View
172
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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.
*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability
Major Components of NAEP Impact
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
*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability
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);
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
Major Components of NAEP Impact
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