E N V I R O N M E N T D E P A R T MEN T -it63 DISSEMINNATI-O-N NOTE:S TOWARD 4'1tF.!.1121if.l Y AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ; i t lN uNumber 24 : | 8 .9 June, 1995 Participation in Agricultural Extension.. Putting responsibility in the hands offdrmers to determine agricultural extension programs, can make services more responsive to local conditions, more accountable, more effective and more sustainable. To realize these benefits, the role of the public sector has to be-redefined .Po permit multiple approaches which accountfor user diversity, and to develop partnerships with farmer organizations, NGOs and the private sectorfor service delivery. Rationale . increasing reliance on radio and other mass media. lHowever,'there is increasing recognition that, if Project experience over the last 20 years has extension is to meet the diverse needs of modern fuelled debate concerning the role of public sector -farming, a fundamental change of approach is' agricultural extension in .strategies to increase called,for, towards educating and enabling farmers. agricultural productivity and alleviate rural to define and solve their own problems, and to - poverty. The dominant approach in Bank projects' determine and take some responsibility for the since the early 1980s---the Training and Visi.t (T&V) extension services they require. 'system-has been to accelerate the adoption of . new techn3iology through intensive, regular Agriculttiral extension in':many countries is interaction between government extension agents being reoriented to provide more demand-based 'and selected "conta'ct" far3mers, to disseninate a ' and sustainable services, taking account of the package of key agricultural message s. This diversity, perceptions, knowledge and resources of approach has had some noteworthy successes and user's. The options governmeiits are pursuing * -osome failures. Although the system is intended include full commercialization, devolving control' to incorporate feedback.from farmers, -this is not to local governmrent units, cost sharing between - -always accomplished and the role of farters-as' extensionists and farmers, contracting service - receivers, of instructions-is often passive.- -. - -- recevers of nstuctins-i ofen ps si'e. delivery to private firms, NGOs and/ or technicians .Consequently, the results of invest-ment in T&V dlvrtplaeim,Gsn/rehiin Consequently, the -esujts of investment in T,V from cooperatives and farmers' organizations, and have sometimes beern di-sappointing, a:nd they..--- havesomtims ben' isapoining an thy 'supporting'farmers~ 'self help- 'grotips. Although have been especially' unsatisfactory in terms of ..y .V.V- - . '.World Bank experience with these alternative' sustainablity . sust-inabilit. '. ' approaches is still too new to permit systematic, The most signi.icant ; hotco s of public --...-evaluation, there are already indications of- the - ~~~The most significan't shortconmmgs of public -(i) potential benefits and evidence 'of the'particular agrictultural extension in genteral have been: i .. . . . . r - , ~~issues to be confronted in implementation. unresponsiveness to the yariation in farmer needs; i t b c (ii) lack of ownership by the intended beneficiaries; (iii) failure to reach poor and women farmers; (iv) Benefits limitations in the quality of field and technical staff; nBy making' extension more demand' driven, and (v) high and unsustainable public costs. Some and more accou-ntable to farmers, participatory of these problems have been eased by modifying approaches can help to ensure that services are the T&V system-4or example, by working with relevant and responsive to local conditions and groups rather than individual farmers, or by meet the real needs of users. This note is based on the paper written by Charles Antholt and Willem Zijp as a contribution to the Participation Sourcebook. Copies of the, full paper are available frorn the Environment peparftnent, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, of the World Bank;Washington, D.C. 20433, Fax (202) 522-3247. Dissernnation Netes represent the views.of their authors and are not' official publications of the World Bank. When programs benefit from farmers' the'best means to ascertaiand demonstrate the traditional knowledge as.well as modern potential benefits of IPM. research, the risk' of serious .mistakes is greatly: redu'ced. Examples of what can happen when the Participatory methods, often through .NGOs; value of. local -knowledge is not appreciated can also help to make the coverage of extension include the aggressive promotion of maize by . services more equitable. Proactive efforts are extensionists in' Ethiopia to' replace the needed to ensure: that opportunities for indigenous teff, despite skepticism and resistance - participation are open to all farmers, including:the from local farmers. Many Ethiopians suffered poor, indigeiious peoples-and other marginalized unnecessarily when maize proved less droughit groups. The importance of the role.played by resistant and the crop failed; subsequent data also women in agricultural production is such that the showed that teff provided superior food value. widespread failure, so far,to reach women farmers In Bali, after efforts.in the 1970s to introduce the through formal extension.services has major Green Revolution to rice cultivation had led to - repercussions for national output and food . catastrophic pest damage, researchers learned security, as well as social justice. The Nigerian that traditional local husbandry techniques were Women In Agriculture Project (Box 2) illustrates more efficient. . . . the potential of a participatory approach to: brng women into the national agricultural policy debate The opportunities for promoting technologies and local project management, as well as enabling to improve farmer incomes are expanded through them to improve their own productivity. participatory, farmer-centered approaches to- extension, which encourage a holistic perspective, - Making farmers influential and responsible shifting the focus of attention from simple . clients rather. than passive beneficiaries of the production to the.whole farm sysfem. Farmer extension service improves%sustainability, both of participation is essential, for. example, -in the benefits of investment in new technology, and introducing Integrated Pest Management (HIM), of the service itself. P'articipatory methods can which requires farmers to, invest effort and- increase farmrer ownership of 'the technologies ; . resources in techriiques' that are.very knowledge promoted by extension management, especially intensive. In Indonesia (see Box 1) on-farm trials when the mrethods are developed, at least in part, with substantial farmer involvementhave proved by the clients themselves and are based on - - - :BoX1 Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in Indonesia IPM is an approach to crop protection based on the rationale that pest populations can be kept below economic injury levels with minimal or no recourse to chemical pesticides. The menu of IPM options is defined by agro-ecological, socio- economic and institutional factors. It involves developments of traditional crop management, such as crop rotations and intercrops, and includes the use of resistant varieties, biological control and diagnostic techniques. - The IPM project in Indonesia illustrates both the potential of this approach, and its dependence on participafory extension. After linking pest outbreaks in .1985 and 1986 to escalating use of pesticides, the Government of Indonesia banned 57 broad-spectrum pesticides for rice, gradually eliminated state subsidies on other pesticides, and instituted IPM as the national pest control strategy for rice. The IPM Farmer Field School was developed as the model for government extension agents and pest observers to train farmers in IPM. The farmer field school training approach represents a move away from conventional packet technologies in agricultural extension toward empowering farmers with knowledge and skills, using n6n-formar education methods and a field-based, experiential learning process. Farmers make their own decisibns about crop management based on their experience, on local field and market conditions, and on basic IPM principles learned in farmer field school'training. These principles include weekly monitoring of pest levels, conservng the natural eneries of pests, sharing information and coordinating control strategy with neighboring farmers;- X Between 1987 and 1990, the volume of pesticides used on rice fell by over 50%/ while yields increased by abouit 15%. Farmers are testing and developing new IPM .practices, including IPM for other crops, with the help of farmer trainers established in their communities. NGO involvement has been encouraged in developing field school activities, new training components and farmei networks, resulting in a wide exchange of ideas and resources, and the spread of IPM farmer field schools from community to community. In 1993,US$ 53 rillion was committed byUSAID and the Goverrnent 6f -Indonesia, with support from the World Bank, to a project to extend the use of IPM throughout the country Box 2 Reaching Women Farmers in Nigeria In Nigeria, women were found to comprise between 60% and 80% of the agricultural labor force, depending.on. the region, and to produce two thirds of the country's food crops. However; as elsewhere inAfrica, extension services focused on men and their farm production needs. The Nigeria Women in Agriculture (WIA) Project was introduced to address this shortcoming in the extension system.. Through a participatory, leaming by doing approach, the project has.succeeded in giving women a voice in the national policy reform process, and in integrating women i]to the mainstream of agricultural extension and development initiatives in their.localities. Because of the shortage of women trained in agriculture, existing Home Economics agents have been retrained to become WIA agents. The formation of WIA farmers' groups has facilitated the dissemination of -agricultural innovations and provided women farmers with better access to fa,rm inputs and credit than they would have-as individuals. Assisted by WIA agents, through these groups, women now participate in all aspects of suibprojects, froin identification to planning and implementation. Project planning and replanning has-been carried out through national workshops with representatives of WIA groups - a process which both the Bank and the governmernt have found to be effective in translating field knowledge into specific action for improving women's productivity in agriculture. One of the greatest benefits of promoting participation in decisionmaking, at both the local and-national levels, is found to be the momentum. generated by the dynamism and resourcefulness of the Nigerian women. technologies which they have seen to be ef:fective. The costs of participation to farmers can be At the same time, when the value of the service substantial,. particularly in terms of their time. ''is'clear to them, farmers are willing to contribute' -Where participatory programs -depend on to its support, reducing the dependence on public significant contributions of cash. and/or labor funds for meeting recurrent costs. _from farmers, steps have to be taken to ensure - . '- -- "that this does not exclude the poor from sharing, Costs in benefits. A higher level of training and skills is needed . Key Elements if extension. staff are to collaboTate- effectively with farmers, applying technical knowledge to Stakeholder Commitment site-specific socioeconomic and agronomic . Broad consultation from the outset is needed conditions, rather than, delivering pre-packaged to ensure sufficient commritment to change on the messages. Agents also - need training in part of all-stakeholder groups. Extension services participatory methods of working with farmers. that are participatory and 'accountable to farmers Some of these additional- costs can be offset by - inmply some loss of control for government central reductions in the number of staff needed; as 'planners (and for Bank task nanagers). Even if the farmers themselves take on more responsibilities, degree of control-in setting specific targets and and the econonies of, "distance"' methods are scheduling plans to meet these targets-may more fully exploited.. . - sometimes be illusory, its: symbolic loss can be -strongly resisted. Vested interests in the .existing Additional time and resources are also needed. extension bureaucracy can -also present strong- to redefine arnd establish: the institutional resistance.Andfarmersthemselvesrmaybeskeptical framework for participation-for example, to of calls to contribute time, effort, or cash, if their decentralize fiscal and administrative functions, . experience of extension in the past has been negative. to build collaborative.partnerships,.and to strengthen the capacity of NGOs and farmer The Institutional Framework organizations.On the part of the Bank, additional . There is no one institutional model for staff time is -required for project preparation and' . delivering participatory extension services. Some supervision, and resources. are nreeded for 'countries,' such as Chile and Costa Rica-(Box 3) participatory analysis during project design.. are using the private sector to carry out what was traditionally a public sector activity; some are, dialogue with farmers include beneficiary decentralizing and reorienting; public sector assessment, gender analysis, participatory rural agencies; and some are working through NGOs appraisal and problem census. Joint problem and farmer organizations. A multi-institutional, solving and decision taking are achieved through approach is common, recognizing that farmers workshops, roundtables, public hearings, and get information from' several different sources, farmers -organizations. - 0 and that some organizations are more effective ' - *in reaching certain categories of farmers. There is considerable potential in adapting the 0 - - ' 0 : use of mass media and information technology Defining and facilitating operational linkages - to support participatory extension,'channelling at an early stage'is crucial. This can be approached feedback from rural communities to researchers through stakeholder workshops during project and extensionists,' as well as -providing preparation, to discuss possible forms of information to farmers.. Farmer participation in partnerships'and the allocation of-responsibilities designing and imp'lementing mass'media for implementation and support. Other key issues Fprogramrns improves program quality and include: instituting incentives and mechanisms for erihances the learning process. accountability to -farmers' on the part of extensionists; identifying' where legal and -''-Communication for Technology Transfer in: regulatory changes are needed; training staff in Agriculture (CTTA) is an extensionmethodology participatory methods;buildingthe capacityoflocal which combines the strengths of mass 'media farmers groups; and 'ensuring that local level dissemidnation and grassroots extension advisors. institutions do not exdude some groups of farmers ' - Focusing on behavioral change, the methodology fromparticipation. - involves gaining a thorough'understanding of existing knowledge, attitudes and practices in the Two-Way Communication - target communities, before identifying potentially When a learning p'rocess approach is adopted, ' relevant technologies and testing communicationrs the function of extension is not merely one of - options. CTTAhas been used successfully in Peru, technology transfer but of ensuring effective two- Honduras, Indonesia and Jordan, providing clear 'way flows 'of information, with the aim of ''evidence that, when-carefully tailored to specific empowering farmers through knowledgerather conditions, mass media. programming can - than issuing 'technical 'prescriptions. Tools ' magrify theimpact of partcipatory extension very available for'listening to and establishing. cost effectively. - 'Box 3' ' - V Using the' Private Sector in Latin America As early as the 1920s, Chile' began to replace public technikal assistance to farmers with private sgervices. Since 1990, extension to medium and large scale farmers in Chile has been executed by'a private farmer's group and is now totally privately funded. The Agricultural Development Institute (INDAP) of the Ministry of Agriculture reaches a large nurnber of small scale farmers through' an extension program which is publicly funded and privately executed through private technology transfer firms. Community based INDAP offices; with comrnrunity representatives, select firms through- : 0 ' ' competitive bidding and supervise and evaluate performnanc.e. Farmers sign annual contracts'with a firm' and' are expected . - to contribute up to 30% of program costs; if they are not satisfied with the service they can decide as a group to ask INDAP for a change. A recent project directed to the poorest and srnallest farmers contains several innovations. Extension is to be provided by - private sector firms and NGOs, and the concept of graduation applied to both extension and credit programs to reduce dependence on the public sector. Farmers will spend 3 to 6 years in the intensive Phase I, which begins with individual- visits. Phase II, to'last for 3 years, will use a group approach and focus on managerial skills, and marketing. Phase III is to - bewho'lly farmer-financed,irndependent extension support.As farmers graduate from the prbgram, new farmers will join, without any increase in INDAP's staff and budget.. Under a Bank-financed project in Costa Rica, a strategy has been devised to divest-government gradualIy from extension. As the Ministry of Agriculture is reorganized, some extension personnel are to move-to the private sector, and government will provide training to private extensionists. The project aims to provide private technical assistance to small and mediumr scale produceis through an Extension Voucher Pilot Program. Farmers will trade vouchers for individual and group technrical. assistance. Type I and II farmers are distinLguished according to whether they require high or low-intensity assistance. The extensionist is to indicate annually -to the Ministry which farmers should graduate from the program. At. the end of the seven year implementation'period, all beneficiaries are expected to continue with purely private services. ' - Prnted on 100% post-consumer recycled paper -