examining actors in privately-led extension in developing countries
TRANSCRIPT
Examining actors in privately led agricultural extension in
developing countriesSamyuktha Kannan (Dyson School of Applied Economics and
Management, Cornell University)
Work with: Mary-Kate Wheeler andMiguel I Gomez (Cornell University)
Ben Mueller (University of Illinois and MEAS)
Presentation at the 2nd International Conference on Global Food Security Oct 14th 2015
We acknowledge the support of MEAS, USAID in funding this project
2
I. Context : Trends in Agricultural Extension
II. Research objective : A survey of the nature and practices of
private actors in agricultural extension
III. Discussion of preliminary findings
IV. Summary of findings
V. Scope for further research
Contents :
3
Context : The Privatization Debate
• Role in facilitating agricultural growth by aiding the transition
from resource-based to technology-based cultivation.
• Importance of public provision of extension
• Public Good
• Externalities
• Infant industry
• Information asymmetry
• Importance of traditional extension functions
• Training and Visit Methodology
• Staple crops
• Un-sustainability of traditional models of resource transfer
• Inadequate funding, incentives and low response rates, coordination with
research
4
• Trends influencing the shift in models of extension delivery:
Source: Swanson, FAO 2008
Context : The Privatization Debate
5
• An analysis of organizational characteristics can help us
answer the following questions:
• What are the organization’s incentives for undertaking extension?
• What are their extension objectives and methods? Are they
different from traditional extension?
• Who is the target audience?
• What is the content of information transferred?
• What is the relationship between these trends and macro variables
like the socio-economic, political and natural environment?
Context : The Privatization Debate
6
• We examine organizations involved in privately-led extension
systems in order to understand various extension strategies and
the determinants of performance
• Survey of 101 respondents from 4 continents (primarily Africa)
• Modernizing Extension and Advisory Services (MEAS)
workshop – June 2015
• Survey Sections (1) Organizational structure
(2) Partnerships
(3) Extension Activities
(4) Extension Educator Training
(5) Objectives and Outcomes
(6) Best Practices
Research Objective :
7
Preliminary Findings
Organization
Type
Implementation
and Funding
Position on the
Value Chain
Source of
income
Geographic
Region
Private (For
Profit)
Majority Private Upstream Farmer fee Africa
NGO Majority NGO Downstream Membership fee Latin and Central
America
FBO – Farmer
Based
Organization
Shared Support Private Business
Operation
Asia and Pacific
Social Enterprise Producer Public Revenue North America
Research
Institution
NGO fundraising
Public
Organization
Direct Donations
Other
Table 1. Organizational Characteristics Studies
8
45%
37%
7%
5%5%
1%
Organizational Type
Private Business
Non-profit
Organization
Farmer Based
Organization
Social Enterprise
Research
Institution
Public
Organization
Private
(For
Profit)
NGO Other
Upstream 52% 38% 10%
Downstream 68% 21% 11%
Support 57% 31% 11%
Producer 47% 37% 16%
Profile of Organizations in the Study
Table 1a. Organization type by Value
Chain Position
53% organizations reported having
more than one position of influence on
the value chain
9
Profile of Organizations in the Study
Funding
Majority Private Majority NGO Shared
Imp
lem
enta
tio
n Majority Private 10% 1% 4%
Majority NGO 3% 2% 5%
Shared 18% 9% 30%
Majority of the organizations had equitably shared funding and implementation
across multiple actors
10
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Technical
Assistance
Business
Development
Value Chain
Development
Financial
Assistance
Education and
Empowerment
Nutrition and
Food security
Natural
Resources
Management
Community
Development
Humanitarian
Relief
Research and
Development
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f o
rgan
izat
ions
invo
lved
Fig 1: Extension Functions by Organization Type
Private NGO Total
A larger proportion of NGOs tend to include broader extension objectives
Analysis of extension strategies: Extension Functions
11
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Field Demos Farmer Field
Schools
Lead Farmer
Approach
Provision of
inputs
Participatory
Research
F2F network F2B network Producer
Groups
Contract
Farming
Financial
Services
Linking
farmers to
markets
Business
development
ICTs
Pro
port
ion o
f org
aniz
atio
ns
involv
ed
Fig 2. Extension Methods Used by Organization Type
Private NGO Total
However, businesses tend to adopt more non-conventional tactics
Analysis of extension strategies: Extension Methods
12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Targets smallholder
farmers (<5a)
Targets women and
youth
Targets leaders and
educators
Targets owners of
livestock
Targets staple crops Targets international
markets only
Pro
port
ion o
f org
aniz
atio
ns
involv
ed
Fig 4. Selected Inclusiveness Indicators by Organization Type
Private
NGO
Other
Total
There are no major differences in selected inclusiveness
Analysis of extension strategies: Inclusiveness
13
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Increase
productivity
Improve
product
quality
Increase
market access
Provide
reliable
supply
Improve
quality of life
for farmer
Better
environmental
management
Better farm
business
management
Technology
adoption
Reduce
poverty
Improvements
for
marginalized
groups
Successful
Overall
Pro
port
ion o
f org
aniz
atio
ns
wit
h v
ery g
ood s
ucc
ess
Fig 5. Self Reported Performance by Organization Type
Private NGO Total
Private businesses report higher instances of achievement of extension targets but
the proportion of these conducting external evaluations is much lower than among
NGOs
Analysis of extension strategies: Performance
14
Stated Goal/Outcome Basis of differences:
Increase productivity- Majority Private funding, + Majority Private
Implementation
Improve product quality+ Downstream, ++ Majority Private
Implementation
Increase market access- - Majority NGO Implementation
Provide reliable supply++ Majority Private Implementation
Improve quality of life for farmer+ Support
Table 2. Other areas where statistically significant differences occur in performance
Analysis of extension strategies: Performance
15
Stated Goal/Outcome Basis of differences:
Better environmental management- Majority NGO Implementation
Better farm business management- Shared Implementation, - Majority NGO
Funding
Technology adoption+ Upstream, + Majority NGO Implementation
Reduce poverty+ Majority Private Implementation,
Improvements for marginalized groups+ Shared Implementation, ++ Majority NGO
funding,
Successful Overall (very good
performance in more than 50% of
targets)
- Producer, + Support
Analysis of extension strategies: Performance
Table 2. Contd
16
Private Business Control
• Prime Strengths• Use of non-traditional
extension methods
• Use of ICTs
• Prime Weaknesses• Little external
evaluation
NGO Control
• Prime Strengths• Broader extension
objectives
• Prime Weaknesses• Lagging behind in use
of newer methods
Partnerships and shared control
• Prime Strengths• Traditional extension
with better performance
• Prime Weaknesses• Need to broaden
extension objectives to keep up with NGOs
Summary of Findings
17
Scope for Further Research
• Determinants of performance• Econometric Model
• Use of objective rather than self reported measures of performance
and impact
• Hypotheses for future research:• Lack of support for the inclusiveness argument
• NGO extension pitfalls – similarity to public extension
• Influence on input/product/crop choice of farmers – potential
impacts on nutrition and ecology
• Suggestions based on preliminary findings• External evaluation of private extension
• The need for regulating and developing NGO potential
• The case for collaboration in agricultural extension systems
• Target livestock, educators
18
Questions & Comments
Acknowledgement
MEAS
Tata Cornell Initiative (TCi)
Samyuktha Kannan