ifpri - agricultural extension reforms in south asia workshop - md safiul afrad - agri extension...

By Dr. Md. Safiul Islam Afrad

Professor Bangabandhu Agricultural University, Bangladesh

&

Dr. Fatema Wadud, Deputy Director Directorate of Agricultural Marketing, Bangladesh

1

Agricultural Extension in Bangladesh

Followed an evolutionary process of experimentation with several recognized extension approaches.

Training and visit (T&V) approach formed the backbone of the agricultural extension practices.

ASSP attempted to pave the path of participatory extension service

NAEP tried to include all categories of farmers with coordinated and bottom-up approach

DAE, the key Govt. extension agency, represents at national, divisional, district, upazila and village levels.

Insufficient information within DAE on how many farmers are actually reached and serviced.

Effective and efficient agricultural extension system remains questionable till now. 2

Objectives

i) Describe the recent extension reforms strategies occurred in Bangladesh;

ii) Identify the various actors and players engaged in the extension policy process and program implementation;

iii) Assess the impact of innovative extension approaches on farmers; and

iv) Offer suggestion formulating relevant, cost effective and sustainable extension systems in Bangladesh.

3

Methodology

Reviewed some journals, reports, information available in internet

Conducted FGD, personal interview and

case studies with farmers, field level extension workers and some senior officers

4

The World Bank developed the T & V model of extension was first experimentally introduced in 1978 and was then expanded throughout the country in 1983.

Worked to rationalize the then traditional system.

Educated the farmers about the use of technologies for higher production and increased income.

Integrated commodity-based extension organizations with the DAE.

Introduced standard for staffing and operational procedures for training and field visits.

Increased the number of staff three-fold. 6

Weaknesses of T&V System

Lack of participation of farmers and field EWs in the top down planning process of the extension program.

Extension programs mostly took care of the relatively big farmers, with less care to the small / marginal farmers.

The message did not ‘trickle-down’ from the contact to the non-contact farmers as was envisaged in T&V system.

Linkage among research-extension-education was inadequate.

Farmers’ ITKs were not taken care in the system.

Information needs of the farmers were less emphasized and the ‘impact point’ was mostly developed without considering the felt needs of the locality.

7

2. Agricultural Support Services Project (ASSP)

Aimed at decentralize and introduce the participatory approach in the delivery of extension services to the farmers;

Changed in the operational procedures of T&V and equipped the DAE with necessary logistics; and

Trained manpower to carry out more comprehensive and effective agricultural extension work.

8

3. Agricultural Services Innovation and Reform Project (ASIRP)

Goal of ASIRP was to improve the capacity of all categories of farmers, especially landless, marginal and small farmers, to optimize their use of resources on a sustainable basis under NAEP.

ASIRP was fundamentally "change

management" oriented, with attention to process rather than product.

9

1. Extension support to all categories of farmer

2. Efficient extension services

3. Decentralization

4. Demand-led extension

5. Working with groups of all kinds

6. Strengthened extension-research linkage

7. Training of extension personnel

8. Appropriate extension methodology

9. Integrated extension support to farmers

10. Co-ordinated extension activities

11. Integrated environmental support 10

1. Extension Approach Development

2. Develop Partnership

3. Mainstreaming Gender

4. Mainstreaming Environment

5. Human Resource Management

6. Information System Development

12

T&V model (1978)

Top-down approach

Education to the farmers

integrated commodity-based extension organization

introduced unique standards for staffing and operational procedures; and

Increased no. of staff three-fold.

ASSP and ASIRP (1992-2010)

Bottom-up approach

Decentralize and participatory approach

Changed the operational procedures

Equipped DAE with logistics

Trained manpower

Focus all categories farmers,

Attention to process rather than product.

Strengthened linkage

Coordination

Emphasis on environment

NATP (2010 to date)

Component based: agril research; agril extension, supply chain development; coordination and management

Organized CIGs and POs

Emphasizes decentralized, participatory and knowledge-based extension service

One-stop services via FIACs

Comparative focuses of recent major extension reforms

13

1. The private sector extension in Bangladesh can be broadly categorized into NGOs, private companies and individual consultants.

2. NGOs are broadly two types – the service motive NGOs and business motive NGOs.

3. Private extension service providers are dealers of seed companies, pesticides dealers, fertilizer dealers and companies involved in contact farming.

4. Individual consultant provides suggestions to the farms and households of agriculture, livestock and fisheries.

15

NGOs in Agricultural Activities of Bangladesh

BRAC

PROSHIKA

CARE Bangladesh

Rangpur-Dinajpur Rural Services (RDRS)

Thangamara Mohila Shobuj Sangho (TMSS)

Helen Keller International

Mennonite Central Committee (MCC)

Gono Unnayan Prochestra, Gono-Kalyan Trust (GKT) Voluntary Paribar Kalyan Association (VPKA)

World View International Foundation (WIF) 16

Private Companies in Bangladesh

Lal Teer Seed Limited

Syngenta

ACI

Supreme Seed Company

Mollika Seeds

Aftab Bahumukhi Farm

Agri Business Corporation

McDonald (Bangladesh) Ltd.

Tinpata Seeds

Petrochem Ltd.

Duncan

Kushtia Seed Stores

A.R. Malik & Namdharee Seeds

Allied Agro Industries

Masud Seed Company

Blue Moon International

Alpha Agro

Agri Concern and

PRAN Agro Ltd.

17

Extension ownership

Evaluation of the extension system

Approach Type of information

Type of extension activities

Other service provided

To

p-d

ow

n

Val

ue

chai

n e

xte

nsi

on

sy

stem

Res

earc

h-c

um

-ex

ten

sio

n

syst

em

Far

min

g s

yst

em

Env

iron

men

tal

con

serv

atio

n

Su

stai

nab

le f

oo

d s

afet

y

Sh

ort

tra

inin

g c

ou

rse

Ex

ten

sio

n W

ork

sho

p

Rad

io a

nd

TV

bro

adca

st

Co

ntr

act

farm

ing

ICT

ap

pli

cati

on

Tec

hn

ical

Co

nsu

ltin

g P

lace

s/

Po

int

Inp

ut

pro

vid

ing

-Ou

tpu

t

Mar

ket

ing

Cre

dit

s

Po

st-h

arv

est

pro

cess

ing

Public DAE - - x x x x x x x x x x - - -

BADC x - - - - x - - - x - - x - x

Private

PRAN Agro Ltd. - x - - x x x - x x x x x x x

Lal Teer Seed

Company - x x - x - x x x x - - x x x

BRAC - x x - x x x x - x x x x x -

Syngenta - x - - x x x x - x x x x - x 18

Figure 3. Public-private involvement in diffusion of agricultural innovation

Dealer (seed,

pesticide,

other inputs

Research

Institutions/

Universities

Abroad

Innovation MLT

Demonstration

(Method/Result)

(Demonstration Farmers)

DAE/ DLS/ DOF/

Private Company

NGO

Direct

contact

(office

call, farm

& home

visit)

Field

day

CIGs

/PG

IPM/

FFS

Mobile

FIAC

Common Farmers

Print &

Electric

Media

Private

Others

(Friends/Re

latives/

Neighbor)

19

Public Extension

Private Extension

NGOs

Human Resource Development

Transfer of Technology

Development of Social Capital

Educational Program

• Natural resource

management

• Farm management

• Leadership training

• Coping strategy

Technical Programs

• Crop management

• Livestock management

• Framing system

• Fisheries management

• Plant nursery

Inputs and Services

• Machinery/

equipment

• Seeds/breeding stock

• Fertilizers/feeds

• Chemicals/drugs

Organizing, educating and

empowering

• Credit groups

• Self-help Groups

• Farmers’ associations

• Poverty alleviation

• Home management

• Fisheries/livestock cooperative

• Agro/social forestry

• Non-farm IGAs

Medium and big

Big and medium commercial

Small, marginal and women

Farm Families

Extension

20

Impact of Innovative Extension Approach on the Farmers

21

Major Components of NAEP Impact

Causes CE* PE Sus

(i) Decentralization of

authority from the centre

to the districts and

thanas within the

Department of

Agricultural Extension

(DAE);

L

- - The SAAOs are available Extension worker from DLS and

DoF are not seen

- L -

Local problems sometimes identified but extension program is not planned based on farmers’ needs

- - L Extension workers cannot keep

their words

(ii) Use of groups rather than

CFs in communications

with farming

communities;

H

- - More farmers are involved in

local problem identification -

L It is difficult to bring all farmers

together

-

- L

Farmers loss their interest if commitments are not maintained by the extension workers

Table 1. Impact of NAEP components perceived by the farmers {FGD, n= 65(30+35)}

*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability

22

Continued ………Table 1.



Causes CE* PE Sus

(iii) Greater efforts to assess farmers'

needs and tailor messages to their

priorities for a wider range of

commodities and subjects;

M

- - Higher participation of

farmers but difficult to get together

- H - It is easier to share ideas

and problems as well

-

- L Farmers' needs are

assessed but not tailored message based on priority

(iv) Sharper focus on poor and

disadvantaged groups, including

women.

L Difficult to organize together for the poor farmers’ greater engagement in their works

H Easy to convince poor farmers

H Once landless, small and women are given their commitment need to maintain it

23



Causes CE* PE Sus

(i) Decentralization of authority

from the centre to the

districts and thanas within

the Department of

Agricultural Extension (DAE);

M

- - Extension worker him/

herself need to spend No additional cost involve

- L - Regional extension program

is not planned based on locally made decisions

- - L Lack of keeping commitment

by the extension worker

(ii) Use of groups rather than CFs

in communications with

farming communities;

M

- - It is nearly impossible to

contact all farmers -

H - Creates leadership among

the group members

-

- L Difficult to form new group

because of increasing demand of the farmers

24


Causes CE* PE Sus

(iii) Greater efforts to assess farmers'

needs and tailor messages to their

priorities for a wider range of

commodities and subjects;

H

- - Higher participation of farmers

- L - Difficult to arrange the

members

-

- L Farmers' needs are assessed

but not tailored message based on priority

(iv) Strengthening linkages with public

and private organizations

concerned with research, inputs

and marketing as well as

extension; and

L

- - Not functionally attended in the meetings

- L - Arranged meeting but not functional

- - L Decisions are not implemented

(v) Sharper focus on poor and

disadvantaged groups, including

women.

H No additional fund required for group formation

L Members are envisaged for cash/ incentives

H Landless, small and women are given importance

Continued ………Table 2.

*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability 25

Receive little information from DAE including booklet, leaflet etc.

Land less, marginal and small farmers discuss with their opinion

leaders whenever fall in problem

Needs technical facilities (information, suggestions) from the

NGOs

They are facing serious problem for storage of seeds.

They face uncertainty of marketing of vegetables

DAE form group with women but does not provide any facility

Less access to get agriculture inputs from different stakeholders

Land less, marginal and small farmers cannot use ICT facilities

They rarely get information on new technology as leaf chart.

Rich farmers don’t maintain the share cropping agreement.

Need more facility for training on crop management.

SAAOs need more technical training on crop protection

Box.1. Overall views of landless, marginal and small farmers’ on existing extension

services in Gazipur and Comilla districts {FGD, n= 45 (25+20)}

26

Figure 4. Trend of budget allocation for DAE during last decade

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Total Manpower =26042 TFEW =14556 Total FH = 14.72 Million FEW: FH = 1:1010 Total Budget = 11828 MBDT Cost for per FH = 804 BDT/annum

27

28

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

CIG/PO Others

Directcontact

Field day Agril Fair Mobile IPM club/FFS

FIAC Dealer NGOs

55.00

7.38

3.43

5.71 4.29

9.71

3.50

6.02

1.79

4.21

Figure 5. Extent of farmers’ access to information sources perceived by field extension workers

T & V system was found ineffective except formation of backbone of DAE

ASSP introduced bottom-up extension approach with people’s participation

NAEP focused on landless, marginal and women farmers, coordinated and integrated extension approach with special emphasis on environment.

NATP introduced CIG and PO and established FIAC in pilot basis Theoretical and dysfunctional public-private-NGO partnership

exist More than half of the farmers are claimed to receive farm

information from DAE Farmers fail to harvest benefit from extension service due to

their illiteracy, reluctance and low technical competency of extension people, lack or no cooperative societies existed in the farmers’ level and inefficient bottom-up shift of participatory extension approach.

29

Suggestions for Relevant, Cost Effective Extension Systems and Increase Program Efficiency & Sustainability in Bangladesh

Demand-led, functional and efficient participatory extension service delivery focusing all categories of farmers

Expansion and institutionalization of CIGs, POs and FIAC

Functional and group wise public-private-NGO partnership need to be established

More encouragement of agro-companies and NGOs in agriculture with technical training

Increasing practical literacy level of the farmers through effective FFSs

Increasing the number of extension workers especially women extension workers

Recognition and incentives to local extension agents

Stringent monitoring and supervision of field extension workers. 30