp (accessed 10.02.09).

Green Lane. 2009. Agricultural Assistance Non-governmental Organization. www.greenlane.am

(accessed 06.03.09).

- 34 -

34

Annex 1 List of organisations and persons interviewed

Organisation Name Position

S1 Ministry of Agriculture Mr. Samvel Avetisyan First Deputy Minister

S2 Agricultural Support Republican Centre Mr. Ashot Voskanyan Previous Director (until March

2009)

S3 Agricultural State Agrarian University Mr. Henrik Sargsyan Pro Rector

S4 Agrogitaspyur Mr. Gurgen Yeghiazaryan Director

S5 FAO Depository Library Mrs. Narine Khurshudyan Manager

S6 RSC for Agrobiotechnology Mr. Aghvan Sahakyan

Mrs. Gayane Melyan Director Head of Tissue Culture Laboratory

S7 RSC for Vegetable and Technical Crops Mrs. Gayane Sargsyan Director

NP1 International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education

Mr. Vardan Urutyan Director

NP2 Federation of Agricultural Associations Mr. Tigran Haknazaryan Project coordinator

NP3 Ecoglobe Mrs. Nune Darbinyan Director

NP4 Green Lane NGO Mrs Nune Sarukhanyan President

NP5 Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development

Mr. Gagik Sardaryan Director

NP6 Volunteers in Oversees Cooperative Assistance

Mr. Richard Hurelbrink Mrs Nora Alanakyan

Team Leader Marketing specialist

NP7 ProjectHarmony Mrs Mariam Martirosyan Country Director

M1 Agrolratu Mr. Revik Grigoryan Editor in Chef

M2 Agrogitutyun Mr. Rafayel Sarukhanyan Editor in Chef

- 35 -

35

Annex 2 Classification of organisations

Organisation Address Aim

S1


Government Building 3, Republic Square, Yerevan, 375010 Tel: ++374(10)524834 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.minagro.am

The Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Armenia is a national agency of state governance functioning in the agricultural sector and operating towards the realization of the policies adopted by the Government of the Republic of Armenia in the spheres of agriculture and forestry.

S2

ASRC Mamikonyants Str. 39-A, Yerevan, 375059 Tel: ++374(10)232102 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://arm.agrowebcac.org/asrc

ASRC acts as a liaison between the Armenian Government in support of the Ministry of Agriculture on the one hand, and farmers and other agribusiness producers on the other hand. The Center provides consultancy and information support to ten Agricultural Support Marz (Regional) Centers, local extension specialists, village/community extension agents, etc.

S3

ASAU Teryan str. 74, Yerevan, 375009 Tel: ++374(10)560711 E-mail: Website: www.armagrar-uni.am http://arm.agrowebcac.org/faodl.php

Armenian State Agrarian University is one of the biggest higher educational and scientific centers of the RA.

S4

Agrogitaspyur Teryan str. 74, Yerevan, 375009 Tel: (374 10) 56 07 11 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.armagrar-uni.am/eng/eng-page=personal&p=7.htm

“Agrogitaspyur” Department renders consulting assistance to farmers on the problems of production organization, facilitates the execution of priority agricultural programs and improvement of the production volume of competitive agricultural goods.

S5


Teryan str. 74, Yerevan, 375009 Tel: (374 10) 56 07 11 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.armagrar-uni.am/eng/eng-page=personal&p=7.htm

FAO Depository Library has an aim to provide better access to international literature.

S6 RSC for Agrobiotechnology

1101, Echmiadzin, st. Isi –le Mulino1 Tel. 374231 56970

To preserve and further develop the Gin bank of national varieties, work on the selection and development of better and resistant varieties

S7 RSC forVegetable and Technical Crops

Village of Darakert, Masis region, Armenia phone: 0-36 40892

To further develop the national varieties of vegetables and technical crops

NP1

ICARE Teryan str. 74, Yerevan, 375009 Tel: ++374(10)560014; 525334 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.icare.am

ICARE has a mission to support rural industries, agribusinesses and Government of Armenia in their understanding and realizing of the potential for agribusiness and sustainable agricultural development, marketing and trade, as well as efficient use of environmental and natural resources.

NP2

FAA Vantyan 61a str, Yerevan 0032 Tel. ++374(10) 778870 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.faa-ule.am

FAA has a mission to support the development of member farmer organizations and assist them to solve their common legal, managerial, technical, financial, and social problems in cooperation with farmer organizations in order to contribute to the progress of agriculture of Armenia.

NP3

Ecoglobe 1/66 375033 Yerevan Armenia Tel./Fax.+374 10 22 12 95 E-mail: Website: http://www.ecoglobe.am/

ECOGLOBE LTD is the first Armenian organic certification company dealing with inspection and certification of ecological agricultural production.

- 36 -

36

Organisation Address Aim

NP4

Green Lane NGO

Heratsi St. 16/29, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia Tel: (+374 10) 575779 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.greenlane.am

Green Lane assists farmers in production and marketing of high quality, competitive agricultural products via formation given out to farmer groups and cooperatives (farmer field schools, local extension research groups, cooperatives) thus improving the income of the member farmers, their families, people cooperating with them, and processors that are buying from the member farmers.

NP5

CARD Teryan str. 74, Yerevan, 375009 Tel: ++374(10)560014; 525334 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.card.am

CARD is a “one-stop-shop” economic development organization with the mission to assist farmers and agribusinesses in the production and marketing of food and related products to increase incomes and create jobs leading to sustainable livelihoods for rural populations.

NP6

ACDI/VOCA 8 Hanrapetutyan Str., Yerevan, Armenia Tel: (+374 10) 544483, (+374 10) 544468 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http:///www.acdivoca.org

ACDI/VOCA is a private, nonprofit organization that promotes broad-based economic growth and the development of civil society in emerging democracies and developing countries. Offering a comprehensive range of technical assistance services, ACDI/VOCA addresses the most pressing and intractable development problems. Driven by the goal of adding value to local enterprise, which underlies prosperity and stability, ACDI/VOCA works in four main practice areas:

� Agribusiness � Enterprise Development � Financial Services � Community Development

NP7

ProjectHarmony 8 Paronyan Street, room #8, Yerevan, Armenia Tel: (+374 10) 53-67-83, (+374 10) 53-86-76 E-mail: [email protected]

Project Harmony’s work in Armenia began with two pilot projects – Internet Community Development and Armenia Connectivity 2000 – sponsored by the U.S. Department of State. The objective of the projects was to introduce modern Information Technologies to Armenian communities in innovative, sustainable ways

M1

Agrolratu Mamikonyants Str. 39-A, Yerevan, 375059 Tel: ++374(10)232017 ++374(10)232038 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://arm.agrowebcac.org/asrc

Agrolratu has a mission to provide information about community life from regions, to inform farmers, agribusinesses, specialists and the general public on government agricultural policies, donor-funded development projects, new technologies, product prices

M2

Agrogitutyun Mamikonyants Str. 39-A, Yerevan, 375059 Tel: ++374(10)232017 ++374(10)232038 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://arm.agrowebcac.org/asrc

Agrogitution scentific magazin has an aim to inform farmers, agribusinesses, specialists, scientists and the general public about the newest scientific and research findings

Note : ASAU = Agricultural State Agrarian University; ASRC = Agricultural Support Republican Center; ACDI/VOCA = Agricultural Cooperative Development International and Volunteers in Oversees Cooperative Assistance; CARD = Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development ; ICARE = International Centre for Agribusiness Research and Education ; FAA = Federation of Agricultural Associations; NGO = Non Government Organization; = ; RSC = Research Scientific Center

- 37 -

37

Annex 3 Questionnaire and Outline for Farmers' group discussion (FGD) used in the study

Questionnaire for Armenian Agricultural Organizations/Institutions

Introductory Remarks

This questionnaire is about the organizational structure in the agricultural sector of Armenia and the role of these organizations or institutions in the sector. We especially focus on the information and communication systems of the agricultural sector, their policies and strategies, their stakeholders and linkage to farmers.

All data and information gathered for this study will be summarized for analysis and contribute to the preparation of a FAO report focusing on the assessment of needs of the information and communication system of the agricultural sector in your country. ID of questionnaire: __________________

Interviewer: ............................ Date: ......................... A. Basic information about your organization/institution

1) Name and Title of respondent:……………………………………. Position in the organization/institution:…………………………… Name of the organization/institution:……………………………… Address:……………………………………………………………. Telephone:…………………………… Fax:………………………………...... E-mail:………………………………. Homepage:…………………………...

2) Affiliation of the organization: ( ) Ministry, please specify: __________________________ ( ) Academy of Agricultural Sciences ( ) Other, Please state the type: __________________________________

3) Type of organization/institution (Mark those types that describe your

organization/institution best. More than one answer is possible.) ( ) Research institute ( ) University ( ) Government Department ( ) Youth organization/women organization ( ) State-run profit oriented ( ) State-run non-profit oriented ( ) Association of agricultural producers ( ) Company specialized in agricultural extension/advisory services ( ) Other private profit oriented company

- 38 -

38

( ) Non-Government Organization/non-profit organization ( ) Other, please state the type: _____________________________________

- 39 -

39

4) Function of organization/institution (Mark those functions that describe your organization/institution best. More than one answer is possible.) ( ) Policy and planning ( ) Administration ( ) Lobbying ( ) Research ( ) Agricultural production ( ) Processing ( ) Input supply company ( ) Consulting ( ) Education ( ) Information ( ) Extension/Advisory services ( ) Marketing ( ) Other, please state the function: ____________________________________

5) Number of employees total: Female: Male:

Number of employees in managerial positions/professors: Female: Male: 1. for universities number of students: Female: Male: 2. for farmers associations and parties number of members: Female: Male:

membership fee: ___________Armenian Dram/year financial support from the state ( ) yes ( ) no non-financial support from the state (office, staff,

less operating expenses) ( ) yes ( ) no

6) Geographic level of activities. More than one answer is possible. ( ) International ( ) National ( ) Only in specific region(s)

Please list the region(s): __________________________________ __________________________________

__________________________________ 7) Please state the importance of different target groups for your organization

very important important unimportant

1) agricultural enterprises

2) private farms

3) scientists/scholars

4) politicians, administrators

5) extension experts/advisors

6) processors

7) consumers

8) wholesale operators

9) retailers

10) students/future experts

11) women

12) youth

13) other ____________________

- 40 -

40

8) When (year) was your organization/institution founded? ___________ 9) For associations and parties; for other organizations go on with question A (12)

What are you doing for your members? Please state the importance of services/activities for your organization.

Reasons very important important unimportant

Higher output prices provided

Lower input prices provided

Reliable business connection guaranteed

Lobbying

Good public relations for agriculture

Reliable information about markets

Reliable information about laws and regulations

Reliable information about new technologies

Help with questions of law

Arbitral court

Extension service free of charge

Better access to credits

Better access to donor funded projects

Early warning/for pest and diseases

Other _____________________

10) Do you have offices/representatives in all regions?

( ) yes, in all ( ) no, but in some State the number: ________ ( ) no, none

11) Do you have offices/representatives in all districts? ( ) yes, in all ( ) no, but in some State the number: ________ ( ) no, none

12) How do you evaluate your relation to officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and

other state bodies relevant for rural development? ( ) sympathetic, supportive ( ) neutral, not interested ( ) obstructive

- 41 -

41

13) How do you evaluate the linkages of your organization with agricultural producers, in general?

( ) strong ( ) moderate ( ) weak ( ) difficult to answer

14) Please, characterize the ICT infrastructure in your organization/institution regarding

availability, reliability and the competence of your staff in using it. a) In headquarters

Availability 0 : no

1 : insufficient

2 : sufficient (every

employee has

access)

Reliability 1 : unreliable

2 : mostly

unreliable

3 : reliable

4 : very reliable

Competence in use 0 : nonexistent

1 : somewhat

2 : skilled

3 : professional

Telephone

Mobile phone

Fax machine

Copy machine

Personal Computer including software

Laptop computer including software

Printer

Intranet

Internet

- Land line dial up

- LAN

- ADSL

- Leased line

Provide speed of internet connection _______________

Scanner

Digital photo camera

Digital video camera

Webcam

b) In district/regional offices (if there are any)

Availability 0 : no

1 : insufficient

2 : sufficient (every

employee has

Reliability 1 : unreliable

2 : mostly

unreliable

3 : reliable

Competence in use 0 : nonexistent

1 : somewhat

2 : skilled

3 : professional

- 42 -

42

access) 4 : very reliable

Telephone

Mobile phone

Fax machine

Copy machine

Personal Computer including software

Laptop computer including software

Printer

Intranet

Internet

- Land line dial up

- LAN

- ADSL

- Leased line

Provide speed of internet connection _______________

Scanner

Digital photo camera

Digital video camera

Webcam

B. The organizational structure in the agricultural sector

1) Which organizations/institutions, do you see as the most important ones in the agricultural sector of your country?

Please list and rank the five most important organizations/institutions! 1.______________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________ 4. ______________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________

2) In your opinion, which organizations/institutions already working in the

agricultural sector in your country, should be more active and what contribution do you expect from them? Expected contributions could be, for instance, financial support, technical support, free services, reliable information.

Organization/institution Expected contribution for your organization

Expected contribution for the whole agricultural sector

- - - -

- - - -

- 43 -

43

- - - -

- - - -

3) In your opinion, which organizations/institutions not yet active in supporting the

agricultural sector of your country should get engaged and what should they contribute to the agricultural sector?

Organization/institution Expected contribution

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

C. Cooperation with other organizations and institutions This section will look at links between your organization/institution and others. Even though our main interest lies in the agricultural sector, it is also interesting to know if you are cooperating with organizations/institutions outside this sector. Therefore, we will ask you in some questions to specify the sector your partners are working in.

1) Does your organization/institution cooperate with other national organizations/institutions in the non-agricultural sector? ( ) yes ( ) no If yes, please state five organizations/institutions with which your organization/institution cooperates most in non-agricultural sectors. Start with the

most important organization/institution.

In which sector is the organization/institution engaged?

Organization/institution Sector

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

2) Does the state (government, public administration) assign any jobs or functions

in the agricultural sector to your organization/institution?

- 44 -

44

( ) yes ( ) no If yes, please specify the type of job and the time period for which it was/is assigned. Think of the last five years!

Job/function Year of assignment Ending of contract

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

3) Does your organization/institution cooperate with other national

organizations/institutions in the agricultural sector? ( ) yes ( ) no If yes, please state five organizations/institutions with which your organization/institution cooperates most in agricultural sector. Start with the most

important organization/institution.

1.______________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________ 4. ______________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________

In which activities do you cooperate with these organizations? How often do these activities take place?

0: no; 1: yes Number of activities per year

Number of organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 M2

W3

>W

Type of activity

Bilateral meetings of management

Bilateral exchange with experts

Conferences, discussion rounds, assemblies

Training courses and workshops

Fairs

Training material

Publishing of books


Technical leaflets

Website, Internet

Research Projects

2 M: monthly 3 W: weekly; >W; more than once a week

- 45 -

45

Other ___________________________

Other ___________________________

- 46 -

46

4) Are people in the management board or directorate of your organization/institution also members of the management board of other organizations/institutions in the agricultural sector?

( ) yes ( ) no

If yes, please state the number of persons: _________ persons Please fill in the following table.

Name of person (not necessary)

Position in your organization/ Institution

Name of other organization/ institution

Position in other organization/ institution

This organization/ institution belongs to the agricultural sector 0 : no

1 : yes

5) Does your organization/institution cooperate with other international organizations/institutions in the agricultural or non agricultural sector?

Organization/institution Sector

1. World Bank

2. UNDP

3. USAID

4. FAO

5.

6) Does your organization/institution cooperate with the private sector?

( ) yes ( ) no

Company Business sector Type of cooperation 1: company providing funds

2: company providing

equipment

3: company providing

knowledge

4: information sharing

5: other

1.

2.

3.

- 47 -

47

D. Information and Communication

1) Which sources of information do you use for getting informed on topics of the agricultural sector? Are these sources national or

international? How important are they? What is the quality of these information sources?

Information source Use 0 : no

1 : yes

Source 1 : only national

2 : regional and

national

3: international,

regional and

national

4: only regional

5 : only

international

Language 1 : Armenian

2 : Russian

3 : English

4 : Other

Importance use ranks from

1 : very unimportant

2 : unimportant

3 :neither unimportant

nor important

4 : important

5 : extremely

important

Quality of source 1 : low

2 : medium

3 : high

Level of trust in the source 1: low

2: medium

3: high

Own research

Print media:

Books


General newspapers

Agricultural newspapers

Technical leaflets

Electronic and mass

media:

Emails

Fax message


Websites

Access to GIS information

- 48 -

48

Electronic discussion fora

CDs

Videos

Radio

Television

Face-to-face:


Fairs

Conferences, meetings, assemblies

Farmers

Extensionsist

Scientists

Processors

Wholesale operators

Retailers

Non-official sources (friends, informants)

Other _______

- 49 -

49

2) Would you like to have more detailed information about the agricultural sector, which is not accessible for you at the moment?

( ) yes ( ) no

If yes, please fill in the table below.

Specify the information that is lacking

Reason for information gap

Possible provider of the information

How should the information be provided?

Technology

New varieties Pest and disease management ----------------

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

Laws/regulations

Water access --------------------------------------------------------------

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

Nat. Resource Base

and Geography Rainfall Physical Infrastructure -----------------------------------------------

- - - -

- - - -

- - - -

Market Information

Prices Input Provision Credit Availability Selling Opportunities Quality Requirements

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

- - - - - - -

Other - - - -

- - - -

- - - -

- 50 -

50

3) Which means of communication do you use for external communication to your members, other organizations/ institutions, the public etc.? Who receives this information? Is the information free or do you charge the recipients a fee? How do recipients accept your offer /the respective means of communication?

Please fill in the following table.

Means of communication

Use 0 : no

1 : yes

2 : we would use this

mean but we do not

have the technical

infrastructure

3 : we would use this

mean but the

recipients do not

have the technical

infrastructure

Recipient 1 : agricultural

enterprises

2 : family farms 3 : scientists/

scholars

4 : politicians,

administrators

5 : extension experts

6 : processors

7 : consumers

8 : wholesale

operators

9 : retailers

10 : students/ future

experts

11 : other, please

specify

Costs 0 : free

1 :only for

members free

2 : we charge

for members

less than for

non-members

3 : for

members and

non-members

equally

charged

Acceptance 1 : low

2 : medium

3 : high

Own research

Print media:

Books


General newspapers


Technical leaflets

Electronic and

mass media:

Emails

Fax message


Websites



CDs

Videos

Radio

Television

Face-to-face:

- 51 -

51


Fairs


Farmers

Extensionsist

Scientists

Processors

Wholesale operators

Retailers


Other _______

- 52 -

52

4) Does your organization have any means of collecting feedback from your members regarding your information services? What are they? How is this information used?

Used means for collecting feedback How do you use the information?

Face-to-face surveys

Field visits

Telephone interviews

Letter

Fax message

E-mail

Others

5) If some recipients do not accept the means of communication well, in your eyes, what could be the reasons?

1. ______________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________ 4. ______________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________

- 53 -

53

Please specify for following means of communication the need of improvement

Means of communication Improvement necessary 0 : no

1 : yes

Own research

Print media:

Books


General newspapers


Technical leaflets

Electronic and mass media:

Emails

Fax message


Websites



CDs

Videos

Radio

Television

Face-to-face:


Fairs


Farmers

Extensionsist

Scientists

Processors

Wholesale operators

Retailers


Other _______

Are there any means of communication that you do not use at the moment that you would like to use in the future?

( ) yes ( ) no

If yes, please write down which means of communication you would like to use in the future.

1. ______________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________ 4. ______________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________

- 54 -

54

6) What kind of information do you pass on to actors in the agricultural sector and how is their acceptance?

Type of information 0 : no

1 : to members

only

2 : yes to all

Recipient 1: agricultural

enterprises

2: family farms*

3 : scientists/ scholars

4 : politicians,

administrators


6 : processors

7 : consumers

8 : wholesale

operators

9 : retailers

10 : students/ future

experts

11 : other, please

specify

Costs 0 : free

1 : only for

members

free

2 : we

charge for

members less

than for non-

members

3 : for

members and

non-

members

equally

charged

Acceptance 1 : low

2 : medium

3 : high

Decision support

Management issues

New technologies

Input prices

Product prices

Quality requirements

Law and regulations with respect to agriculture

Other

7) If some recipients of your information do not accept it well, in your opinion, what

could be the reasons?

1. ______________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________ 4. ______________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________

8) Does your organization/institution have a strategy for better information and communication with other stakeholders?

( ) yes ( ) no

If yes, what are main issues of the strategy? ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

- 55 -

55

9) In general, where do you see the strengths and weaknesses of your

organization/institution with regard to information and communication? Can you give reasons for the weaknesses?

Strength Weakness Reasons for weakness

In your opinion, what could be done to make information more easily available and

to better communicate? ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

10) Is insufficient knowledge of foreign languages a reason for difficulties in information

gathering and communication on regional level?

( ) yes ( ) no

on international level? ( ) yes ( ) no

- 56 -

56

11) Please indicate the different sources of funding for your organization:

Organization/ institution that is the source of money

Sector in which this organization/ institution is engaged

Origin 1 : national

2 : bilateral

3: regional

4:

international

Importance 1 : unimportant

2 : important

(less than one

quarter of the

budget)

3 : very important

(up to 50 % of the

budget)

4 : vital (more

than 50 % of the

budget)

Frequency 1 : only once

2 :

irregularly

3 : regularly

12) Did your organization/institution provide any financial support to other

organizations/institutions in the last five years?

( ) yes ( ) no

If yes, please fill in the table below.

Organization/ institution (receiving the money)

Sector in which this organization/ institution is engaged

Amount of money (Armenian drams)

Frequency 1 : only once

2 : irregularly

3 : regularly

- 57 -

57

E. Existing and potential innovation systems4 in Armenia

1) Do you know any products/sectors (i.e. variety, breed, technology etc.) that are integrated in global systems?

( ) Yes ( ) No If yes, please state the types

______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

2) Do you see any niche products/sectors in agriculture that have shown strong

innovation patterns? ( ) Yes ( ) No

If yes, please state the types and reasons:

______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

3) In your opinion, which traditional sectors or products are being transformed or show

promise through improved innovation?

Please state the types and reasons: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

4 An innovation system can be defined as a network of organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on bringing

new products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behavior and performance. The innovation systems concept embraces not only the science

suppliers but the totality and interaction of actors involved in innovation. It extends beyond the creation of knowledge to encompass the factors affecting demand for and use of knowledge in novel and useful ways. IBRD/WB 2006

- 58 -

58

4) In your opinion, what kind of innovation is in demand?

Type of innovation For which product/sector? For which stakeholders? 1 : agricultural enterprises

2 : family farms

3 : processors

4 : wholesale operators

5 : retailers

6 : others, please specify

a) New varieties/breeds

b) New production techniques (please specify)

c) New management approaches for farms

d) Monitoring/evaluation system for innovations

e) New processing techniques

f) Certification system

g) Marketing systems

h) New ways of working (partnerships, networking)

i) New legal frameworks/incentives/tax regimes

j) Others, please specify:

5) Are there any policies in your organization to support innovation such as new products, new processes, and new forms of organization into economic use?

Please list which: a) reward system_________________________________________________ b) incentives_____________________________________________________ c) workshops for exchange of ideas___________________________________ d) collaboration with private sector___________________________________ e) others________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________

- 59 -

59

6) Where do you see innovation triggers in the agriculture sector of the country? In the following table, please state the product and describe the types of triggers, if

there are any.

Product/Sector Type of triggers a) market triggers (e.g. rising demand

abroad, potential markets, high

world prices)

b) policy triggers (e.g. subsidies,

government promotion)

c) knowledge triggers (e.g. awareness)

d) resource triggers (e.g. infrastructure,

biodiversity)

e) others, please specify

Factors interacting with triggers (e.g. existing networks,

existing indigenous knowledge,

traditions, etc.)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

7) In your opinion, what is currently hindering innovation in the agriculture sector?

Reasons In which sectors especially?

For which stakeholders especially? 1 : agricultural enterprises

2 : family farms

3 : scientists/ scholars

4 : politicians, administrators


6 : processors

7 : consumers

8 : wholesale operators

9 : retailers

10 : students/ future experts

11 : others, please specify

a) culture and traditions

b) lack of funds

c) lack of collaboration - with other organizations - with private sector - with actual producers

d) lack of government incentives

e) lack of knowledge

f) others, please specify:

- 60 -

60

F. Further remarks of the interviewee

Please indicate the chapter and number of the question!

1. ______________________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________________ 4. ______________________________________________________ 5. ______________________________________________________

Thank you for having taken the time to answer our questions!

G. Comments of the Interviewer

Please provide your comments to the interview process and responses including your personal impression gained: ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________

- 61 -

61

- 62 -

62

Outline for Farmers' group discussion (FGD)

Date and Location ------------------------------------------------------------

FGD Team -----------6 to 8 participants -------------------------------------

Name Representative of: a)cooperatives b)women clubs c)development project d) other

Age Education a)secondary (8years) b)secondary (10years) c)higher (diploma) d)higher(MSc) e)higher (PhD)

Sex a)male b)female

Production a)crop b)animal husbandry c)vegetable d)fruits

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Purpose of the FGD ---------(approx time ---3-5min)

Introduction of Participants --------(approx time ---8-10 min)

Discussion Themes

Theme1. ----------------- Awareness--------------------(approx time 10-15min)

Guiding question

• Do you think information and knowledge are important business inputs for your farm

production? If yes—how important are they? Can you give me an example?

• In your opinion what are the most important innovations in agriculture at the moment

and why you think so?

Remarks:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme2. ------------Sources and Preference ----------(approx time 10-15min)

Guiding questions

- 63 -

63

• What are the main sources and the forms of agricultural knowledge and information

you get?

• Do you trust the information you get?

• In your opinion which organization(s)/institutions(s) should be more active in this

field and why?

• Do you have preferred sources and/or formats of the information (paper, face-to-face,

electronic, telephone, radio programmes, TV programmes, etc), if yes please explain

why?

Remarks:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme 3. ------------------Accessibility------------------(approx time 10-15min)

Guiding question

• Dou you feel you have access to sufficient information and knowledge (new

technologies, laws, market information, alert of disease/pest outbreak etc.) to make

optimal decision for your farm production?

If not, what are the main obstacles?-------------------------------------------------------

Remarks:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme 4. -----------------------Need ---------------------(approx time 10-15min)

Guiding question

• If you feel you need more or better information and knowledge then what you can

access to, can you please explain and specify it (both the information and the format)?

• Do you feel you are willing to pay for better information or do you think it should be

provided free of charge?

Remarks:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theme 5. -----------------------Experience--------------- (approx time 10-15min)

Guiding question

- 64 -

64

• Did you ever participated in “farm field schools”, “new technology demonstrations”,

etc organized by extension services, local NGOs, development project staff, etc? If

yes,

• Can you please tell me about your experience and feelings, what was it about, how

relevant was it to your needs, how did it help you, what would you wish has been

organized differently, etc.

• In your opinion what is it that the groups like you can do to improve the quality and

accessibility of agricultural knowledge?

Remarks:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Approximate total time 1-1.5 hour

Draft Final ReportCARD Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development ... There is a need to support...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Final ReportCARD Centre of Agribusiness and Rural Development ... There is a need to support...