Past Agricultural Innovation in Perspective | 41
Box 4.4, continued
Bt cotton seed quality and secondary pests are also at play (Lynas 2018; Qiao 2015; Zhang et al. 2018). Some evidence also suggests that small farms (in Indonesia and China) may be more prone to wasting agrochemicals than larger or commercial farms (Ju et al. 2016; Osorio et al. 2011). In conclusion,
although Bt cotton has generated immense benefits, partly overcoming the challenges with more management- and knowledge-intensive innovations (for example, integrated pest management), farmer adoption is still hampered for a variety of reasons, including limited information and knowledge.
commodity-specific quality and safety standards. Acquiring the numeracy, information and communication technology competency, and other skills necessary in this environment will require continually upgrading the formal education levels of the farm workforce (Fuglie et al. 2020). One consistent finding from technology adoption studies is that more-educated farmers adopt new technologies (of any kind) early and get more profit out of them (Foster and Rosenzweig 2010). Given that education facilitates the acquisition and processing of new information, the impacts of education on farm productivity and income are higher in environments undergoing technological and structural transformation (Lockheed, Jamison, and Lau 1980). Raising the human capital of farmers (basic education, vocational training, extension) allows them to better evaluate technological opportunity and manage technology-related investments. Unsurprisingly, the returns to education increase when there are greater opportunities for new technological adoption (Fuglie et al. 2020). Governments have also used various incentives to address market failures that have prevented the adoption of more sustainable agriculture practices. Such market failures include externalities, transaction costs, and information asymmetries (box 4.5). Approaches to help provide incentives for more sustainable agricultural practices can be divided into three groups: the creation and BOX 4.5
Incentives or disincentives tied to improved farming practices and agro-industry services China, the European Union, India, the Republic of Korea, Vietnam, and the United States have used different approaches to foster the greening of agriculture. The list of options below is drawn from these experiences. • Fines or loss of benefits for noncompliance with mandates • Preferential credit or grants for straw residue management or manure injection machinery • Subsidies for formula fertilizer, fertilizer deep-placement products, or soil testing kits • Payments for adopting practices that reduce farm runoff Source: Cassou, Jaffee, and Ru 2017.
• Public procurement requirement that food purchases meet given certification standards • Fast-track licensing for operations meeting high environmental management standards • Loans to enterprises offering input application and soil testing services, as well as improved drugs, inputs, and gear • Grants for demonstration farms and farmer-led movements modeling and supporting best practices and to enterprises • Increasing access to and the appeal of plant-based or low-footprint foods
