1. Introduction
The agricultural sector dominates the country's economy. Yet, its performance has been very dismal and failed to meet the country’s food demand. Shrinking farm size, declining agricultural productivity due to natural resource degradation, and adverse environmental conditions remain major challenges of the agricultural sector. Agricultural extension is one of the policy instruments to stimulate agricultural development through promoting the adoption and diffusion of improved technologies. An effective agricultural extension service helps farmers identify and overcome production, management, processing and marketing problems. Hence, the presence of efficient and effective agricultural extension system that increases agricultural productivity and household income of farming families in a sustainable way is essential for achieving agricultural development.
Cognizant of
this fact, over the past fifty years, several extension approaches[1]
have been followed in
Despites various
extension efforts, the performance of agriculture in the country has not been
improving as expected. According to Van den Ban and Hawkins (1996), a government
will invest in extension believing that the service has value as a policy
instrument to achieve such goals as increasing food production, stimulating
economic growth, increasing the welfare of farming communities, and promoting
sustainable agriculture. The experience has so far been to move from one extension
approach or program to the other without a thorough and systematic evaluation
of the previous ones to empirically and clearly establish their strengths and
weaknesses in achieving their goals. This resulted in lost opportunities to
learn from. It has been about a decade since PADETES has been in use. This study attempted to examine the performance
of PADETES with particular emphasis on the extension service aspect and to
contribute to improving future planning and implementation of agricultural
extension in
2. Methodology
The study was
carried out in Tigray, Afar, Amhara,
In this study both secondary and primary data were used. The primary data were collected from sample farm households, extension experts and development agents. A multi-stage stratified random sampling technique was adopted to select samples. Woredas were stratified by potential agricultural commodities produced. The survey woredas were randomly selected from among the woredas known for having potential in a given commodity. In this respect, the list provided by the Market Development Strategy (‘market plan’) document of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (unpublished) was used to determine the sampling framework. In addition, the production, cultivated land area and livestock statistics of the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) (Agricultural Sample Enumeration of 2001/2002) was used to prepare the list of woredas for the sampling.
A total of 92 woredas were selected for the survey. Two peasant associations (PAs) were randomly selected from each sample woreda. Twenty-five farm households were randomly selected from sample PAs using the registry of PA Administrations. Thus, 50 farm households were selected from each woreda. The interview included four extension experts and four development agents (DAs) per sample woreda. The formal survey covered 4587 farmers, 332 development agents and 316 agricultural extension experts. Large number of households sampled were taken from Oromia (41,2%), Amhara (21.6%), SNNP (18.6%), and Tigray (7.6%), where the extension program has been implemented largely. Data collected were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)[2].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 History of PADETES
The history of
agricultural extension in Ethiopia, and the inherent challenges to extension in
general and the prevalent problems of agricultural extension in Ethiopia in
particular are discussed elsewhere (e.g., Berhane
Gebrekidan et al, 2004;
The Sasakawa Global 2000[3] (SG-2000) started its program in 1993 on 160 farmers’ maize and wheat Extension Management Training Plots (EMTPs) in Oromiya and SNNPR States. The major objective of SG 2000 was increasing agricultural food production at the level of small-scale farmers and stimulating the linkage between research and extension so that agricultural technologies within the country could be made available to the extension system.
With SG-2000, it
was reported that some maize farmers had harvested up to 9.4 t/ha, and the
average yield of demonstrations plots was 5.1 t/ha for maize and 2.8 t/ha for
wheat. Farmers who harvested the highest maize and wheat yields from the
demonstration plots were given awards. This helped in speeding up the
technology dissemination process. In 1994, Tigray and
Looking at the
success story of SG-2000, the then Ministry of Agriculture (now called Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Development) set a task force to evaluate previous
extension approaches and to propose extension system appropriate to the
country’s development needs. The task force criticized the previous approaches
such as the T&V extension programs for being top down, lacking flexibility,
giving priority to state and cooperative farms, large DA-to-farmer ratios, and
for being largely donor driven. Besides, extension service focused on high potential
areas neglecting pastoralists and low potential areas. Demonstration was
carried out on MoA fenced plots, and participation of farmers remained low. It
was concluded that previous extension management systems were entangled with
organizational (as extension services were provided by different Ministries and
even by different departments within the same ministry) and administrative problems
(increasing number of administrative staff than technical staff and increased
bureaucratization). The task force recommended that PADETES be implemented, with primary focus on increasing production
and productivity of small scale farmers through better access to improved
production technologies such as improved seeds, fertilizer, pesticides and
other improved production practices (MoA Task Force, 1987 E.C.). PADETES
was supposed to differ from the previous ones based on the way the extension
service systems are structured and organized, the relationship and linkage
mechanisms amongst the extension service providers, the range of agricultural
services contained in the technical packages, the types of extension methods
that are used and the way the extension services are financed.
In 1994/95, the government launched the National Extension Intervention Program (NEIP) strategy, developed on the basis of the experience of SG-2000. NEIP aimed at the transfer of improved and effective technologies through nationally coordinated agricultural extension program called PADETES. PADETES is developed as an instrument for achieving the objectives of Agricultural Development Led Industry (ADLI) strategy of the country.
In contrast to previous ones, PADETES has been planned and financed by the Ethiopian government. It also emphasizes on active participation of the rural communities and other stakeholders. PADETES was initially implemented in some parts of the country as a pilot program, with crop technology packages for high rainfall areas. Farmers who agree to participate in the program allocate 0.5 ha of land or less for the demonstration purpose and make a 25-50% down payment on the inputs used and the remaining amount will be paid after harvesting. In the subsequent years, crop technology packages for moisture stress areas, livestock, high economic value crops, post harvest technology packages, agro-forestry, and soil and water conservation packages were included and implemented in the country as a whole.
The program was only limited to 7 Regions
and covered 35,000 farmers in the initial year (1994/95), which latter on was
expanded to 10 regions and 350,000 farmers in the 1995/96 production season. In
addition to expanding the number of farmers involved, the program has also
formulated separate packages tailored to moisture stress areas since 1995/1996.
At this juncture both the national extension service of the government and the
SG 2000 project have shifted their attention from direct involvement in the
establishment of demonstrations to staff training and overall program
co-ordination. Regions and local authorities gained the capacity to implement
the program on a wider scale and on their own. Regions further expanded their
extension and demonstration programs and conducted some 650,000 EMTPs in 1997.
The program was also diversified to include livestock (dairy, fattening,
poultry programs), high value crops (oil crops, pulses, vegetables, spices) and
post harvest technological packages (Belay Ejigu, 1997;
3.2 Objectives
and Implementation Modalities
PADETES was designed and implemented based on the premises that the transfer of modern and improved technologies will uplift the productivity of the agricultural sector to improve the lives of the rural people and the overall performance of the national economy. Thus, the major objectives of PADETES are:
- to increase agricultural production to ensure food self-sufficiency
- to improve productivity and income of the rural population
- to increase the production of industrial and export crops so as to diversify export and substitute import;
- to conserve and develop natural resources;
- to empower farmers to actively participate in the development process; and
- to encourage the participation of rural women in development.
The system requires demonstrating
technologies and training farmers on agricultural technologies. Also, the
principle of PADETES calls for ensuring active participation of farmers in extension.
The development agents must play facilitating and supportive role in the
management of the demonstration plots and in the training of both participating
farmers and their neighbors to adopt and used recommended technologies and
practices.
In accordance
with government policy of decentralization, the national agricultural extension
system of
3.3 Program Components and
Activities
The contents of PADETES range from simple technology transfer to human resource development by improving the organization, mobilization and training of the rural society. But the focus has been on demonstration of agricultural technologies to farmers, particularly the use of improved seeds, application of fertilizer, pesticides, and management practices to increase agricultural productivity.
Accordingly, extension packages were prepared in three dominant agro-ecological zones, namely moisture reliable, drought-prone and pastoralist areas of the country. Then two types of extension packages were on the menu for farmers especially in resource rich areas - the integrated household extension package and the minimum package. Minimum package implements the recommended standard packages of a commodity without necessarily integrating different options or elements of other packages that a given household could profitably use. The majority of the farmers involved in the extension package program were implementing this form of extension package. In the case of integrated household extension package, the needs of households to increase overall farm productivity and household income will be assessed and a set of complementary extension packages will identified and made available to the household. Thus, more than one packages are implemented at a given household level. The aim has been to arrive at certain income level per annum, and to help eventually transform subsistence farmers to some form of specialization for market oriented agricultural development. Hence proper recording of farming household activities and income earnings was proposed as an important undertaking in the program.
The major components of the extension packages include:
- crop production packages (of cereals, pulses, fruits and vegetables) including crop protection and irrigation;
- livestock production technologies (feeds, dairy, fattening, animal health, fishery, poultry, apiculture); and
- natural resources management (agro-forestry, soil conservation and water harvesting)
Closer look at farmers’
involvement in extension packages demonstrates that much of the contents and
activities of PADETES were focused at food crops (Figure 1) while involvement in livestock, natural resources management
and in cash crops were very limited.
Figure 1.
Number of extension packages by categories of commodities
The responses of the
extension staff about the areas of emphases of the extension program during the
3 years prior to the study period (2004-2005) showed similar results:
§
over 80% of cereals related extension packages activities
were on maize, wheat and tef, the first two accounting for 60%;
§
over 93% of pulse related packages were on faba beans (41%),
field peas (28%), chickpeas (12%) and lentils (12%);
§
over 77% of vegetables related extension activities focused
on carrots (18%), beetroots (17%), onions (16%), tomato (15%) and cabbages
(11%);
§
over 95% of fruit tree promotion work was on Avocado (24%),
Mango (22%), Papaya (19%), banana (15%) and
§
over 81% of cash crops promotion work concentrated on coffee
(71%) and cotton (9%)
§
almost all of the work related to post-harvest technology
emphasized on improved stores (41%), use of insecticides (33%) and pest control
(26%)
§
farm implements introduced were Broad Bed Maker (51%),
tie-ridger (29%) and carts (20%).
3.4 Extension and
Communication Methods
Extension service providers must consciously choose and use effective communication methods to deliver messages to help users make sound opinions and decisions. One factor in deciding the overall effectiveness of extension is the type of extension and communication methods used. The extension methods that have been practiced in the PADETES include individual, group and mass extension methods. Most widely used extension methods by DAs were farm visit (77%), farm and home visit (71 %), use of model farmers (67%), home visit (59%), demonstration of farm technology (51%) and demonstration plots (47%) (Table 1).
Table 1. Extension methods used
|
Extension methods |
Frequencies |
Percent |
|
Farm visit |
255 |
76.8 |
|
Farm and home visit |
237 |
71.4 |
|
Using model farmers |
223 |
67.1 |
|
Home visit |
196 |
59 |
|
Farm technology through
demonstration |
171 |
51.4 |
|
Fenced demonstration plots |
157 |
47.3 |
|
Contacting a group of farmers
during the week |
118 |
35.5 |
|
Farmer to farmer extension |
115 |
34.5 |
|
Field days |
93 |
27.9 |
|
Informal methods occasional and
unplanned contact |
79 |
23.7 |
|
Students to farmers extension |
26 |
7.8 |
|
Print media/posters/newspaper |
20 |
6 |
|
Using audio media/radio |
6 |
1.8 |
|
Mobile video/visual media |
5 |
1.5 |
Source: Survey data.
In individual extension method the extension
worker communicates with the people individually, maintaining separate identity
of each person. Some of the examples are farm visit and home visits. This method helps the extension workers in
building first hand knowledge of the farm, and in changing attitude of people.
It also enhances effectiveness of group and mass methods and facilitates
getting feedback information. This method is followed when the number of people
to be contacted are few, are conveniently located close to the communicator,
and sufficient time is available for the communication work. Wider use of this
method with in the national extension program remains a concern when in
situations where the number and skill of DAs is inadequate, and when the number
of farmers to be reached is large. But the use of individual method has been
found to be the dominant extension method (52%) used by DAs as compared to
group (39%) and mass (9%) extension methods (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Extension methods used
Mass media is
particularly effective in delivering of information to large number of farmers
and diversified group of people in a very short time. It is very useful in
times of emergencies such as a large scale infestation of army worms and
locust. Radio, TV, film show and printed materials are commonly used mass communication
methods. However, given the high illiteracy level, and farmers’ extremely
limited access to radio and TV, the extension system has not benefited much
from this communication method. The use
of audiovisual methods, alone or with other methods of extension, in
transferring agricultural technologies and knowledge is low despite its
enormous potential to bring a desired change combining.
3.5 Sources of Information for
Users
DAs are the dominant sources of new information for farmers (Fig. 3). More than 57% of the sample farmers got information from DAs. 74 % of the respondent farmers contacted the DAs in 2003/04. Most of the contacts of farmers had with DAs was only once in a month. Out of the total respondents, 86% need more frequent contact with the DAs while 12% said that they did not want. Regarding the relevance of DA’s visits, 56% of them said that they really benefited from the DA’s advice and training, and 81% found the visit necessary. Given the limited use of mass media, newsletters, and demonstration plots as a source of technological information, 10% of farmers depend on neighboring farmers to learn about new knowledge and information. This trend encourages the farmer-to-farmer technology transfer mechanisms than dependence largely on DAs (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Farmers’ responses on the sources of
technological information for farmers
3.6 Farmers' Participation
The name of PADETES itself calls for participatory approaches in the extension program, actively involving farmers at all stages of the extension process. The study attempted to assess the level of farmers' participation in PADETES by the number of participants in the program and by the role farmers played in determining the course of extension program.
As indicated
earlier, in terms of the number of farmers, PADETES involved by far more number
of farmers than any of the previous extension approaches. Besides, the results
of this study proved that more than half of the respondent farmers (56%) participated
in the extension package program of PADETES in one form/time or the other.
With regard to
the level of farmers’ participation in the process, 69% of the total package user
farmers confirmed that the program was participatory in nature. But 18%
believed that it was top-down, and 11% reported that they were in one way or
another forced to participate mainly by kebele administrators and
development agents (Table
2).
Table 2. Farmers’
opinion on the nature of extension package programs
|
Program Involvement |
Frequency |
Percent |
|
Participatory in
nature |
1673 |
68.7 |
|
Top-down |
444 |
18.3 |
|
Push by
administrative bodies |
129 |
5.3 |
|
Based on quota |
92 |
3.8 |
|
Obligatory |
54 |
2.2 |
|
Other views |
134 |
5.5 |
Source: survey data.
About 68% of the
DAs interviewed confirmed that the planning process rarely involved farmers. Similarly,
only 2% of them reported that their extension activity plans are primarily
based on the problems that farmers in their woredas are faced with. These
indicate that the participation of farmers and extension workers during
planning phase was below expectation. Inadequate participation of farmers in
the planning stage will automatically result in various problems during implementation
as the plans may not meet farmers’ demands. This, in turn poses influence over the adoption rate
and adoption patterns.
3.7 Continuity in Technology
Use and Participation in Extension
Though
the implications on yield levels of not using technological packages as per the
recommendations is known to be high, the study showed that close to
two-thirds of participants of the program abandoned some components of the
packages and only 39% of them used the full package as per the recommendation -
improved seeds along with recommended levels of fertilizers and management
practices. In addition, only 36% showed
interest to continue using extension packages. About 54% of the respondents
reported of discontinuing the use of fertilizer with any of the crops and 40%
of the respondents indicated their discontinuance in the use of any of the
package recommendations for many reasons. Respondent farmers identified lack of
access to favorable credit service, low product prices, and doubts on
profitability of technologies as the most important factors that force them not
to adopt all or part of recommended technologies (Table 3). The results of the
study also revealed that it was only 44% of the respondent farmers who believed
in or recognized the positive benefits of the extension package.
Table 3. Reason for not using
all components of extension packages
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
|
Lack of access to credit |
257 |
27.9 |
|
Low output price |
242 |
26.3 |
|
Not profitable |
171 |
18.6 |
|
Fear of early rain stoppage |
81 |
8.8 |
|
Inadequate extension advise |
74 |
8.0 |
|
High cost of inputs |
41 |
4.5 |
|
Shortage of inputs supply |
34 |
3.7 |
|
Not responsive to fertilizer |
6 |
0.7 |
|
Shortage of adequate land |
6 |
0.7 |
|
Decline in productivity |
5 |
0.5 |
|
Short credit pay back period |
3 |
0.3 |
Source: survey data.
3.8 Monitoring and Evaluation
An important element in extension is proper
follow-up based on well thought monitoring and evaluation system. Formulation of proper monitoring and
evaluation system is essential to identify strengths and build on them and pin
point weaknesses and take corrective measures timely. Yet PADETES lacked this. PADETES failed formulate and implement
appropriate monitoring and evaluation system and the associated performance and
success indicators to continuously assess if its activities were contributing
towards achieving its stated objectives.
Periodic field visits and getting and
processing filed reports would certainly help in situations where clearly
defined monitoring and evaluation system lacks. DAs answer to the district
office but 50% of the DAs responded that they were not supervised by any one subject
matter specialist (SMS) during the year. About 82% of the DAs said that they were
expected to submit their field report to their supervisors in the woreda
office. But it was only 57% of them who wrote reports at any one time.
The effectiveness
PADETES has been measured largely in terms of the number of farmers taking part
in extension programme. Annual target beneficiaries and annual accomplishments
are the only figures referred when effectiveness/ performance of the extension
package program was sought. About 25% of the development agents and 27 % of the
extension experts mentioned that they were monitored and their effectiveness was
measured based on the actual number of farmers they were able to reach in
relation to the annual target. Accordingly their efforts were concentrated to
achieve the targets set up at the higher level. Hence, the performance
measurement imposed on development agents and extension experts seems to depend
largely on the number of farmers reached. Only 17% of the DAs and 18% of the
experts said that their work was valued in terms of the changes in crop yield
and production that they managed to attain as a result of introducing the
improved technologies or through their advisory services (Table 4).
Table 4. Performance measurement
of DAs as perceived by the DAs and SMSs
|
Performance Indicators |
Development Agents |
Extension experts |
|||
|
|
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
|
|
Number of
farmers reached out |
267 |
25 |
216 |
27 |
|
|
Number of contacted
farmers adopting the recommended practice |
237 |
22 |
185 |
23 |
|
|
Number of target
farmers adopting the recommended practice |
186 |
17 |
180 |
22 |
|
|
Change in
average yield |
184 |
17 |
141 |
18 |
|
|
Number of water
schemes completed |
187 |
17 |
70 |
9 |
|
|
Achievement in
resettlement |
26 |
2 |
11 |
1 |
|
|
On being
available at the duty post only |
- |
- |
1 |
0.1 |
|
Source: survey data.
The DAs that ensure implementation at the grass roots level are not adequately equipped with planning concepts to design proper extension plan through the participation of farmers, and to providing feed back to researchers and policy makers. Moreover, there is very poor linkage and communication between federal and regional as well as regional and the lower level in coordinating extension activities, particularly after 2001. The frequent restructuring of the bureaus of agriculture has been one major reason for lack of an appropriate Monitoring and Evaluation plan on the ground. The general impression is that there exist failures at all levels to develop a clear extension strategy to monitor implementation and to effectively communicate this to the field staff and their supervisors.
3.9 Staff Composition,
Motivation and Perceived Roles
The marginalization of women farmers is well known and
documented. Part of the reason for this marginalization has been traced back to
lack of adequate support to women farmers by development programs. The survey
results show that it was only 37 % of the women have participated in the
extension program. DAs spend most of their time with male household heads. As a
result, female household heads and farming wives rarely obtain extension
services. This has negative impacts on women farmers’ participation. One way to
address this challenge is to have female extension agents. Even though their number
has been increasing substantially, the number of female extension agents is
still low. The majority of DAs (71 %)
and extension experts (90%) are males. Thus much needs to be done to increase
the staff composition of extension in favor of females.
Most of DAs have houses. Each house is built to serve both as an office and also as a residential area. However, only few DAs have transport facilities in a form of motorbike, bicycle or mules as well as raincoats, plastic shoes/ boots and other field facilities. Yet they are expected to cover long distances. Concerning motivation about 61 % of the DAs said that they enjoyed their work. Among those who did not like their job, the majority (36%) said the salary they earned were not comparable with the workload they had and 18 % said that there were no incentives and on-the-job training. 57% of them reported that they had not obtained a salary increment for over 4 years. Concerning major problems they are faced with, DAs mentioned that lack of adequate means of transport (17%), lack of on the job training on various techniques and ways of doing things (16%), and the requirement to work with many farmers at a time (14%) were among their most important problems to perform their duties (Table 5).
Table
5. Problems that DAs face in discharging
their day-to-day activities
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
|
Shortage of transport and budgetary constraints |
200 |
16.8 |
|
Lack of on the job training |
192 |
16.1 |
|
Working with many farmers than one can |
169 |
14.2 |
|
Farmers' problems are beyond my capacity |
137 |
11.5 |
|
Dealing with ineffective technologies |
134 |
11.2 |
|
Lack of effective extension strategy |
118 |
9.9 |
|
Farmers are not willing to adopt technologies |
94 |
7.9 |
|
Lack of information |
88 |
7.4 |
|
Lack of appropriate follow up and monitoring |
57 |
4.8 |
Source: survey data.
Regarding the perceived duties and responsibilities of extension experts, the majority of extension experts said their mandate was facilitating the introduction of technologies that increase crop production. About 9% of them mentioned technical coordination of extension activities as their tasks, and less than one percent reported that training of DAs and manual preparation were among their current most important responsibilities. At the level of DAs, one could note that they have multiple tasks to accomplish. When they were asked their perceived roles, the majority of the DAs identified training farmers on modern farming; demonstrating technologies, informing farmers about forestry and natural resource management, assistance in delivering inputs; and assisting farmers to organize themselves as their major responsibilities. However, both extension experts and DAs indicated that they were not clearly informed about their duties and responsibilities
The results of
study clearly indicated that the activities of DAs were not only limited to
agricultural extension. About 87% of respondent DAs reported that they were
involved in fertilizer credit repayment processes, and 46% said that they were
also engaged in land tax collections. DAs also stated that in some cases they
play advocacy role in the interest of governing political parties. Such imposed
tasks on DAs may certainly create conflicts between them and participant
farmers, and may restrain farmers from communicating with DAs when they need
technical advices. Thus, these extra
activities need to be minimized, if possible
avoided.
3.10 Capacity Building
Agricultural extension is a process of working with and for the rural people in order to improve their livelihoods. This involves helping and enabling farmers to develop their ability to direct their own development (FAO, 1985). Accordingly, one of the objectives of PADETES is the empowerment of farmers to actively participate in the national development process. This empowerment process involves mainly helping people to take the initiative for their own development, and to build their self-confidence to break out of the poverty trap. Empowering farmers to actively participate in the development process primarily requires establishing trustful relationships with them based on equality and building their technical, managerial and organizational knowledge. It also calls for building the capacity of extension workers to do so.
3.10.1 Farmers
In this study, 55% of respondent farmers replied that they had never been trained by the program. In fact this figure also includes those farmers who did not participate in the extension program. Among the respondents who were trained, the largest proportion has confirmed that the trainings were provided at the right time, and 35% of them reported to have received training regularly. But, 95% of farmers interviewed said that they need training especially in the areas of farm implements and post harvest. Currently, there is an attempt to train farmers in their localities through the construction and effective use of farmers' training centers (FTCs).
A total of about 15,000 FTCs will be constructed.
Three trained DAs specialized in crop, livestock and natural resources will be
assigned at one FTC. FTCs are expected to serve as centers of skill training
and demonstration for improved technological packages to the farmers, and to
facilitate access to modern information and
communication. Specialized trainings in agricultural production such as
modular training for 3-6 months duration will be offered to the farmers at
established FTCs.
3.10.2 Extension workers
As DAs work directly with farmers, their experience and qualification should be adequate enough to allow them to discharge their duties effectively. The study showed that in terms of experience, only 8 percent of the DAs had over 20 years of experience, 39 % had served between 10 and 20 years, and only 27 % of them worked for less than 10 years. In terms of background, over 80 % of the DAs had rural background before they were employed. This has a lot of implications for their attitude towards extension work in the rural areas. Having a rural background will greatly familiarize one with the prevalent agricultural practices and also place one in a position to be more understanding towards the farmers. This indicates the majority of the DAs have good experience and background of rural areas.
Concerning academic levels during the study period (2004/05), the study showed that 91% of DAs and 80% of the experts were not trained even to a diploma level. DAs need to acquire technical competence and skills not only in agricultural production but also in communication, mobilization, adult education, gender, participatory approach, planning, monitoring and evaluation. Yet, about 62% of the DAs reported that they were trained only in general agriculture. As most of the extension workers have little knowledge in social sciences and techniques, 88% of the DAs reported that they were facing problems which seriously undermine their performance, particularly in participatory approaches to develop farmers' capacity to adopt and develop appropriate technologies as well as in helping farmers solve problems by their own.
Efforts have been made recently to improve qualification DAs and to train more DAs at a diploma level. As a result the majority of them were in Agricultural Technical Vocational and Education Training (ATVET) colleges. ATVET program has been operational since 2002 to produce skilled, competent and motivated DAs to make a difference in the process of transforming the subsistence farming to market oriented commercial agriculture. To this effect, twenty-five ATVET colleges were established in different parts of the country. Over the last few years, the number of DAs has also been increasing significantly. Prior to implementation of PADETES, the number of DAs was around 3,500. At the time of this study, it reached over 15, 000. In few years of operation of ATVET colleges, the number of DAs is expected to reach 45,000. These DAs will then be stationed at FTCs that are being established at PA level.
In addition to the formal training, DAs need in-service trainings to upgrade their knowledge and skills. The survey results showed that it was only 37% of DAs that had received on-the-job training since they were employed (of which 22% had received only once, 10% twice and 4.6% three times). Among the types of training the DAs had, most were on crop production technologies, indicating the dominant focus of the extension program has been promoting crop production.
3.11 Links with Other Complementary Services
Agricultural extension alone is not enough to bring about rural development. Availability of appropriate technologies and required inputs, accessibility to agricultural credit and functioning marketing system are key elements. Thus, agencies in charge of agricultural research, extension, credit and marketing need to work in a complementary and coordinated manner. The strength and complementarities of these agencies determines the success of effective and efficient flow of technology and information (Roling, 1990) in particular and all rural development endeavors in general. As the saying goes, a chain can only be as strong as its weakest link, addressing these links remains extremely essential.
3.11.1 Linkages with
Research
Agricultural
extension operates within a broad knowledge system that includes various
stakeholders such as agricultural research and the end user clients (farmers).
In most of the cases, poor linkages between extension, research and farmers
have been singled out as the major reason for lower performance of the
extension and research organizations in many developing countries like
This was recognized even during the formulation of PADETES and due attention was given to establish pragmatic relationship between agricultural research, extension and education (Belay Ejigu, 1997). Similarly, the Ethiopian Agricultural Research System has also recognized the importance of having strong research-extension-farmer linkage for successful technology development. A linkage strategy was developed by a task force comprising of staff from the then Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (now called Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research) and the then Ministry of Agriculture (now MoARD). A workshop was organized whose outcome was a draft strategy on Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages. Consequently, institutional linkage problems were supposed to have been addressed through establishments of Research-Extension Advisory Councils (REACs) at three levels: National/Federal, Regional, and Zonal/Research Center levels. This was meant to bring together researchers, extension workers, farmers and other relevant development practitioners and discussed on how to integrate their resources and realize agricultural developments in a sustainable ways (EARO, 2000). However as REACs were not institutionalized well, linkage problems persisted and implementation problems became apparent.
During the field study, many respondent woreda level experts felt that the contribution of research in generating location specific and appropriate technological options was very limited. The few options mainly for crop production technologies, they argued, served only few areas and a very limited number of farmers. Generally, extension workers felt that this was because there is very limited collaborative work with them, and this was resulting in research outputs that were not target-oriented, the technologies were not affordable to farmers, and that the research system does not take into account the needs of the extension system. They suspect that either there is few appropriate technologies developed by the agricultural research system or the available technologies are not communicated well. The researchers would complain that extension workers are not utilizing technologies appropriately. In any case, the linkage between extension and research is not yet adequately institutionalized, and therefore remained weak.
3.11.2 Linkages with
Credit Providing and Input Supplying Institutions
Access to favorable credit services encourages use of modern inputs. In this regard, respondent farmers were asked about their view on loan for inputs. About 32% of the respondents said that loan was essential but complained about the time of input provision, interest rate, pay back period, etc. About 6% of the respondents mentioned loan was not essential at all and other 9% said it would be better if it was in kind. Thus, issue of credit provision, pay back period, interest rate, etc. have to be taken into account and discussed with the end users in order to devise effective and efficient credit system.
Likewise, access to inputs is crucial for farmers to
use agricultural technologies. Even though the promotion of use of fertilizers
and improved seeds began in
However, the majority of farmers have expressed that the increasing price of fertilizer was not encouraging them to apply it at the recommended level. This was particularly aggravated after the withdrawal of government subsidies from fertilizers in the second half of the 1990s. Besides substantial number of farmers doubt the efficiency of the existing input delivery system. The results of the study show that 50%, 25% and 18% of the respondents believed that the present input supply system was inadequate, adequate and moderate; respectively. The use of improved seeds is also influenced in a similar way. The majority (72%) of the respondents reported that they were utilizing their own local seeds, showing low level of use of improved seeds in the country (Table 6). Thus, improving the efficiency of input delivery systems and their functional links with the extension system requires immediate attention.
Table 6. Types of seeds used by respondent farmers
|
|
Number |
Percent |
|
Local seed |
3317 |
72.3 |
|
Mix of local and improved seed |
695 |
15.2 |
|
Improved seed |
370 |
8.1 |
|
Hybrid Maize |
25 |
.5 |
|
Seed of unknown source |
18 |
.4 |
Source:
survey data.
3.11.3 Linkages with Marketing System
Institutional economics contends that adoption of more productivity
enhancing technologies is dependent on adequate performance of a range of
markets (for inputs, outputs, finance, labor, insurance, etc.). Household decisions
and responses are also governed by markets and market-related institutions. The
behavior of households under underdeveloped markets is known to be inimical to
the process of rapid development and efficient use of resources. Hence the
removal of institutional constraints to output, input and credit markets is
expected to allow rapid progress in the introduction and adaptation to local
conditions of productivity improving technologies and farming practices. Moreover, where productivity is high but
infrastructure is poor, prices tend to be low due to lack of market outlets.
Good infrastructure and rural services reduce costs of inputs, transaction
costs and ultimately marketing margins. Market information and improvement in
rural infrastructure could help farmers earn more from their produce.
About 81% of respondent farmers stated that the difference in prices of
food crops was significantly different between the time right after harvest and
few months after. Farmers complained that the time of input delivery forced
them to lend from informal lenders at higher interest rate in order to pay the
required down payment. The early sales
pattern of most farmers is also associated with cash needs immediately after
harvest and short credit pay-back period that forces many farmers to sell their
produce earlier than the mature grain market. Almost all (96%) of all
respondent farmers reported that they did not get any form of market assistance
from the extension or other agencies. This
significantly reduces the economic gain that farmers would have made from
increased crop production. As a result, even if use of technologies had
increased production in some resource rich areas, they need support to earn
better prices for their produces. Farmers
need to know what to produce, when, where and how much to sell their products.
Marketing knowledge are needed for farmers to improve their skill in
bargaining, in developing recording habits, and in analyzing marketing
information to build their price prediction ability. Addressing the marketing
aspects is necessary if improved production and productivity can be translated
to increased income levels.
To summarize, weak links of the extension service with research institutions, with input suppliers, with credit providing, and with the marketing system in general have been also apparent with PADETES.
3.12 Impact on Production and
Productivity
The impact of an agricultural extension program depends on its effectiveness and efficiency in a given context. Effectiveness refers to the ability to meet goals, objectives and/or needs of farmers and objectives of the program. Hence, effectiveness is linked to the relevance of the extension messages. Efficiency refers to the way (mainly cost-effectiveness) in which these goals are met. However, the impact of PADETES on farmers' livelihood could not be thoroughly investigated and reported in this study due to limitations in baseline data and accurate recording of inputs and outputs at farm level. As a result, the study depended much on reported figures, and on the views of extension workers and smallholder farmers on impact of on production and productivity of smallholder farmers.
3.12.1 Views of Extension Workers and Farmers on the Impact of PADETES
The woreda level extension experts identified farmers motivation to test new technologies (24%), changes in their farming practices (21%), increased knowledge in agriculture (15%), and awareness to protect the environment (14%) as the most visible changes they observed amongst farmers who participated in extension during the past five years. These experts pointed out active participation in community meetings, knowledge and skill gained through training, and willingness to accept new changes as signs of attitudinal changes of farmers because of their participation in the extension program. The DAs have also said that farmers participating in the extension program had benefited in terms of both economic and social aspects. They reported improvement in shelter (41%), improvement in health and nutrition status (38%), increase in income (36%), improvement in food security status (33%), improvement in educational status of both parents and their children (16%), saving practices (6%) and yield increase (4%).
Participant farmers reported having observed positive
changes as a result of participating in the extension package program. The major changes that farmers
reported relate to use of agricultural inputs (37%), changes in cultural
practices (27%), diversification of farm enterprises (20%), and improvement in making savings from their
income (15%). Even though the productivity level varies among
participants, many respondents confirmed that they had realized some yield
increments by participating in the program. 68% of farmers responded their production was
increased after participating in extension package program. About 38% of the
respondents reported that the benefits of the extension package had continuity
while about 31% mentioned that it came back to
the previous level. Concerning
profitability of the technological packages promoted by the extension system,
78% of the respondents said that they were profitable as compared to the
traditional practices, 4 % said that they were not, while the remaining 6 %
thought that some of the technologies were profitable while others were not.
From this study one can learn that the current extension package contributes to increase productivity, production and incomes of the farmers as it is witnessed by the participant farmers. The very critical point to be raised here is whether these changes during the past ten years are really adequate to significantly increase the nation’s agricultural productivity and production levels, and to meeting the objectives set by ADLI. About half of the total population is undernourished, and about 10.5% of the total import item in 2002 was food (FAO, 2004) and become one of the largest cereal food aid recipients (FAO, 2005). In relation to the population growth (that grows at about 2.7 % per annum), increase in production and productivity (1.6% per annum) over the past decade leave much to be desired as this performance is not adequate enough even to curve the decline in food availability per capita ( Table 7).
Table 7.
Trends of production and productivity
|
Year |
Total production
in tones |
Area in hectare |
productivity (tones per
hectare) |
% of area covered
by improved seeds |
Fertilizer
applied in tones |
%
of area covered by fertilizer |
|
1994/95 |
7889510 |
7689580.9 |
1.03 |
0.61 |
184126 |
27.70 |
|
1995/96 |
11857800 |
9037957.32 |
1.31 |
0.71 |
256217 |
31.43 |
|
1996/97 |
10605100 |
8822878.54 |
1.20 |
1.87 |
264579 |
32.23 |
|
1997/98 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
1.98 |
235882 |
34.47 |
|
1998/99 |
10529181 |
8811030.13 |
1.20 |
2.68 |
389104 |
38.60 |
|
1999/2000 |
11067566 |
9131655.12 |
1.21 |
3.61 |
432966 |
38.81 |
|
2000/01 |
12848106 |
10437129.2 |
1.23 |
4.22 |
341493 |
37.85 |
|
2001/02 |
12168406 |
8697931.38 |
1.40 |
2.99 |
258178 |
8.4 |
|
2002/03 |
8024093 |
7866757.84 |
1.02 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
|
2003/04 |
12810689 |
9653872.65 |
1.33 |
3.67 |
388251 |
40.22 |
|
2004/05 |
n/a |
n/a |
n/a |
3.18 |
454966 |
41.79 |
Source:
CSA, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2005
3.12.2 Contribution to Increasing the Supply of Industrial and Export Crops
The extension program is supposed to contribute to the development of the economy through increasing production, productivity and promotion of export and industrial agricultural products. Thus, in the program, export and industrial crops were to be given primary attention in view of significantly increasing foreign exchange earnings. The largest share of the national foreign exchange earning (about 90% of the total exports) is derived from the export of such agricultural products as coffee (share about 62%), hides and skin (9%), oil crops (6%) and pulses (3%). Increased foreign exchange earnings depend largely on the country’s ability to competently supply these primary products with the required quality and quantity. The annual export has been about 3.6 billion Birr on the average from 1996-2000 and contributes only 10% to the national GDP. Foreign exchange earned from the export of goods covers only about 40% of imports during the years 1996-2000 (ITC/EEPA, 2002). The percentage shares of total exports for fruits, vegetable and flowers; and that of live animals are still very low although there is a significant increase in export of flowers and livestock products; particularly live animals nowadays.
Until very recently, the focus of the extension program has been on food crops. The activities to promote export commodities have been very low, except for coffee. Limitations in the availability of extension packages, high cost of associated inputs, and lacks of skilled manpower were reported to be the major reasons for lower level of promotion of market oriented extension packages. Thus much needs to be done by the agricultural extension system to increase quality and quantity of exportable products.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The major findings of this study can be summarized as follow:
- Although the attempt to promote improved appropriate technologies in the country is not new, the extent of coverage and emphasis for the service were pronounced during PADETES than during any of the previous extension approaches. PADETES was able to reach more than 4 million farmers. The number of packages has also increased over time, and the packages were more productive and profitable than the traditional practices.
- The focus of PADETES has been more on delivering agricultural technologies than on facilitation to build the capacity of rural farmers to solve their own problems. Moreover, much of the extension activities of PADETES were crop-based as the overwhelming majority of extension packages are crop production promotion technologies.
- Lack of effective technological options that would serve the various agro-ecological zones, particularly for moisture stress and pastoral areas, was also a major constraint.
- Although the use of all types of extension and communication methods are advocated depending on the type of message and the audience, it appears that the use of group extension and mass communication methods were limited, and the use of audio visual aids was next to none.
- Many participant farmers do not continue to utilize the technologies, and many more drop some components of the packages for various reasons.
- The assessment component of the program appeared very weak. Monitoring and evaluation system has not been properly developed and implemented. Apparently, extension program performance measurement was often based on number of farmers reached out than on impact.
- At woreda level and below, there exist capacity limitations to effectively plan and implement extension activities. This is further complicated by the frequent restructuring of offices at regional and woreda levels that add up to staff instability.
- The frequent restructure of the extension service organization shows the inadequacy of the internal organization structure to provide learning opportunities at institutional and individual levels. Most of the plans went from top to down with little or no consideration of the real farming situations in different localities.
- DAs surveyed have indicated the multiplicity of jobs they were given to perform. Besides, the activities of DAs were not only limited to agricultural extension as they included other non-extension activities. This will discourage farmers from communicating with DAs more frequently and seek advice.
- Linkage between extension service providing agencies and institutions involved in research, technology multiplication, input supply, credit and marketing remained weak, and the linkages have not been institutionalized.
- Inadequate development of infrastructure and marketing institutions undermines the contribution that extension could have made in increasing productivity and income.
- The credit system, particularly the short pay-back period, is forcing many farmers to sell their products during or soon after harvest. There is practically no support to framers in marketing their products.
- Although the coverage of the extension program has
significantly increased, total production and productivity growth remained
slow.
- While participant farmers mentioned increases in
productivity, production, and income as a result of participating in
PADETES, there is limitation in baseline data and accurate recording of
inputs and outputs at farm level, to quantitatively measure the impact of
PADETES both at household and at national level.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations have been forwarded:
§
Technology
packages should be designed to fit with the different agro-ecological zones of
the country and socio-economic status of farmers. Besides, the pastoral and
agro-pastoral system and issue of natural resources and environmental
degradation are not well addressed by PADETES. It is thus recommended that
attention be paid to and immediate action should be taken in this regard.
§ Extension workers must provide farmers with access to multiple sources of information for better understanding and quick adoption of a new technology. To this end, using group and mass extension methods as well as audio-visual aids together with the individual extension methods should be promoted to reach more farmers and enhance farmers’ learning opportunities more appropriately.
§
Involvement of farmers in agricultural extension
program at one time is not enough to bring about a sustainable significant
change in lives of the rural livelihood. Thus continuous use of the improved
practices by adopter farmers is required. To this end, proper follow up of
extension participants and supporting them until they reach to a certain
desired level will help.
§ Restructuring extension service providing agencies must be based on adequate assessment of pros and cons. The frequency of doing so needs to be minimized in order to reduce associated staff instability and lack of continuity in activities.
§ There have not been any well thought performance indicators to measure the success of the extension program. So far, the effectiveness has been measured mainly in terms of the number of farmers taking part or full of the package. But in future it has to also include impact of the technology on the household income and surrounding environment as well as on the managerial and organizational capacity of the farmers. Whenever possible, performance measurement should be included and carefully assessed. Besides, as a system the costs and benefits of any extension program must be properly assessed and documented to inform decision making. To this end, well thought monitoring and evaluation system has to be put in place, and information must be collected and reports collected analysed at different levels to inform extension planning.
§ As the number of DAs is significantly increasing, problems associated with higher farmer-DA ratio are being addressed. The frequency of contact and the level of interaction between farmers and extension workers, however, are negatively affected when DAs are engaged in non-extension related activities, which actually has been the case in PADETES. Extra activities need to be minimized, if possible avoided.
§ Efforts taken by the government to enhance the capacity of DAs through ATVET colleges are commendable ones and it has to be strengthened further to provide on-job training as well. Besides, farmer-to-farmer knowledge sharing and exchange mechanism have to be encouraged. Moreover, the capacity of extension workers needs to be built, particularly in extension planning, technology testing/screening, and in communication skills, in mobilization and organization.
§
Improving the efficiency of other agricultural
service providing institutions such as technology suppliers, input delivery systems
and their functional links with the extension system requires immediate
attention.
§ Extension service is one factor to accelerate agricultural development. There are series of economic, policy, environmental and social factors that have compounding effects. Besides, the impact of extension often is not immediate. These needs to be taken into account when attempting to assess impact of agricultural extension.
§ The extension system needs to address the marketing aspects of agricultural produces as well. Flexibility in loan repayment schemes and strengthening the role of farmers' cooperatives in credit and marketing could help farmers a lot.
§ Farmers require information regarding various aspects of farming, including marketing, prices, etc. to increase their productivity and income. All these ca not be provided by the government extension program alone. There is a need to enhance the roles of NGOs, private sectors, farmers’ cooperatives in extension service provisions.
§
Limitation in the availability of extension
packages, high cost of associated inputs, and lacks of skilled manpower were
reported to be the major reasons for lower level of promotion of market
oriented extension packages. Thus, much needs to be done by the agricultural
extension system to increase quality and quantity of exportable products.
§
There should be a well-defined agricultural
extension policy. This clarifies what extension can and should do and,
accordingly, the tasks of extension workers.
References
Belay Ejigu. 1997. The New Extension Strategy. In Alemayehu Geda (Ed). Economic Focus
and Bulletin of the Ethiopian Economic Association. Volume 1, December 1997,
Issue No. 2
Berhane
Gebrekidane, Seme Debela and Ibrahim Mohamed. 2004. Development and Application
of Agricultural Technology in
CSA. 1997. Centaral Statistical
Authority. Statistical Abstract,
CSA. 2001. Centaral Statistical
Authority. Statistical Abstract,
CSA. 2004. Centaral Statistical
Authority. Statistical Abstract,
CSA. 2005. Centaral Statistical
Authority. Statistical Abstract,
EARO. 2000, unpublished. Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organization, Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages Department,
Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages Strategy.
FAO.1985.
Strategic Extension Program Planning. FAO.
FAO.
1997. Strengthening research-extension-farmer linkages. In Improving agricultural extension: A reference manual, edited by
Burton E. Swanson, Robert P. Bentz and
Andrew J. Sofranko.
FAO, 2004.
FAO. 2005. The state of food and agriculture 2005. http://www.fao.org/docrep/
008/ a0050e/a0050e09.htm
IFPRI/
CSA. 2006. Atlas of the Ethiopian Rural Economy (advance copy). International Food Policy Research
Institute,
ITC/ EEPA.
2002. Trade Secrets: The export Answer
Book for small and medium sized Exports. International trade centre
UNCTAD/WTO (ITC) and Ethiopian Export promotion Agency (EEPA).
Marco Quinones and Takele Gebre (1996). An Overview of the sasakawa-Global 2000
Project in
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). 1987. Task Force for assessment of Agricultural
Extension system.
Rolling, N.
1990. The Agricultural Research-Technology Transfer Interface: A Knowledge
System Perspective. In Making the Link: Agricultural Research and Technology
Transfer in Developing Countries, edited by D. Kaimowitz.
Van den ban, A.W. and Hawkins, H.S. 1996. Agricultural Extension.