The Social Dimensions of the Laos Extension for Agriculture Project

Alice Jay April, 2005

2

Social Dimensions of the Laos Extension for Agriculture Project 1. Executive Summary 2 2. Brief Social Context Analysis 5 3. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the 8

Lao Extension for Agriculture Project’s (LEAP) capacity to impact on poverty and equity

4. Adjustments to the LEA to incorporate social development 13 4.1 Strengthening inclusive and pro poor capacity of NAFES 14 4.1.1 Professional development training in social issues 14 4.1.2 Monitoring and Evaluation 15 4.1.3 Institutional systems to make NAFES decentralised, participatory, 16

pluralistic, pro poor and gender sensitive 4.1.4 Action research in social development 17 4.2 Inclusive and pro poor capacity building of farmers 18 4.2.1 Targeted inclusion of socially excluded groups 18 4.2.2 Training of trainers in empowering methodologies 20 Appendix I 24 Appendix II 26 Appendix III 28

3

1. Executive Summary Poverty needs to be understood as a multidimensional dynamic situation, fundamentally about access to power which in turn affects access to resources and services. Social development aspects of poverty such as differentials due to gender, ethnicity or formal and informal power dynamics need to be understood and taken into account to have sustainable impact in development work. In Phase I NAFES with LEAP developed tools and methodologies for the national extension system and had dramatic impact on participant farmer’s production yields. The system is based on principles of participation, pluralism, decentralization and gender sensitivity. The Lao PDR government is committed to poverty eradication based on these principles and the expansion of the national extension system as a means to that end. However, experiences in LEAP Phase I showed that adequate application of these principles is lacking. As such ‘elite’ model farmers have dominated the production groups and the women and poor have been underrepresented. To advance genuine participation requires understanding power dynamics in communities and having tools to be able to promote inclusion in development spaces that are not power neutral. LEAP Phase II has the potential to impact on poverty eradication across the country through its capacity building programme. By adjusting strategies to incorporate pro poor methodologies NAFES will empower the service providers (extension staff) to be more responsive and effective and individual farmers and village farmer groups to have more agency in their development. A potential challenge to NAFES carrying out pro poor and inclusive extension is the national and local political and social environment in which it is being implemented. Being pro poor and promoting voice, agency and equity challenges the status quo. However, if steps to include social development are not taken by NAFES, pro poor extension will remain a policy rather than a practice and agricultural extension may even perpetuate inequality. NAFES with LEAP can develop a pro poor extension system by developing the capacity of NAFES and farmers. For NAFES it requires:

o professional development training for NAFES staff on how power and society works; what their role is as extension workers; and training in tools and methodologies to be able in their work to promote participation, pluralism, equity and inclusion;

o developing inclusive, decentralised and empowering structures and systems for planning and dialogue in NAFES;

o devising qualitative M and E systems with NAFES staff so as to encourage greater understanding and ownership by them of what they are aiming for; and

o carrying out action research on social development in extension.

4

For farmers it requires:

o promoting a proactive inclusive strategy in terms of ‘who participates’ in the production groups and targeting socially excluded groups. To be pragmatic and acquire better qualitative and even quantitative results in terms of poverty eradication, NAFES should increase to ½ the participation of women. Women are the most vulnerable group, they are doing much of the agricultural work being taught by extension workers and providing a forum for women to access learning can have multiple effects on poverty in their families; and

o improving ‘how’ the training is carried out so as to maximise critical thinking and empowerment and focus on setting up the sustainable VES system rather than individual production increases.

5

2. Brief social analysis of poverty and equity Lao National Policy on Poverty Prime Ministerial Instruction No. 01 on poverty eradication defines poverty in Laos as “The lack of ability to fulfill basic human needs such as: not having enough food, lack of adequate clothing, not having permanent housing, not capable of meeting expenses for health care, not capable of meeting educational expenses for one’s self and other family members, and lack of access to transport routes”. The government has been assessing poverty through a number of both qualitative and quantitative measurements: poverty lines, PPA, vulnerability indexes and the Human Poverty Index. Through the Participatory Poverty Assessments (PPA) the poor defined the primary aspects of well being as degree of rice sufficiency and number of livestock. The main causes of poverty included historical, environmental, social, productive, cultural and technical issues:

• Natural disasters and pests affecting crops • Livestock disease • Relocation and resettlement • Lack of arable land • Land allocation • Infrastructure and remoteness • Limited access to services (education and health) and markets • Gender division of labour and differential access to assets, services and

resources • Lack of technical skills • Poorly implemented development projects • Lack of village leadership

An important finding of the PPA was that ‘poor people do not view themselves as being in an endemic state of poverty. Villages were subsisting in relatively stable agro-ecosystems. The outside perception of endemic poverty has been created by reliance on a numerical definition of poverty. In the minds of villagers, poverty is an issue of livelihood; as long as the villages are able to meet their consumption needs, they do not consider themselves poor.’1 The people of Laos see poverty as a result of external causation and a result of ‘misfortune, fate, karma’. The PPA concludes that poverty is ‘new’ in Laos and is a consequence of social change as it does not wholly fit under any of the five IFAD classifications of causes of poverty: interstitial; peripheral; traumatic or sporadic; overcrowding; or endemic poverty. 2 Current Government policy on poverty is based on the National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES) which define agriculture as one of the four main areas to promote poverty eradication. It assesses poverty from a number of methodological perspectives and arrives at a geographical definition of poor areas. The NGPES states that in terms of real per capita consumption Vientiane Municipality is the wealthiest region in the country while the North is the poorest. As 80% of population live in rural

1 Lao PDR – National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES), p 34. 2 Gordon, D and P Spickler. 1999. The International glossary of poverty. CROP: Cape Town, Dhaka, Bangkok, London and New York.

6

areas the focus of the analysis is on rural poverty. It states that the lowland areas are improving, where most of the food is produced and there is higher access to infrastructure, services and markets. However, in the uplands, where farmers on the whole rely on shifting cultivation and are more isolated, poverty is increasing. Using the following criteria for households, villages and districts, the NGPES defined 72 districts as poor and 47 were identified as the most in need. The population in the 47 identified districts has become the focus of the national poverty alleviation strategy.3

Household level Village level District level

Households considered as poor are households with an income (or

the equivalent in kind) of less than kip 85,000 kip (100,000 kip for urban and 82,000

kip for rural) per person per month (at 2001 prices).

- Villages where at least 51% of the total households are poor.

- Villages without schools or schools in nearby and accessible villages.

- Villages without dispensaries, traditional medical practitioners or villages requiring over 6 hours of travel to reach a hospital.

- Villages without safe water supply.

- Villages without access to roads (at least trails accessible by cart during the dry

season).

- Districts where over 51% of the villages are poor.

- Districts where over 40% of the villages do not have local or nearby schools.

- Districts where over 40% of the villages do not have a dispensary or pharmacy.

- Districts where over 60% of the villages without an access road.

- Districts where over 40% of the villages do not have safe water.

Rural development is central to the NGPES strategy for poverty eradication – ‘rural poverty is of prime concern and a community-based approach to its eradication is essential. The Government’s rural development strategy has two major components: improving access to essential factors of development; and strengthening a comprehensive, poverty-focused planning process at the district level to ensure all initiatives are mutually supportive and co-ordinated’.4 The NGPES highlights the importance of empowerment, growth with equity and access to services and resources as central to poverty eradication. The social dimensions of poverty As a first step in determining how to incorporate social development into an agricultural extension project the main social issues around poverty should be briefly examined.

3 see National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy for map of poorest districts. 4 see National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy - Chapter 5: Rural Development and the Poor-District Focus, p 14.

7

Gender: The burden of poverty remains disproportionately high on women in Laos. This is particularly noticeable in terms of education levels, available skills training, nutritional intake, access to employment, wage rate and access to maternal health care. Female headed households are consistently the worst off. Women play critical roles in nearly all areas of agriculture and are generally found to work harder than men, but they play a limited role in household, village and higher level decision making and a rare participants in extension programmes. Consolidating Extension states, ‘Women have been excluded from past extension activities for a number of reasons, including: a) agricultural policy does not fully recognise the contribution of women, b) the content and methods used by extension programmes are not adapted to women’s interests, availability or level of education, c) contact with government officials is seen to be the responsibility of the head of the household, d) most extension workers are men and it is culturally unacceptable for them to meet with women’5. Cultural values and social attitudes towards women’s participation and mobility remain conservative. However, it is important to remember not to generalize and that, ‘Gender cannot be separated from issues regarding ethnicity since roles are culturally determined’6. This is particularly the case as regards ownership of assets and resources (land). The government is establishing policies and working groups to address issues of equality, but the situation of women’s condition and status has not been adequately tackled yet by projects and services. There continues to be a high degree of ‘gender blindness’. When I asked a different project’s staff about the lack of women’s participation in their activities, I was often told that they were too ‘shy’. Whilst respecting cultural differences and norms in terms of roles, it is important for development projects to understand this ‘shyness’ as an inevitable reaction to historical and structural marginalization from power (see below). Ethnicity: In Laos there are 4 broad ethnic families: Tai-Kadai; Mon Khmer, Hmong-Mien; Tibeto-burmese and within them 230 ethnic groups. The PPA states that that ‘poverty cannot be studied without reference to culture’ and describes in detail the importance of the relationship between poverty and ethnicity. Culture is important in terms of how people perceive and define poverty - the complex and dynamic definitions beyond income insufficiency; what people propose as strategies to alleviate poverty; people’s ideas of why certain groups and individuals are poor and ethnicity is fundamental in terms of socio-economic indicator differentials. The PPA found that 56% of the poor came from the Mon-khmer groups whilst only 7% came from the ethnic Lao. The PPA also emphasises the importance of what Condominas calls ‘ritual technology’ and the inseparability of the material and spiritual culture in agricultural work. This is particularly important when determining the social dimensions of agricultural extension as a means out of poverty. Power, inclusion and exclusion: Poverty is fundamentally an issue of access to power and entitlements. This can be power within the household, village, district or nationally. We have seen that within the household women have disproportionately less power over decision making, are less educated, have less access to information, are less mobile, have less ownership of productive and natural assets, and are therefore more vulnerable and poorer. At a village level there are also households who have stronger and weaker social and political assets. The stronger families are more able to cope with the shocks of both chronic and transient vulnerability because of their stronger capacities, their social networks and access to systems of patronage and their greater possibility of links 5 Consolidating Extension in the Lao PDR, January 2005, p19. 6 PPA 2001, p 125.

8

to services, markets and decision making within and outside of the community. These families will thereby incrementally sustain greater assets than those that are more excluded from advocating their needs. The same is true of certain districts and provinces, of certain ethnic groups and also of men and women on a national level. It is a vicious circle – the ‘poorer’ you are the more excluded you are from having agency in your own development and the more dependent you are on the charity of others which in turn perpetuates your poverty. Isolation and exclusion can be based on cultural, historical, physical, social, political or other reasons. The access of poor people to livelihood assets (human, natural, financial and social) and to resources and social services is determined by a set of formal and informal relations and institutions. In Laos, these have generally not been pro-poor or pro-women, either because they are ineffective or because they are actively operated to support vested interests. Village and district authorities are not power neutral and community groups may end up being filled by gatekeepers, who speak instead of, rather than with, the people they claim to represent. The PPA found that people mentioned bad village leadership as a cause of poverty where local elites stifle and restrict marginalised voices and used their power to guard access to resources and services. It also found pro poor village leadership alleviated poverty. To have effective pro poor and pro women extension, these local and district level relations and institutions must be understood and encouraged to be inclusive. As such, poverty must be looked at as a dynamic and complex concept beyond income insufficiency, which is differentiated within and between households, villages, districts, ethnicity and gender and which is perpetuated by access and control over resources and capacity for voice, agency and power. 3. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to the Lao Extension for Agriculture Project’s capacity to impact on poverty and equity. Strengths

With the help of LEAP, NAFES has developed an approach to extension which is based on inclusive and participatory concepts and principles. The project document goal is: ‘To support the development of a decentralised, participatory, pluralistic and sustainable agricultural extension system that reaches male and female farmers equally.’

LEAP has developed an extension training methodology and tools manual which

lays out a method for promoting those principles. When applied, these principles and methods make up what is now called ‘The Lao Extension Approach’.

LEAP Phase I has already shown that the Lao Extension Approach can have

impact on production yields and financial assets of the participants in the villages with production groups. By the end of Phase 1, farmers claimed to have had increases in rice production of up to 100%, while livestock production was increased from 40-50%.

District extension workers are being trained as generalists so that they can adapt

to diverse demands from different production groups depending on ethnic, eco and farming systems.

9

Two of the main lessons learnt from LEAP 1 recorded in the prodoc for LEAP II are the need to develop strategies for pro poor extension and gender equity. Objective D of the prodoc for LEAP Phase II is, ‘Adjustment and refinement of the extension system will mainly happen through piloting new approaches; including gender aspects and working with economically disadvantaged villages or groups (often ethnic minorities).7’

Weaknesses

The prodoc recognises that LEAP Phase II must be adjusted to take more into

account issues of social equity, but it does not make explicit the ‘ how’ it should be done. As such, there is a gap between the LEAP policy and implementation of the principles.

LEAP activities are being carried out without taking into account that

development spaces in villages are not power neutral. Villages and farmers are not homogenous groups.

Extension staff have not yet been trained in the social dimensions of poverty and

therefore lack the capacity to understand, take into account, address and carry out their activities in a truly decentralised, participatory, inclusive and gender sensitive manner. The internal LEAP evaluations carried out in each district in November 2004 reveal that some production groups were not successful because the TNA KISS / CA process was not adequate for taking into account potential socio-economic constraints for adoption of technology.

Extension staff are working within a system which is customarily centralised.

These projects are based on quantitative goals. It is not historically needs based, gender sensitive, decentralised or participatory. Farmers are usually the passive recipients or beneficiaries of activities. They have little control over the processes and there is limited transparency or accountability to them as the drivers of their own development.

Extension staff are following a training methodology which does not provide

adequate time or tools to comprehensively disaggregate the differentials between farmers needs and demands. Those with greatest voice and confidence in the villages are determining both who participates and the topics of the production groups. The External Review states, ‘Group composition is largely influenced by village economic stratification and the domination of the ‘elite’ and ‘risk takers’ who have greater access to resources and credit’8. Unless the existing extension tools are modified, or new tools are incorporated to encourage more inclusive participation, the women and the poor who are generally historically marginalised will be outside of the process and will often ‘self exclude’.

The project document says: ‘Although women play a critically important role in

agricultural production they are underrepresented on all levels of the presently tested extension system. The share of women ranges from less than 20% female members of the Production Groups to 0% of female staff at the level of PAFES.

7 LEAP Prodoc, p 5. 8 LEAP Report of the External Review and Scoping Mission, December 2003, p9.

10

Since the increased productivity often causes a higher demand in labour particularly of women, the proposed Village Extension System could even worsen the position of women’. Participation of women was not an important issue in Phase 1. The result, in many places, was a low level of participation. But equally significant, as I found in brief field visits, was that in some places there has been greater participation of women than has been recorded by staff.

In evaluations from the districts of Phase 1, it is reported that some farmers are

not adopting the technology, are not applying it correctly, or are not interested or showing up to training sessions. In many cases this is not due to lack of education (as some extension workers believe), but due to socio-economic circumstances which prevent them from undertaking change. For example, the poor are conservative to change as the risk is too high, so they may not take time to come to learning sessions or adopt technology where the experimentation has not provided clear results. Also, I was told that the wives of some participants were actually carrying out the new technology and they may not have fully understood the instructions from their husbands. LEAP has not so far incorporated that sort of analysis into the evaluations to understand better these problems and obstructions to extension.

Opportunities

LEAP has the mandate from the project document, (see strengths above).

The Lao PDR government is committed to these issues and LEAP would be

devising strategies for implementing national government policy on poverty eradication, gender and decentralisation. The state and party are setting up an enabling environment for inclusive, pro poor and demand driven extension. The supportive policy context includes: • The 2001 Participatory Poverty Assessment • The Prime Ministers Decree 01/2000 on decentralisation: • The 1999 "Strategic Vision for the Agriculture Sector" of the MAF • The National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy, 2004 • Gender equality is guaranteed under the Constitution of 1991 in articles 22

and 24; LAO PDR is signatory to CEDAW 1981 and the establishment of the National Commission for Advancement of Lao Women – 2002

This is a capacity building extension approach and integrating social

development does not mean changing course, creating a new extension system, or only working in NGPES marked districts. It means adjusting and tightening strategies; strengthening the capacity of extension staff; and developing improved tools to make sustainable, participatory and demand driven development a reality.

As LEAP is assisting in the establishment of a national system it can undertake

national comprehensive strategies that address structural causes of poverty and exclusion rather taking a geographical focus (ie NGPES defined areas) or a micro scale high input social welfare focus. The ultra poor, ie the infirm, elderly, severely disabled, orphans, widows and female headed households need intense

11

protection programmes, but it is not the job of a national extension system to provide that input.

The establishment of a national extension system is new and if LEAP gets it right

now it will have enormous impact on poverty and equity. There are not yet entrenched ways of doing extension so there is an opportunity to develop a system which has a comprehensive impact on both extension workers and farmers. The pro poor extension system can be developed so that both wealthier and poorer ‘model farmers’ could be worked with. Staff and farmers are aware of the multiple issues influencing poverty and equity and some were clear that the government system should particularly focus on those that could not buy technology services from the private sector.

To date LEAP impact has been to increase productive yields of participants.

Integrating social development strategies will extend LEAP’s impact on poverty as extension staff will have the capacity and methodologies to instigate: • Greater individual empowerment by improving methodologies for developing

critical thinking. By developing methodologies which increase equitable participation and which are consistently based on the experiential learning cycle there is a higher possibility for adoption and adaption of new technology which will result in ‘knowledge empowerment’.

• Greater group empowerment as farmer organisations. Understanding and taking into account local power dynamics and encouraging collective, democratic and inclusive group development when establishing village based services will have lasting impact on the capacity of farmers to articulate informed demand and interacting with state institutions and the private sector.

LEAP 1 project document states ‘The highly diverse environmental, social and

economic conditions in Laos must be taken into account when designing extension approaches at the village level’. By understanding and having tools to respect and incorporate cultural differences into the extension approach, LEAP staff will have greater impact on inclusive participation, farming techniques and ultimately establishing the VES in ethnically different communities.

LEAP should not just work on gender because it is on the international

development agenda, but because it makes pragmatic sense for LEAP to work with women farmers. The burden of poverty still remains disproportionately high on women. LEA will be doing more to impact on poverty alleviation if it works with them. There is a possibility that production yields may increase more if extension training is done with women. In many cases women carry out the agricultural activities that are being taught and if LEAP teaches them directly the technology transfer will be more effective. Lessons learnt in international development repeatedly show that bringing women together in learning groups has multiple impacts on individual agency and mobility, the family (in terms of income and power relations) and the community (through the development of social assets).

Threats

LEAP should heed lessons learnt in a recent FAO document when attempting to

develop an inclusive and pro poor extension strategy, ‘Although the Lao government is committed to develop people’s participation, the current political

12

system is not always conducive to giving organisations, institutions or communities their own decision making power.’ 9 As Andrew Bartlett mentions in his inception report, ‘This is a one party state that does not tolerate dissent. For the Government - perhaps - the emphasis is on methodological aspects of participation: a participatory approach is expected to improve the relevance and increase the coverage of the extension service while keeping down costs’10. As this system is based on top down strategies of control and ‘compliance’, incorporating the social dimensions of poverty and equity into the extension system by going beyond the village authorities and encouraging inclusive participation, voice, agency and empowerment may be contrary to ideology and fundamental party strategy.

Local development spaces are not politically neutral. They can continue to

reproduce the status quo of power relations, or they can fundamentally challenge the rules of the game. Who creates, occupies and controls the entry into different types of spaces determines whose voice is heard and who accesses resources and decisions. Participation in the technology transfer of an extension system must be framed within a social inclusion strategy. If it does not it will not just be ‘contrary to the values that the organisation espouses’11, in fact, LEAP would be perpetuating the status quo and widening inequality by providing services solely to the elites. The relationship between service delivery and the citizen in Laos currently tends towards the patron client system. It has been suggested by some experts that extension workers get kick backs from the participants in production groups and therefore prefer to work with wealthier model farmers who will be able to provide them with higher ‘payments’ for their services. A pro poor system would challenge this relationship.

A focus of resources on individual productive yield increases rather than the

establishment and support for the VES may result in insustainability of the extension system and service delivery. Limited resources at the district level make it hard for extension workers to continue to support the VEW after LEAP resources are moved to other districts. Time and priority must be given to capacity building the VEW; facilitating the building of an inclusive and cooperative VES; and providing resources for back stopping them.

International development has shown that the trickle down theory does not work

without more proactive involvement of the resource poor farmers. If social development is incorporated into the national extension system, but it is seen as an ‘add on’ and extension workers continue to be given instructions aimed at quantitative increases in production yields, then the pro poor strategies will be neglected and abandoned. Pro poor reform depends on the political will to support a target group that will in many cases not, in the short term, generate the economic surplus that the wealthier model farmers would. Unless clearly incorporated and prioritised as a strategy, working with women and the poor will be left until there are only limited resources to carry out activities. Also, extension

9 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry National Agriculture and Forestry Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN; Special Programme for Food Security and South-South Cooperation Project No. GCP/LAO/011/JPN, Final Report Socio Economic Constraint Analysis; Ingrid Baken, June 2004, P25. 10 APB Inception Report, April 2005, p7. 11 APB Inception Report, April 2005, p8.

13

workers will cut corners on the more complex but necessary empowering methodologies. A comprehensive understanding of how a pro poor extension service can have greater impact on poverty eradication by inclusively improving livelihoods must be central to Phase II of LEAP and will need political support.

Staff across LEAP and farmers acknowledge the differences in capacity between

farmers and often the local and structural causes of the differences. What they said they needed was practical help to address their differing needs. Unless LEAP incorporates and addresses these differences it will make the mistake of applying a ‘one size fits all’ methodology to all groups despite vast differences according to ethnicity, gender, physical, productive and economic capacity and power.

The new innovations being encouraged must be based on analysis of how they

will impact on labour inputs. This is particularly important so as not to introduce new systems which perpetuate greater work loads without benefits for the women or poor.

Currently the institutional culture - systems, structures and processes - in the

Ministry of Agriculture do not encourage or facilitate extension workers doing pro poor extension. The new pro poor policies of decentralised, bottom up, pluralistic projects must be made practical or else the following issues will obstruct implementation: • performance appraisals are based too much on quantitative and structural

evaluations; • There is a focus on delivering templates of technical transfer, increased

production yields and income expansion; • There is top-down management and upward accountability and too little

upward communication from the district extension staff to the programme in order to influence planning, vision and focus of activities;

• There has been limited training or coaching on needs based facilitation, the experiential learning cycle or really understanding ‘participation’ and local power dynamics.

4. Adjustments to the LEA to incorporate social development Research has shown that programmes that can link the development of effective voice to appropriate service delivery response are most likely to have long term impact on poverty. The NGPES itself argues for the importance of both in the poverty eradication strategy - ‘fully decentralised “bottom-up” participatory planning and strengthening the capacity of communities to participate in development planning’ and also ‘strengthening the overall capacity of PAFOs and DAFOs, especially the latter and transforming MAF to become a farmer-service organisation, capable of responding quickly to farmers’ needs in a market-based economy’.12 These kind of transformative processes of building both public servants and citizens capacity take time and are not the result of one programme in one area of development (extension for agriculture for example). However, by supporting the establishment of the Village Extension System and the Government Extension Service, LEAP is part of the government attempt to address both as it can

12 see National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy –p 65

14

impact on voice and responsiveness and can set an example of a pro poor, participatory, demand driven development programme. Currently the agricultural services delivered by the state have problems in efficiency and accessibility, particularly to socially marginalised or physically isolated groups. LEAP has the possibility of impacting on accessibility and responsiveness of delivery of extension right down to village level. LEAP can influence the knowledge, attitudes and capacity of staff and create enabling systems within NAFES so that activities have greater impact on equity. LEAP can promote an institutional culture which is empowering, decentralised, inclusive and respectful of differentials according to social context. At the same time, through implementing extension activities in the villages, in groups with a pro poor, pro women focus on empowerment, LEAP could generate improvements in the capabilities of the farmers and groups in: • Farming skills and technical knowledge; • Capacity to make choices about their development; and • Ability to aggregate and articulate demands, interact with and influence formal and

informal institutions, government and private, markets, other social actors and authorities.

To improve both the capacity of NAFES and the capacity of the farmers participating in LEAP production groups, institutional adjustments need to be made and adjustments to the methodology of implementation of extension The changes proposed come from the perspective that incorporating social development must be integrative and comprehensive and not just the bolting on of new activities. The changes are mutually dependent and mutually supportive – learning from each change feeds into others and it is a dynamic process. The changes proposed are: Strengthening inclusive and pro poor capacity of NAFES:

• Professional development training for NAFES staff

• Inclusive, decentralised and empowering structures and systems

• Qualitative outcome and impact M and E systems

• Action research on social development in extension Inclusive and pro poor capacity building of farmers:

• Targeting socially excluded groups

• Incorporating empowering methodology and guidelines

4.1 Strengthening inclusive and pro poor capacity of NAFES

4.1.1 Professional development training in social issues

15

A first step in incorporating the social dimensions of development into the national extension system is capacity building of NAFES staff in these issues. LEAP should develop courses on social development which would be carried out within the timetable of the cascade training. Social development training should not be done outside of the normal course work. ‘Gender’ is often ‘done’ as a separate training and the relevance to extension work can be lost. Integration of social development from the outset is key to ensuring that it is not seen as an ‘add on’ or even in conflict with other learning and objectives. In many cases, staff are already aware of the importance of the social context in which they work and how that influences learning. Professional development provides the opportunity to merge their knowledge with the development concepts. It is important that NAFES staff from top to bottom are involved as there must be widespread understanding and support of the issues. As with the other extension course work, field visits are essential in the process of truly grasping the importance of the concepts. Often ‘lights go on’ when staff are able to see in practice how households, communities and the state works and how that influences their extension work. A proposal for a series of courses could include:

• The role of an extension worker – technical support; service delivery; relationship between state and citizen; responsibilities for socio-economic development; and enablers of poverty eradication.

• How does society work?

- Understanding and respecting differentials in roles, traditions and practices in Laos in terms of ethnicity, gender and geography.

- Analysis of the social dimensions of poverty and exclusion: who participates, controls, has access to decision making, resources and services.

- What do the project document concepts mean - ‘decentralised, participatory, pluralistic, needs based, gender sensitive’ and why are they important to an extension project?

• Development of techniques, tools and guidelines for applying the concepts

• Development of poverty and equity criteria for a Monitoring and Evaluation

4.1.2 Monitoring and Evaluation M and E should be part of the capacity building process of NAFES staff and farmers. It should not be seen as an external process. It should be developed as a tool to extend capacities to set targets, measure change and analyse what is and what is not working and why, so that staff and farmers can make decisions about what aspects should be encouraged and what strategies may need to be changed. As a first step M and E could be a more empowering process for farmers and staff, if when the SIFT tool was used:

• the SMART targets and indicators were set with the farmers. Their active participation will increase the ownership and usefulness of data;

• more in depth anaylsis was carried out about why certain training worked or not. This should be done differentiating between gender and wealth groups.

16

To date it appears that LEAP M&E has focused on activities and their outputs (e.g. short-term adoption of recommended agricultural practices) rather than longer-term outcomes and impact. These have on the whole been expressed as quantitative changes and less attention has been paid to measuring qualitative outcome impact. As LEAP Phase II has set out to improve the impact of extension on poverty and equity, more impact, process and context indicators need to be incorporated into the SIFT tool to be able to measure these changes. Community development and evaluation of these indicators is a useful process in assisting farmers and staff to have a deeper understanding of what impacts on their livelihoods and wellbeing. At higher level evaluation of the progress of the project, LEAP will need to establish district level and provincial level impact, process and context targets and indicators. Poverty and equity criteria should be devised with district and provincial staff by combining project level poverty and equity indicators with the benchmarks defined by the different farmers groups. Both the quantitative and qualitative evaluations should be developed so as to be able to reflect progress differentials in terms of gender, ethnicity, land types and wealth groups. This will help LEAP to know:

• Who has benefited the most from the interventions? • Ranking of how they have most benefited and in what. • How different groups/individuals/ districts/provinces have benefited? • Why different groups/individuals/ districts/provinces have benefited?

4.1.3 Institutional systems to make LEAP decentralised, participatory, pluralistic, pro

poor and gender sensitive. Structural changes should be made to ensure that the NAFES staff are able and encouraged to incorporate social development into their extension work. To make extension truly pro poor, demand driven and bottom up, the institutional systems must provide a structure which permits and supports this. Suggested structural changes could include:

• Setting up forums to establish stronger team relationships from district to CETDU level. Regional systems of communication and team building should be established where people can share their experiences and learning. In these forums they could discuss social development issues and these could be fed into the programme and used as the basis for coaching and mentoring of staff. In the process of incorporating social development it is fundamental that the NAFES staff have their own experiential learning about the importance of the social dimensions of extension and how it impacts on the results. This is much more effective than workshops and it makes practical the principles of decentralisation, pluralism and bottom up participation.

• Setting up performance and appraisal systems which give staff incentives to

practice pluralism, participatory and inclusive methodologies and to focus on the learning process and sustainable changes in terms of empowerment and not just on technology transfer. Staff evaluation indicators should be developed which encourage these aspects of their work and reward systems could be established so that staff are motivated towards these goals. Peer group appraisal systems are very empowering. Systems where DAFO and PAFES staff evaluate each others work will encourage them to take ownership of the process and see it as a

17

learning experience. Defining evaluation indicators themselves and having to evaluate other peers work goes a long way to encouraging staff to understand what it is they are seeking to achieve.

• LEAP should encourage affirmative action of the integration of women staff. One

of the strategic responses in the NGPES to integrating gender is, ‘Affirmative action concerning staffing of provincial and district staff, including extension workers’.13 The LEAP prodoc also states, ‘LEAP must advocate for more female staff in the Government Extension System’. Encouraging the incorporation of female extension workers can be empowering to women participants. Project staff have an important role to play, not just as facilitators, but as role models. The very presence of female field workers is a powerful demonstration to rural women of social change as they represent: mobility, education, independent action and social responsibility.

4.1.4 Action research in social development LEAP has the mandate to carry out research into appropriate extension techniques. The prodoc establishes the creation of a Knowledge Management System (KMS) to act as a forum for investigation and sharing of learning acquired in implementation of extension. In a further attempt to make the extension system truly decentralized, pro poor and empowering, social development action research should be incorporated into the work schedules of NAFES staff. Research should be undertaken as coordinated participatory investigations as opposed to expert studies. This way the lessons in terms of gender, equity and methodology will be part of an empirical process of learning and changing for the field staff. If the field staff themselves are involved with proposing and choosing the areas of research it is an even more empowering process for them. NAFES staff could work with university students or organisations such as GRID / GPAR or organisations that specialise in ethnicity to do research into the social aspects of agricultural extension. The process to achieve an innovative and pluralistic monitoring and evaluation system is in itself action research that should be shared in the KMS. Also an action research proposal for understanding and practicing extension with the poor and women is laid out in section 5.2.1. Other research that may be useful could include:

• Agricultural Extension and culture – pedagogy with different ethnic groups and the constraints and opportunities of working with different farmers and farming systems;

• Agricultural extension and resettlement – lessons learnt; • Financing community extension – research into different strategies for making

the VES sustainable and pro poor; • Information to communication – from teachers to facilitators – action research

into the impact of changing extension methodology towards pro poor empowerment;

• Extension is only one part of the changing face of rural economies – access to land, natural resources and access to financial access and markets are important – LEAP could work with others to look at those issues

13 see NGPES, p119.

18

• Case studies / stories of the process and elements of change in extension according to – eco farming systems; ethnic groups; women groups, poor groups etc

This learning would be a great contribution to the strengthening not just for NAFES, but projects and programmes across MAF. The Alliance is the perfect vehicle to be able to promote the documentation of change and also advocate and extend the learning. To make the learning as didactic as possible video and written reports should be made. 4.2 Inclusive and pro poor capacity building of farmers Two ways in which the LEAP methodology can be adjusted in order to have greater impact on poverty and equity are

o promoting a proactive inclusive strategy in terms of ‘who participates’ in the production groups; and

o improving ‘how’ the training is carried out so as to maximise critical thinking and empowerment.

4.2.1 Target inclusion of socially excluded groups The above analysis in section 3 reveals that unless there is ‘affirmative action’ to actively include social groups that are historically excluded, development projects can serve to simply improve the lot of those who have more power. It is easier to work with better educated farmers with more land as they have more potential to learn fast and show larger results of increased yields. However, also as mentioned above, poverty is dynamic and complex and just increasing the productive and economic power of the wealthier members of villagers will not impact on poverty as a whole. The PPA states that to be able to take serious steps against poverty, ‘means continuing to emphasize economic growth and development through the targeting of specific socially-defined groups’. 14 If LEAP takes into account the social dimensions of poverty and aims to be pro poor, it could begin to redress inequities by prescriptively including more of the ‘poorer’ farmers. The participatory process of selection of production groups currently undertaken by LEAP does not challenge the current social segregations within communities. Those with more confidence and power will participate most in the TNA KISS and will eventually determine the 10 -12 families that are selected for each production group. The poorer families will show up to the meeting if asked by the authorities, but will not insist on their participation in production groups. The 2003 External Review mission noted, ‘Within (village) groups, all sections may not share equal ‘air-space’, providing a partial picture of the training needs and constraints faced and thereby affecting the nature of the activities prioritised…Due to the nature of the formation of these groups, that are by and large self selected, the poor are generally excluded.’15 Strategies and tools should be developed to encourage greater participation of the excluded so that both poorer and wealthier model farmers can be trained. Below are some ideas to consider:

• Being pro poor does not mean only working with the poor. It means encouraging strategies that do not perpetuate their exclusion. These strategies need to be developed with the NAFES staff as this is part of the process of awareness

14 Poverty in the Lao PDR, PPA October 2000, State Planning Committee, p17. 15 LEAP Report of the External Review and Scoping Mission, December 2003, p 9.

19

raising about pro poor extension, but below are a few initial suggestions of ‘how to’ encourage extension to redress inequalities that perpetuate poverty:

• Currently the PAFES and DAFO staff choose the villages where the LEAP

activities are carried out. This is important in encouraging more participatory and bottom up decision making processes. However, it is important to look at what the criteria are for selection. LEAP could work with the provincial and district staff to establish and apply criteria which results in extension being established in poorer villages.

• As DAFO often set up two or more production groups in each village, it is

possible to develop a strategy in which ‘model farmers’ of different classes and genders are established. New tools, techniques and guidelines should be developed with staff and added to the TNA KISS process which can ensure more inclusive participation during the selection process of topics and members of production groups.

• So far LEAP has decided not to focus on the poorer and more isolated districts.

In the Inception report Andrew Bartlett states, ‘While it is possible to start the expansion in poor and remote districts, it may be easier to develop extension capacity by starting in areas that are relatively more accessible and where farmers are more responsive’16. Although the logistics for the DAFO staff is more challenging in the remote and difficult to access areas, it could be argued that there is greater possibility for impact there. First, it would be directly contributing to a major part of the government poverty eradication programme which is developing upland areas by eliminating opium and upland rice and increasing new opportunities. Second, working in the more isolated areas is not just advisable because there is greater need, but because pragmatically DAFO maybe able to achieve more. In areas where there is very little access to services and few development projects, the communities would be particularly interested in the idea of a self sustaining VES. Third, it has often been found that when development staff work in more isolated areas they are more able to develop collaborative relationships with the communities. Remoteness means the development worker will spend periods of time in the community and is therefore more aware of how it works and establishes a more equal relationship with the farmers. We have shown that understanding and respecting the social context matters in the success of development. Remoteness may provide the opportunity for DAFO staff to acquire that awareness.

• Affirmative action should be taken to establish women’s farmers groups. This is

not only a necessary step in redressing power differentials (social impact on poverty), but is also pragmatic. The NGPES states, ‘Ensuring equal access to basic services and productive resources is a matter of equity (fundamental fairness), efficiency (poor women are a valuable resource) and effectiveness (women’s support is needed to implement national policies on shifting cultivation, opium production, education, health and population).’17 The LEAP prodoc states, ‘LEAP must..carefully adjust the Village Extension System in such a way (for example by introducing women production groups) that in the long run gender

16 APB Inception Report, p9. 17 see NGPES, p118

20

equity can be achieved’. Given the predominant role of women in agriculture and their increasing participation in many farming activities, many of which are the topics of production groups, it is of vital importance to include them. Teaching women directly may increase production yields. Improved household income through individual or collective sales of production has economic impact on poverty. However, improving quantitatively the income accrued by women or the number of women participants is not sufficient to address gender in poverty. Working with women in the right way has multiple qualitative impacts on social equity. Research shows that women learn best and have greater possibilities in terms of empowerment if they have separate learning groups. Historic gender relationships are perpetuated unless separate groups are developed where women are given the chance to learn, develop opinions, voice them and take decisions. Furthermore, the production groups provide an essential forum for women to come together and establish new social spaces which can be the catalyst for other development initiatives. Even when women do not take action as a group as a result of a LEAP learning group, the members benefit as they are accessing new sources of information, sharing problems, establishing new support systems, and being encouraged to have the confidence to communicate their ideas. Changing gender power relations depends on long term social and political transformation, but building women’s social assets may be one of the best ways to incrementally contribute. Working with women’s groups can have incremental influence on the structural obstacles to women’s empowerment and may impact on: household decision making; women’s groups confidence to address repressive social norms; and gender solidarity between wealth groups. The goal for LEAP II should be as stated in the project document that ½ of the participants in production groups are women.

• LEAP could take immediate action to establish pro poor and pro women pilots in

the districts that have been worked with in Phase I. The DAFO staff in these districts are now experienced in doing the LEAP extension programme. In some of the villages that I visited, women were already setting up production groups of their own or expressed interest in doing so – there is demand. In these places the DAFO staff could establish new production groups with women. These production groups could be used as action research into ‘how’ training with women differs from working with male farmers. This experiential learning by the DAFO staff will contribute more to institutional understanding of gender differentials in extension than a series of prescriptive and blue print gender workshops. The process could be the basis for establishing the strategy for working with women farmers. Similarly, pilots could be set in motion in the old districts to develop a strategy for resource poor farmers. The pilots would provide insight into:

o What training works best for the poor / women? o What are the elements that made it work? o What are the constraints / opportunities of working with women / poor

farmers? o What are the agricultural services most required by the women / poor

farmers? o What are appropriate low cost technologies? o What are appropriate methodologies of working with women/ poor farmers?

21

4.2.2 Training of trainers in empowering methodologies Once production groups are established which include more socially excluded groups, the extension staff need to be able to implement the training in an empowering way. The October 2003 NAFES national workshop summed up the skills that the extension worker needs as: ‘Three different types of skills have been identified in order for district staff to be capable of facilitating the emergence of an autonomous village extension system. This includes: o Technical skills: 1) Basic know how of the whole farming system instead of

specialised know how in specific disciplines and 2) Management and planning know how

o Methodological skills: 1) Communication and facilitation and 2) Extension methods and tools, training techniques

o “Soft” skills: 1) Social competence, 2) Ability to listen 3) Ability to take into account the needs and concerns of a number of different partners, 4) being able to live and work with villagers.’

It is in the methodological and ‘soft’ skills that social development guidelines on techniques and tools can assist LEAP in making practical the concepts of participation, inclusion and empowerment. How the extension worker carries out the training will determine how much the participants understand the new technologies and how far they develop their critical thinking. Three areas in which LEAP can incorporate new strategies and tools to improve the training methodology and have greater impact are: understanding the environment; the process of training – communication and facilitation skills; group empowerment and the establishing of the VES The first area of guidelines/tools that need to be developed is in: ‘understanding the group and the community’. This is particularly important in light of the evaluations carried out by LEAP which show that the district and provincial staff may be ‘neglecting the constraints analysis’ which is the one tool which goes into more detail of the socio-economic context of agricultural constraints. The rural poor are from diverse ethnic groups and agricultural and socio-economic settings. The extension staff must have tools to be able to measure ‘well being’ in the communities and what affects that status. They must be adaptable and encourage diversity in production groups and able to take into account the geographic location, natural resources endowment, asset ownership and management patterns of local communities, as well as their cultural and lifestyle patterns. These issues will influence what is done as the subject of the production group and how the trainings are carried out. The poor are conservative and to participate in projects they must see tangible results. If the DAFO staff are working with poor groups the subject matter may be different as their demand will be for low risk inputs that do not require investment. Depending on the social group, the extension worker will also need to take into account and have guidelines on how the sessions are held – for example where, what time and if the group is mostly illiterate, or unable to speak Lao. Issues of language and literacy within the educational tools will need to be addressed. Secondly guidelines which encourage a focus more on developing analytical thinking, problem-solving skills, and experimental behaviour rather than technology transfer should be developed. The training should enable people to understand the causes and effects of their own problems and to articulate their development needs as informed

22

demands. Kolb developed the experiential learning cycle, shown in the diagram below, to describe the ‘how to’ of this method of learning which focuses on empowerment.

Concreteexperience

AbstractConceptualisation

ActiveExperimentation

ReflectiveObservation

Figure 4. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle

The idea is that everybody enters a learning situation with expectations, experiences and ideas and that learning occurs in the interface between the expectations (concepts), experience and dialogue. The objective of this kind of learning is not just the acquisition of technical and practical skills, but that the teaching practise is embedded in a social practise, which empowers the individual and the group. Prioritisation must be given to the process of learning rather than knowledge transfer or following a structure of the sessions. The following are some principles that could be prioritised and used to develop guidelines for implementation:

• Participation is both a means and a goal. It does not stop when a participatory process had been held to choose the production group and the subject.

• Prioritisation of empowerment. • Non discrimination and focus on vulnerable groups and goals defined in terms of

reducing disparity. • Poor people not beneficiaries, but actors in their own development. • Training in the field. Not classroom techniques. • Training is interactive and based on learning by doing and observation. • Training is a democratic process of group reflection and open dialogue. • Dual learning between the trainer and the group - the trainer learns from the

participant's reality and the participants learn both from the trainers and from the demonstrations.

• Support to trainers freedom to adapt training to particular contexts and dynamics of the groups both in terms of topic and structure

• Ongoing coaching and mentoring with extension workers on empowering facilitation: as initiators of processes of change in terms of technology, emergence of local leaders, social change, inclusion of the disadvantaged and being examples and advocates of democratic methodology.

23

The third area where emphasis must be placed in order achieve pro poor extension is in group development and the establishment of the VES. Currently production yield increases came across as the main objective of the programme when I spoke with farmers and extension workers. To have long term impact on poverty, a sustainable VES must be reinforced as the goal of LEAP. Poor people need social capital to be able to influence local service delivery. This is the way to increase the poor’s access to services – which is widely known to be the main impetus of bringing people out of poverty. The most effective way to ensure pro poor extension is to ensure sustainability at the village level. To get that:

• The setting up of the VES must be emphasised as the priority of the Lao Extension Approach.

• From the outset farmers must actively participate in the planning, implementation and evaluation of services, in effect transforming them into development agents rather than passive beneficiaries.

• The focus of group development (VES) must be on setting up groups that are coherent, independent and sustainable and based on solidarity and cooperation rather than structural organisational development.

• Staff need longer in each village to facilitate the establishment of the system and provide adequate support to achieve an efficient community based service which is responsive and accountable to pluralistic community needs.

• Once the production groups have finished, the VEWs must receive more prescribed attention to develop knowledge and confidence and a stronger relationship with DAFO.

• Pro poor ideas about how to finance the VES must be investigated and analysed.

24

Appendix I: People Met The mission to look at the social dimensions of the Lao Agricultural Extension Project was carried out between 21 February and the 9 March. In that time I met with LEAP staff from DAFO, PAFES and NAFES in Vientianne, Luang Prabang and Champasak; farmers that had participated in the LEAP Phase I; government officials; and representatives from other research and development projects in Lao PDR: LEAP / NAFES Dr. Tienne Vannasouk, NAFES Deputy Director Mr Andrew Bartlett, CTA Ms Andrea Schroeter, TA Mr Somxay Sisanonh, LEAP National Project Director Nong Teng Master Trainers Mr Chitpasong Chalath, CETDU Mr Bounthan Bouthala, CETDU Mr Ketsana Sayasene, CETDU Mr Thitphacan Inthilith, CETDU Mr Khampheuy Chantavong, CETDU Mr Chaleun Daohueang, CETDU Ms. Lena Sayyakham, CETDU Mr. Vanthong Ngueamboupha, Luang Prabang PAFES Deputy, Coordinator Mr Thongsavath Thipphavon, LPB PAFES Mr Singpaseuth Sanaphay, LPB PAFES Mr Vanpeng Kamoutham, Nambak DAFO Mr Singkham Sisouphan, Nambak DAFO Mr Maysone Phathaeit, Nambak DAFO Mr Vongsone Chanhachit, Pak Saeng DAFO Mr Sisamoud, Pak Saeng DAFO Mr Amphayvanh Inthavong, Pak Saeng DAFO Mr Viensay Sipaphone, Chamapsak PAFES Deputy, Coordinator Mr Bounthieng Liengkhamsouk, Champasak PAFES Mr Phosavath Vongphasouk, Champasak PAFES Mr Chaloun Souliyavong, DAFO Kong Mr Vivongkod Phanthasard, DAFO Kong Mr Phounsin Phothisan, DAFO Kong Mr Neil Walton, Helvetas Mr. Michel Evoquez, SDC Ms Nguyen Huong, SDC Mr Werner Hunzinger, SDC Dr Silinthone Sacklokham, National University (NuoL) Mr Charles Alton Mr Pouthong Siliphong, GRID representatives at national LWU Ms Noriko Ishibashi, FORCOM (JICA) Ms Geraldine Zwack, CARE Ms Leena Kirjavainen, FAO

25

Mr John Connell, CIAT Ms Hermine Rodenburg Ms Ingrid Baken, FLSP Ms Beate Pinish Mr Randell Arnst, FAO/IPM Mr Bi Kash Dash, UNDP-GPAR Mr Carl Mossberg, LSUAFRP at NAFRI

26

Appendix II Bibliography LEAP documents: LEAP Phase I Prodoc, August 2001 LEAP Phase II Procdoc, June 2004 Mandate of NAFES Operations Report 2002, 2003, 2004 LEAP Progress Report 2002, 2003, 2004 Report 1st Training of PAFES and DAFO, July 2002 Report 2nd Training of PAFES and DAFO, January 2003 Report 3rd Training of PAFES and DAFO, June 2003 Gender Report, 2001 8 Training of Master Trainers reports from April 2002 – January 2005 Summary Meeting with 5 new Provinces report, January 2005 Assessments of Master Trainers report, January 2004 Assessing provincial and district staff in Agriculture Extension, February 2004 Assessment of activities and achievements of LEAP Phase 1, November 2004 Report on NAFES National Workshop, October 2003 A provisional process for assessment of extension methodologies in Lao PDR, Oct.2002 Financing Extension Report, June 2002 Survey extension approaches in Lao PDR, January 2003 Basic Tools Handbook for Agricultural Extension Project Fact SDC 2001-2002, 2003, 2004 Helvetas Project Status Sheet 2003, 2004 LEAP report of the external review and scoping mission, December 2003 Consolidating Extension in the Lao PDR, January 2005 Initiating and Expansion of VES Inception Report, April 2005 LBL Reports – October 2002, March 2003, November 2003, February 2004, August 2004, January 2005. SDC Mekong Prgramme, 2005 Lao Documents: LAO PDR, The Government’s Strategic Vision for Agriculture, July, 1999 National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy Agricultural Development Project, VIP Component, NAFES, Mid-Term Evaluation Report, July 2003 Draft of Lao Uplands Source Book Role and Empowerment of the Rural Women in the Lao PDR, Outhaki Choulamany-Khamphoui Gender and development Management Guide, Lao –Swedish forestry Programme, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, June 2001 Participatory Poverty Assessment, Lao PDR June 2001 Poverty in the Lao PDR, PPA, October 200, State Planning Committee Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry National Agriculture and Forestry Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN; Special Programme for Food Security and South-South Cooperation Project No. GCP/LAO/011/JPN, Final Report Socio Economic Constraint Analysis; Ingrid Baken, June 2004

27

Social Development Documents: Common Framework for Supporting Pro poor extension, Newchatel Group, 2003 Gender Mainstreaming in Poverty Eradication and the Millennium Development Goals, Kabeer, N., March 2003 Bringing Citizen Voice and Client Focus into Service Delivery, Goetz and Gaventa, July 2001 Rawlings, L., Sherburne-Benz, L. and J. Van Domelon (1999) Letting Communities Take the Lead: A Cross Country Evaluation of Social Fund Performance, World Bank: Washington D.C. Staying Secure, Staying Poor, “The Faustian Bargain”, G. Woods, World Development Vol 31, No. 3. Partnerships between Governments and Civil Society for Service Delivery in Less Developed Countries: Cause for Concern, James Manor, IDS, October 2002 IDS Working paper 127, From users and choosers to makers and shapers: repositioning participation in social policy, Cornwell and Gaventa, June 2001 IDS Working paper 170, Making spaces, changing places: situating participation in development , Andrea Cornwell, October 2002. Bennet, L., ‘Using empowerment and social inclusion for por poor growth: a theory of social change’, World Bank, 2002.

Kabeer N., Citizenship and the boudaries of the acknowledged community: identity, affiliation and exclusion, IDS working paper, October 2002.

Proswe M., Towards a clearer understanding of vulnerability in relation to chronic poverty, CPRC working paper No 24, April 2003.

Gordon, D and P Spickler. 1999. The International glossary of poverty. CROP: Cape Town, Dhaka, Bangkok, London and New York

28

Appendix III

Terms of Reference

Social Development Consultant February –March 2005

1. Background The Government of the Lao PDR is committed to the establishment of a national extension system that is both pro-poor and demand-driven. The policy framework for this system is described in the following documents:

a) The Strategic Vision for the Agriculture Sector, 1999

b) The Prime Minister’s decree on Decentralisation, 2000

c) The National Growth and Poverty Eradication Strategy (NGPES), 2004 The leading government agency responsible for the development and implementation of extension activities in the Lao PDR is the National Agricultural and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES), a Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Over the past ten years, NAFES has developed and tested the Lao Extension Approach, which consists of consists of two sub-systems: The Government Extension Service, and The Village Extension System The Government Extension Service consists of three strata. These are: the National Agricultural and Forestry Extension Service (NAFES), the Provincial Agricultural and Forestry Extension Service (PAFES) and the District Agricultural and Forestry Office (DAFO). Staff at the Provincial level are called SMS (Subject Matter Specialists) and staff at the District level are being retrained as generalists and called Farming Systems Extension Workers (FSEWs). The Village Extension System (VES) is jointly managed by villagers and village authorities. Activities are facilitated by Village Extension Workers (VEWs) who are appointed and compensated by the community, while receiving technical support through the Government Service. A detailed description of the Lao Extension Approach is given in the NAFES Report ‘Consolidating Extension in the Lao PDR’, dated January 2005. 2. The Lao Extension for Agriculture Project The Laos Extension for Agriculture Project (LEAP) is a technical cooperation project of the Lao and Swiss Governments. LEAP is funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and implemented jointly by NAFES and Helvetas. Within NAFES, LEAP is directly supporting the work of the Central Extension and Training Development Unit (CETDU).

29

Phase I of LEAP started in November 2001 and ended in December 2004. During this period the Lao Extension Approach was initiated in three Provinces. Phase II, starting in January 2005, will assist the expansion of the approach to the entire country (18 Provinces). The goal of the project has been the same in both phases: To support the development of a decentralised, participatory, pluralistic and sustainable agricultural extension system that reaches male and female farmers equally. In Phase II, LEAP consists of two components, with a total of foal objectives, as shown below.

Project Component LEAP Component 1 LEAP Component 2

Thrust area Strategic and organisational development

Approach and training system development

Objectives A) To assist MAF and NAFES in developing a sustainable national agricultural extension strategy, and ensuring the support of key stakeholders.

B) To assist an institutional strengthening process of NAFES at all levels, enabling it to effectively support the VES.

C) To support NAFES and CETDU in developing a sustainable cascade training system for effective, participatory, gender-balanced extension services.

D) To support NAFES and CETDU in adjusting and refining the extension approaches, methods and contents while implementing it in pilot villages.

Level of influence

Strategic level and organisational development (national)

Operational level (national, regional and local)

Institutional set-up

attached to NAFES, guided by a “Platform Committee”

attached to CETDU

3. LEAP and the Social Dimensions of Extension The productive benefits of the Lao Extension Approach are considerable. Farmers who participate in ‘learning projects’ often increase their yields by 50%, while poultry and pig producers can more than double their production. Consequently, there is little doubt that the extension service is capable of making an important contribution to the Government’s policies relating to food security. The broader contribution of extension to poverty eradication in Laos is unclear. Poverty has social as well as productive dimensions. The eradication of poverty requires that attention is given to who participates and how they benefit. Concerning ‘who’, there is a clear need for greater involvement of women and ethnic groups living in remote areas. Concerning ‘how’, a number of issues relating to governance and access to resources have been spelled out in the policies of the government and the donors. An import task of LEAP in Phase II is to assist NAFES in making adjustments to the Lao Extension Approach that will improve the impact on poverty eradication and equity. The following extracts are taken from section 2.4 of the project document:

30

“Pro-poor orientation: during Phase I the chosen mechanism to select villages and within the villages to select the members of the production groups led to an exclusion of the poorest segments of the population. In line with the goals stated in the NGPES this issue needs to be addressed in Phase II. The selection of new districts and villages to be directly supported by LEAP shall consider poverty criteria according to the NGPES. The selection of topics of the Production Groups shall directly address the needs of the most disadvantaged too. This may lead to adjustments of the proposed extension system. “Gender equity: Although women play a critically important role in the agricultural production they are underrepresented on all levels of the presently tested extension system. The share of women ranges from less than 20% female members of the Production Groups to 0% of female staff at the level of PAFES. Since the increased productivity often causes a higher demand in labour particularly of women, the proposed Village Extension System could even worsen the position of women. In line with the NGPES, LEAP must advocate for more female staff in the Government Extension System and carefully adjust the Village Extension System in such a way (for example by introducing women production groups) that in the long run gender equity can be achieved.” (page 11) Among the expected outputs of the project is the following: B3. A social equity action plan for the agricultural extension system is developed, approved, implemented and monitored to enable equal access of both men and women as well as the various ethnic groups and the poor segments of the farming community to extension services. (page 15) The staff of NAFES and the LEAP Advisors have wide ranging experience in technical issues, training, extension methodology, organisation and management. There is a lack of expertise, however, in social development. For this reason, LEAP will seek outside advice relating to poverty and equity. This advice will be sought from a number of sources. Contacts will be established with Lao institutions and other projects that can provide an in-depth understanding of in-country experience, while international consultants will be hired to provide a broader view of the issues. Whether the advice comes from inside or outside of the country, LEAP will attempt to identify partners who can work with each other and be consulted at regular intervals throughout the project, thereby providing consistent and practicable advice that makes the best possible contribution to the evolution of the Lao Extension Approach. 4. Objectives of the Consulting Assignment A Social Development Expert will be hired for a period of two weeks in February and March 2005. The objectives of this assignment are:

a) To assist the LEAP management team in developing a clearer understanding of the relationships between extension, food production, poverty and equity.

b) To identify, in consultation with members of the management team, immediate adjustments that could be made to the Lao Extension Approach with the aim of improving benefits for women and other marginalised groups.

31

c) To recommend longer-term efforts that the project could make to support the development, implementation and evaluation of a pro-poor extension system.

This is the first LEAP consulting input to look at these issues. Furthermore, the assignment is relatively short. Consequently the project management view this as an exploratory assignment. While the consultant is expected to provide practical advice that can be implemented in the short term (ie. as part of the extension activities in 5 new provinces), it is equally important for the consultant to develop an understanding of the LEAP context, which could serve as a foundation for subsequent inputs. 5. Specific Tasks of the Consultant Under the supervision of the LEAP Chief Technical Advisor, and in consultation other members of the LEAP management team, the consultant will undertake the following tasks:

i) Read documents relating to extension, poverty and social equity in Laos, including GOL policies, LEAP reports and SDC strategies;

ii) Visit selected field sites to observe typical rural communities and on-going LEAP activities;

iii) Meet with actors in the extension system, including: village authorities, village extension workers and members of production groups; government trainers at national, provincial and district level;.

iv) Meet with other stake holders and sources of expertise relating to rural social development in Laos, including: managers and staff of completed or on-going projects, particularly those funded by SDC; representatives of Lao organisations eg. research institutions and NGOs.

v) Brief the LEAP management team on findings and recommendations, and write a short report to summarise the outputs of the assignment.

6. Expected Outputs The de-briefing and report should include, among other issues, observations on the following:

• the role of extension in poverty reduction, including limitations;

• possible adjustments to the VES, including changes that could be made to the process of needs assessment and the formation of production groups;

• training needs for Government extension staff, and strategies for addressing those needs;

• the opportunities for collaboration with other projects and institutions, including GPAR and GRID;

• possible indicators and methods to be used in M&E of extension;

32

• suggestions for the content of the proposed Action Plan for Social Equity, and a possible process for producing the AP.

The written report should not exceed 15 pages and should be submitted in digital format to the CTA within 2 weeks of leaving Laos. 7. Qualifications

i) A degree in the social sciences

ii) A minimum of 10 years international experience relating to social development

iii) Specific experience of reviewing pro-poor agricultural extension projects in Asia

iv) A track record of analytical work relating to gender, governance and/or ethnic minorities.

8. Schedule of the Assignment The consultant is expected to arrive in Laos in mid February 2005 and depart in mid March. During that period, the consultant will provide 12 days of assistance to the project. A detailed schedule will be prepared prior to arrival. 9. Logistics LEAP staff, in consultation with CETDU, will be responsible for all preparations and arrangements. Accommodation, transport, interpretation and workshop materials – if required - will be provided by the project. LEAP will also take care of planning field visits, and making appointments with other projects and institutions.