assessment of the public agricultural extension system of palestine

1

PALESTINIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY

ASSESSMENT OF THE PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEM OF PALESTINE & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

IMPROVEMENTS

SUBMITTED TO

THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

PREPARED BY

CENTER FOR INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT-”CIRD”

RAMALLAH-PALESTINE

MAY-2011

2

PREFACE

The purpose of this study was to assess the public extension services in Palestine, to ensure that the MOA extension officers are offer efficient and effective services to their clients. If extension systems are to meet the accountability expectations it is important that their performance is such that it justifies the investment of public funds in extension. For this reason their performance is important and forms the focus of this assessment study. The search of more appropriate or effective approaches is only meaningful against the background of the current efficiency situation.

The study reviews and assesses the public agricultural extension services provided by the Palestinian MoA and the extension services major contribution and objectives in the agricultural development process. It takes into account different technical and organizational aspects prevailed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (oPt) over past ten years. That, in its turn, would help in drawing-up conclusions and recommendations as to the manner in which extension system can be more effectively organized and strengthened.

It worthy to mention that there are important roles to be played by public agricultural extension system, private sectors firms, NGOs and farmers organizations in transferring agricultural technologies, improving rural livelihoods and in the wise management of the natural resources of the oPt.

It is hoped that the information in this study will help to clarify the different roles, with respect to how extension and advisory services are currently operated and should be organized and how the extension services system can work more closely in support of sustainable agricultural development in the oPt.

The Minister of Agriculture

Dr. Ismail Daiq

3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Firstly we would like to thank all people who contributed to the assessment and evaluation of agricultural extension services study by attending personnel interview and answering our inquiries and filling out the questionnaires. All contributors are listed in (Annex 1).

Special acknowledgement must be given to the Representative office of Netherlands for their generous financial support without which this study would not have been possible.

Secondly we would like to thank and acknowledge the support of Mr. Amin ABU-ALSOUD for his timely advice, supervisions and input into the evaluation. His balanced critique of early drafts greatly influenced the final product.

Finally, we would like to thank Mr. Ibrahim Eqteeshat whose advice and insight greatly helped us to understand the current status and the various agricultural extension approaches adopted by the MOA.

4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AES Agriculture Experiment Station

AEZ Agro-Ecological Zones

CBO Community-Based Organizations

DG Director General

DAD District Agricultural Directorate

EO Extension Officer

ESMS Extension Subject Matter Specialist

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

GDoERD General Directorate of Extension & Rural Development

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HRD Human Resource Development

ICT Information Communication Technology

IPM Integrated Pest Management

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

JRV Jordan Rift Valley

LRC Land Research Centre

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MOF Ministry of Finance

NRO Netherlands Representative Office

NARC National Agricultural Research Center

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

oPt Occupied Palestinian Territories

PARC Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committee

“Agricultural Development Associations”

PHG Palestinian Hydrology Groups

5

PNA Palestinian National Authority

PRDP Palestinian Reform and Development Plan

RWDS Rural Women Development Society

SMS Subject Matter Specialist

USD United States Dollar

UAWC Union of Agricultural Work Committees

WB West Bank

WB&GS WB and Gaza Strip

6

TABLES OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .............................................................................................................................................................2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..........................................................................................................................................3

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................4

TABLES OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................................6

1.1- IntroductIon and Background: ..................................................................................................................16

1.2. oBjectIve of the Study: ............................................................................................................................20

1.3. analytIcal MethodS and approacheS: ........................................................................................................20

1.4. data collectIon MethodS: ........................................................................................................................20

1.5. report Structure: ...................................................................................................................................21

CHAPTER-2 ........................................................................................................................................................22

2. SOME KEY ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECT OF EXTENSION SERVICE: ...............................................................................22

2.1. hIStorIcal Background on agrIcultural extenSIon and reSearch: ...................................................................22

2.2. the defInItIon and role of agrIcultural extenSIon: ....................................................................................23

2.3. analySIS of lawS that govern the provISIon of extenSIon ServIceS: ...............................................................24

2.4. preSent Structure of extenSIon wIthIn the Moa: ........................................................................................26

2.6. reportIng SySteM: ....................................................................................................................................40

2.7. MonItorIng and evaluatIon (M&e): ...........................................................................................................41

2.8. fInancIal reSourceS of extenSIon: ..............................................................................................................41

2.9. the relatIonShIpS wIth other Moa dIrectorateS: .........................................................................................42

2.10. the role of rural woMen In agrIcultural extenSIon: ...................................................................................43

2.11. MaIn contentS of the annual extenSIon plan: .............................................................................................46

2.12. MaIn oBjectIveS of the extenSIon prograMMe: ............................................................................................47

2.13. envIronMental proBleMS and extenSIon actIvItIeS: .......................................................................................47

7

2.14. extenSIon MethodS and MedIa: ................................................................................................................48

CHAPTER-3 ........................................................................................................................................................54

3-1- MAJOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES PROVIDERS: ..................................................................................54

(I). natIonal agrIcultural reSearch center (narc): ........................................................................................54

(II). non-governMental organIzatIonS (ngoS): ..................................................................................................54

(III). prIvate agrIBuSIneSS: ...............................................................................................................................55

(Iv). farMer-led groupS: .................................................................................................................................55

CHAPTER4 .........................................................................................................................................................59

4. OPINION OF THE DIRECTOR OF DISTRICT AGR. DIRECTORATES: ...............................................................................59

4.1. MaterIal and MethodS: .............................................................................................................................59

4.2. characterIStIcS of the reSpondentS: ...........................................................................................................59

4.3. ManageMent of extenSIon ServIceS: ...........................................................................................................61

4.4. relatIon wIth agrIculture experIMental StatIonS: ........................................................................................63

4.5. SuggeStIonS for IMproveMentS ....................................................................................................................65

CHAPTER-5 ........................................................................................................................................................68

5. OPINION OF THE AGRICULTURE EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS .....................................................................................68

5.1. MaterIal and MethodS: .............................................................................................................................68

5.2. perSonal characterIStIcS ..........................................................................................................................69

5.3. SIze and productIon of experIMent StatIonS: ................................................................................................71

5.4. relatIonShIp wIth e.o and wIth farMerS: ....................................................................................................75

5-5. SuggeStIonS for IMproveMentS: ..................................................................................................................77

CHAPTER- 6. .......................................................................................................................................................79

6. FAMERS’ PERCEPTION ABOUT THE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES AND EXTENSION OFFICERS: ...........................79

6.1. MaterIalS and MethodS: ...........................................................................................................................79

6.2. characterIStIcS of the reSpondentS: ...........................................................................................................80

6.3. extenSIon MethodS: .................................................................................................................................83

8

6.4.general coMMentS: ...................................................................................................................................87

6.5. extenSIon MedIa ......................................................................................................................................89

6.6. relatIonShIp wIth agrIculture experIMental StatIon: ...................................................................................91

6.7. SuggeStIonS to IMprove effIcIency: .............................................................................................................91

CHAPTER-7 ........................................................................................................................................................93

7.1. CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................93

7.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPGRADING EXTENSION SERVICES ................................................................................95

7.2.1. for the IMproveMentS of agrIcultural extenSIon actIvItIeS: .......................................................................95

7.2.2. for the IMproveMentS of agrIcultural experIMent StatIonS ........................................................................98

7.3. WAY FORWARD ............................................................................................................................................100

LIST OF ANNEXES ..............................................................................................................................................101

ANNEX -1: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED ............................................................................................................102

ANNEX -2: LIST OF DOCUMENTS INTERVIEWED .......................................................................................................104

ANNEX (3)- LIST OF FARMING INPUTS SUPPLIERS .....................................................................................................106

ANNEX-4- QUESTIONNAIRES ................................................................................................................................107

9

ABSTRACT

Need of agricultural information is the basic necessity for farmers as it plays a pivotal role in enlightening them, raising their level of knowledge and eventually help in their decision making process regarding farming activities. E.O with their extension services are doing this noble work.

In the Palestinian context, the main agricultural extension services providers is the MOA and its affiliated regional agricultural directorate and NARC since the establishment of the PNA in 1994. However, its coverage in the Districts has remained far behind the expected level that raised the issue about the effectiveness of the agricultural extension services programme in oPt. Thus, the study was undertaken to identify the extension performance, the determinants influencing the effectiveness of the agricultural extension services in improving the livelihood of farmers in Palestine. Additionally, the study was attempted to learn the farmers’ perception about the MOA agricultural extension services as well as the E.O.

Data for the analysis were sourced from the following: Literature reviews, field survey targeted approximately 304 farmers distributed in different agri-ecological zones, 12 Directors of DAD, and 4 Directors of experimental stations. Additionally, several semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants in the MOA, and some other key NGOs and private sector firms.

The results of the study showed that approximately (168) extension officers working in rendering extension services to farmers distributed all over the West Bank districts, and (4) agriculture experimental stations, (38) effective extension units including the extension staff working in the GDoERD headquarters. The female extension officers represent around (27%) of the total extension staff, the majority of the extension officers (62%) were in the age groups of (30-39 years), where around (68%) of the extension officers are belonged to the category professional experience of (5 to 13 years).

There is (38) effective extension units distributed all over the West Bank districts, it targets around (269) village and town, (65) extension officers are currently working for the extension units, it renders extension services to farmers in surrounding villages and more specifically in the village where the extension unit’s headquarter is, this is due to lack of reliable means of transport and shortage of extension staff. The office of the extension units is often a one office room granted by local authorities or municipalities. They don’t have adequate office and field equipments.

The results study also showed that the majority (58%) of the respondents’ farmers had a better perception about the effectiveness of the provided agricultural extension advisory services. While,

10

60% of the respondent farmers felt that the MOA E.O are credible and able to provide extension services, in case farmers face problems, (43%) of farmers go to the extension officers for support, as first choice, and (28.3%) go to farming inputs suppliers for support. The information method most appreciated by farmers (54%) is obviously the visit of the extension officer to their farm followed at long distance by field day (18%). This is confirmed by our respondents, approximately (22%) confirmed that they were not visited at all, (40%) of the farmers complain that they were visited long time ago (3 to 6 months), and few (19%) of who affirm to have been visited quite recently (between 1 week and 1 month) as of the date of field survey conduction.

As to shed light on the extension system performance, it has been revealed that the ration of extension officers to farmers in the WB districts is approximately (1:1900) which is far higher than the international standards and other developing countries. The extension services reached less than half of farmers’ communities in rural areas by assuming that the agricultural holding in Palestine is around (5 dunums).

According to the study results, the most common methods of advice used is the individual visit of the extension officer to the farmer, as mentioned earlier, and it is the most preferred methods by farmers. In general, the Radio and TV programmes have not very well satisfied the farmers. Also, the agriculture experimental stations have not an effective role in technology transfer and solving farmers’ technical problems, also there is weak linkages and coordination among extension service, applied research and demonstrations.Lack of adequate operational fund allocated for the extension service is one of the most important factors that affect negatively the efficiency and effectiveness of the extension services in Palestine. Whereas, (2500NIS/ agricultural directorates/year) as operational expenses rather than (salaries, wages, and fuels) are not able, at all, to cover the needed expenses for one experiment or demonstrations conduction. Furthermore, when comparing the extension staff number (168 employee) with the total staff number of the MOA (750 employee), it can be clearly noted that the extension staff constitutes only (22%) of the total staff of the MOA. Given that, the extension service system is rendering absolutely the most important services of the MOA.

The gender extension service is still not at the optimum level, where contacts with rural women are often conducted through rural women associations which exist in rural areas and villages. The rendered extension services to rural women members can be in the form of lectures and training courses covering some areas of food processing techniques and home gardens. There is a clear shortage in all rural areas coverage, low frequent field visits (from 3 to 8 field visit per woman association per year). Also, lack of female extension officers, they constitutes approximately (27%) of the total extension staff. This percentage is better than any other developing countries. However, it needs more development and improvement.

11

Additionally, it has been identified that the credibility of the E.O, coverage percent, and frequency of contact with E.O, varieties of the extension services received by the farmers and farmers’ education, lack of operational funds, distortion of extension organizational structure, inadequate of logistics support, mobility restriction, weak of available human resources, inappropriate enabling environment, lack of performance-based reward system, all mentioned factors altogether, had significant relationships with effectiveness of the extension services.

It can be concluded that if the MOA gives adequate attention for improving the extension financial resources, improving the credibility of the MOA extension officers, ensuring more frequent visits with farmers and women associations, then, the extension service efficiency will be improved, and consequently, it will contribute Additionally, Thus it can be concluded that if the MOA gives more emphasis on credibility improvement of their E.O, increasing the coverage percent of rural and agricultural areas, improving the extension financial resources, ensure more frequent field visits of the E.O with farmers and rural women associations, more demonstrations and field days conduction, then the effectiveness of their extension services will be improved and eventually help in expediting the development of Palestinian agricultural sector and in rapid expansion of adopted newly and innovative farming technology.

Keywords: Agricultural Extension Services, Perception, Extension officer, agriculture in Palestine, assessment of extension services.

12

الزراعي المقدمة من قبل الوزارة بناءًا على فرضية أن متوسط حجم الحيازة الزراعية حوالي )5 دونمات(.

كما تشير نتائج الدراسة الى أن أكثر الطرق االرشادية المستخدمة من قبل مرشدي وزارة الزراعة هي الزيارات الفردية للمزارعين وهي من أهم الطرق االرشادية المفضلة لدى المزارعين، كما ذكر آنفًا، والتزال البرامج االذاعية والحلقات التلفزيونية الموجهة الى المزارعين دون المستوى المطلوب، وان دور المحطات الزراعية ضعيف جدًا وليس لها دورًا فاعاًل في نقل التكنولوجيا الزراعية الى المزارعين أو في مجال تقديم المساعدة وحل مشاكل المزارعين الفنية، وأن هنالك ضعف واضح في التنسيق بين خدمات االرشاد الزراعي من جهة

واالبحاث التطبيقية والمشاهدات الحقلية من جهة أخرى.

ومن الجدير بالذكر أن قلة و شح الموارد المالية المخصصة لجهاز االرشاد الزراعي هي من أهم العوامل التي تؤثر بشكل كبير على مدى فاعلية وكفاءة جهاز االرشاد الزراعي برمته حيث أن )2500 شيقل\مديرية\سنة( كتكاليف جارية )دون الرواتب واالجور والمحروقات( اليمكن باي حال أن تكفي إجراء تجربة أو مشاهدة واحدة فقط ؟ وعند مقارنة عدد العاملين في جهاز االرشاد الزراعي )168( بالعدد االجمالي لوزارة الزراعة )750 موظف( في الضفة الغربيه، يمكن االستنتاج بشكل واضح أن نسبة طاقم االرشاد تبلغ حوالي فقط )%22( من إجمالي عدد العاملين في الوزارة، علمًا أن جهاز االرشاد الزراعي يقدم أبرز واهم خدمات وزارة الزراعة على

االطالق.

ال يزال دور االرشاد النسوي دون الحد المطلوب حيث يتم االتصال عادة بالنساء الريفيات من خالل الجمعيات النسوية في بعض القرى على مستوى محافظات الوطن، وخدمات االرشاد الزراعي المقدمة في العادة تتمثل بتزويد النساء الريفيات االعضاء بمحاضرات ودورات تدريبية تقليدية في مجالي التصنيع الغذائي والحديقة المنزلية، حيث هنالك قصورًا أيضًا في مجال تغطية كافة المناطق الريفية وقلة عدد الزيارات الميدانية )من 3 الى 8 زيارات ميدانية للجمعية النسوية الواحدة لكل سنة(، باالضافة الى قلة عدد المرشدات الزراعيات العامالت في مجال تقديم الخدمات االرشادية حيث تبلغ نسبتهن حوالي )%27(، وهي نسبة افضل من بعض الدول النامية

ولكنها ال تزال بحاجة الى مزيد من التطوير.

باالضافة الى ذلك، فقد تبين أن العوامل اآلتية: مصداقية المرشدين الزراعين، والتغطية وتكرار الزيارات الميدانية للمزراعين، وتقديم أنواع مختلفة من الخدمات االرشادية، ومستوى تعليم المزراعين، عدم وجود موارد مالية تشغيلية كافية، تشويه الهيكل التنظيمي، عدم توفر الدعم اللوجستي بشكل كاف، عدم القدرة على التنقل، ضعف في قدرات الموارد البشرية، عدم مالئمة البنية التحتية الداعمة، وعدم وجود نظام حوافز مبني على االداء. جمعيها عوامل مؤثرة لها عالقة وثيقة مرتبطة بدرجة فاعلية خدمات االرشاد الزراعي المقدمة.

كما يمكن القول أنه إذا أولت وزارة الزراعة االهمية الكافية لتحسين الموارد المالية المخصصة لالرشاد الزراعي، وزيادة نسبة تغطية المناطق الريفية والزراعية، وتحسين مصداقية المرشدين الزراعيين، وضمان زيادة عدد مرات االتصال بالمزارع الفلسطيني والجمعيات النسوية والزراعية، فأن فاعلية خدمات االرشاد الزراعي ستتحسن بالضرورة وبالتالي ستساهم في تسريع عملية تنمية القطاع الزراعي

الفلسطيني وفي التوسع في تطبيق التكنولوجيا الزراعية الحديثة وتحسين دخل المزارع الفلسطيني وظروفه المعيشة.

مفتاح الكلمات: خدمات االرشاد الزراعي، االدراك، المرشدون الزراعيون، الزراعة في فلسطين، تقييم خدمات االرشاد الزراعي

13

ملخص الدراسة

تعتبر الحاجة الى المعلومات الزراعية من المتطلبات االساسية للمزارعين التي تساهم بشكل حيوي في تثقيف المزارعين ورفع مستوى المعرفة لديهم وهذا بدوره يساعدهم في عملية إتخاذ القرار المتعلق باالنشطة المزرعية، ومن يقوم بهذا العمل النبيل هم المرشدون

الزراعيون وجهاز االرشاد الزراعي.

على المستوى المحلي، تعتبر وزارة الزراعة من خالل مديريات الزراعة المنتشره في المحافظات والمركز الوطني للبحوث الزراعية هي الجهة الرئيسية المزودة للخدمات االرشادية وذلك منذ تأسيسها عام 1994. إن درجة تغطية الخدمات االرشادية على مستوى المحافظات تبقى بعيدة عن مستوى التوقعات وبالتالي فأن مدى فاعلية جهاز االرشاد الزراعي في المناطق الفلسطينية تبقي موضوع جدلي. وبناءًا على ذلك، فقد أجريت الدراسة الحالية بهدف تقييم االداء وتحديد العوامل والمحددات التي تؤثر على فاعلية جهاز االرشاد الزراعي في فلسطين، باالضافة الى محاولة التعرف على وجهات نظر المزارعين فيما يتعلق بخدمات االرشاد الزراعي المقدمة من

قبل الوزارة وكذلك المرشدين الزراعين.

لقد تم جمع كافة المعلومات الخاصة بهذه الدراسة من عدة مصادر وهي كاآلتي: مراجعة االدبيات والدراسات السابقة ذات العالقة، جراء مسح ميداني إستهدف حوالي 304 مزارع من مختلف المناطق الجغرافية الزراعية، باالضافة الى )12( مدير دائرة و)4( واإمدراء محطات زراعية. كما تم إجراء عدة مقابالت شبه منظمة مع عدة شخصيات رفيعة المستوى في الوزارة و بعض المنظمات غير

الحكومية ومؤسسات القطاع الخاص.

يعمل في جهاز االرشاد الزراعي الحكومي حوالي )168( مرشد)ة( زراعي موزعين على )12( مديرية زراعة و)4( محطات زراعية و)38( وحدة إرشادية متضمنًا مقر االدارة العامة لالرشاد والتنمية الريفية، وتشكل نسبة المرشدات الزراعيات حوالي )%27( من مجمل العاملين في جهاز االرشاد الزراعي، وأن أغلب المرشدين الزراعيين )%62( هم كوادر فتية تتارواح أعمارهم بين )30 و39

سنة(، وأن نسبة الذين لديهم خبرات مهنية تتراوح بين )5 و 13 سنة( تقدر بنحو )68%(.

يبلغ عدد الوحدات االرشادية الفاعلة حوالي )38( وحدة إرشادية موزعة على كافة محافظات الضفة الغربية مستهدفة نحو )269( قرية وبلدة، ويعمل بها حوالي )65( مرشد زراعي، وتقدم خدمات االرشاد الزراعي الى المزراعين في القرى المحيطة بمكان الوحدة االرشادية وبشكل خاص القرية التي تتواجد بها الوحدة االرشادية نظرًا لعدم توفر مواصالت دائمة لدى الوحدات االرشادية وقلة عدد الكادر العامل بها، ومقر الوحدات االرشادية عادة غرفة واحده في المجالس المحليه أو القروية وليس لديها أجهزة مكتبية وميدانية بشكل كاف.

الزراعية النصائح واالرشادات لديهم رضى جيد حول المزارعين )58%( بها من أن نسبة البأس الى أيضًا الدراسة نتائج تشير المقدمة من قبل مرشدي الوزارة. وأن )%60( من المزارعين يشعرون بأن مرشدي الوزارة قادرين على تزويد المزارعين بالنصائح الفنية المطلوبة، وعند مواجهة أي مشكلة فنية زراعية فان معظمهم يتوجه الى مرشدي وزارة الزراعة في المقام االول بنسبة )43%(، و)%18( يتوجه الى محالت المواد الزراعية. ومن الطرق االرشادية التي يفضلها المزارعين هي الزيارات الفردية بواقع )%54( وفي

المرتبة الثانية “أيام الحقل االرشادية”.

ومن جهة اخرى، أكدت نتائج الدراسة ان حوالي %22 من المزارعين المبحوثين لم يتلقوا أي زيارة ميدانية من قبل مرشدي الوزارة، ونحو )%40( تلقوا زيارات ميدانية خالل فترة طويلة نسبيًا )3 شهور الى 6 شهور(، و%19 تم زيارتهم خالل فترة تمتد )بين اسبوع الى شهر واحد فقط( من تاريخ إجراء المسح الميداني. ولتسليط الضوء على كفاءة عمل جهاز االرشاد الزراعي، فقد تبين أن نسبة عدد المرشدين الزراعًين الى المزارعين في مختلف محافظات الضفة الغربية حوالي )1: 1900( وهي نسبة أعلى من المواصفات الدولية وبعض الدول النامية االخرى، وقد تبين أيضًا أن أكثر من %50 من المزارعين في المناطق الريفية ال تصلهم خدمات إالرشاد

14

CHAPTER-1

1.1- Introduction and Background:

With the development of the Palestinian Reform and Development Plan (PRDP) and its endorsement by all major national and international stakeholders, a significant emphasis is now being placed on the capacity development of Palestinian governmental institutions to manage their public services in a more effective and efficient manner.

The PRDP focuses on institutions that influence the economic and productive growth of local communities, and can become major drivers for sustainable and equitable development in their sectors. The Ministry of Agriculture, being linked to one of the fundamental means of livelihoods of the Palestinian community, ranks at the top of the list.

The Ministry of Agriculture currently derives its influence from its wide public outreach with 17 district offices spread in all districts of the WB and Gaza Strip, providing a variety of vital services in the areas of agricultural planning, animal and plant production, animal health, land development, and other areas related to rural development. Furthermore, the MoA is the main authority for establishing policies, planning strategies, and monitoring the development of the agricultural sector.

In its efforts to support and develop the agricultural sector, the MoA work is complemented by a group of civil society organizations working in the fields of agricultural and rural development. These organizations are classified to be among the most organized and well experienced civil society institutions in the territory. Their numerous programmes and financial resources fulfill a wide range of farmer needs; nonetheless, their contribution is not synchronized under clear national strategies and plans, which makes the process of measuring the impact of interventions (on the national level) a difficult task. In the process of empowering its national mandate to better lead and serve the sector and the different stakeholders involved in its development, the MoA regards the strong presence of civil society institutions to be a challenge and an opportunity at the same time

The Palestinian Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) is seeking to enhance its organizational capacity to better fulfill its institutional mandate in the sector as the main driver for sustainable agricultural development. To do so, the MoA has initiated the present study “Assessment of the Public Agricultural Extension System of Palestine and Recommendations for Improvements” under the Netherlands Programme “Improving Livelihoods in the OPt in the WB Districts”.

This program is funded by the Minster of Development and Cooperation through the Netherlands Representative Office (NRO) in Palestine. The program is implemented by a consortium of five

15

local Palestinian NGOs, led and managed by Agricultural Development Associations (PARC), and working in agriculture sector and rural development, these are: Agricultural Development Associations (PARC), Palestinian Hydrology Groups (PHG), Land Research Centre (LRC), Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC) and Rural Women Development Society (RWDS). This program consist of five sub - projects, where each of the five organizations will carry certain activities at different locations aiming at improving livelihood in the oPt in WB. This program will be implemented in a close cooperation with the Ministry of agriculture who will be responsible for the provision of the extension services to all beneficiaries of the program. The overall objective of this program is to contribute in the improvement of access to food for vulnerable population in rural areas of the WB. Its specific objective (purpose) is to protect and improve access to natural resources in the targeted locations of rural areas in the West-Bank.

The action is targeting 75 locations (villages, small towns) in the Palestinian territories distributed in the WB. Out of them, around 50 locations are either considered as highly vulnerable locations as they are close to the apartheid wall, settlements or located in the Jordan Valley, and the allocated budget for the activities to be implemented in these locations constitutes around 39% of total program’s contribution. The program duration is 36 months and the implementation duration for the five NGOs is 30 months.

Harmonization and Alignment: The existing of appropriate agricultural infrastructure and services in the oPt. is one of key agricultural strategic goals which were addressed in the agricultural national strategy “A shared vision”. To contribute in achieving the said objective the following proposed interventions are to be executed: upgrading the agricultural extension services, plant protection, veterinary medicine and agricultural research. To ensure harmonization with that, the present assignment is going to assess and evaluate the agricultural extension services provided to farmers over past ten years, as to set-in-place policy measures to tackle extension services efficiency and consequently ensuring an appropriate and effective agricultural extension service delivery system in Palestine.

The Agricultural Production Context: Agricultural production in the PNA is dominated by small scale family owned farming units, with crops grown under Rain-fed, irrigated and greenhouse conditions. Livestock production contributes roughly 46% of agricultural income in the WB and 25% in Gaza; in the WB small ruminants (60 %), poultry (30%), and cattle (8%) dominate it. Although the use of modern techniques and mechanization is relatively extensive, production practices are labor intensive, appropriate management practices are often unknown, and there is limited availability of improved varieties of crops or livestock breeds.

Most agricultural production is for the domestic and Israeli markets, with export production limited to a few crops. Market opportunities are affected by border closures, and limited road and transport infrastructure.

16

Palestine has agricultural based economy. Agricultural sector contributes 8% to grand domestic production and employees 14% of the total labour force. It contributes 20 percent of foreign exchange and provides raw material to many industries (MOA, 2010).

The agro-ecological conditions in the WB and Gaza are quite varied; the 5 agro-ecological zones are briefly described below.

Central Highlands - The zone is a hilly area of 3,500 km2 between Jenin and Hebron falling between 800-1000 meters above sea level. Ninety-five per cent of the cultivated area is given to rainfed production of olives, grapes, almonds and fruit trees (60%), cereals and grain legumes (35%); and five percent to irrigated vegetable production. Rainfall averages 400 mm per year. The soils are shallow and represent a range of soil types.

Semi Coastal Region - A narrow strip of 400 km2 of parts of Jenin and Tulkarem districts ranging in altitude between 100 and 300 meters above sea level, the zone has a semi-arid climate averaging between 200 and 400 mm annual rainfall. A variety of crops are raised including vegetables, citrus, dates, field crops, almonds and potatoes. The soils are alluvial terra rosa types.

Eastern Slopes - This zone which is 500-800 meters above sea level, with an area of 1,500 km2, is located between the central highlands and the Jordan Valley. It is a semi-arid area of steep slopes with low rainfall (250-300 mm. per year). Olives and some cereals are grown, and the area is grazed by livestock. Soils are primarily gray calcareous types.

Jordan Valley - The zone is a narrow strip located between the Eastern Slopes and the River Jordan. It lies in altitude between 400 meters below sea level to 90 meters above, and has an average annual rainfall between 100 and 200 mm. Crop production is only possible under irrigation, and soil salinization is a problem. A range of vegetables and semi-tropical fruits are grown, along with dates.

Gaza Strip - The zone is an area of 365 km2 on the Mediterranean coast. It has alluvial, sandy and loess soils and an average annual rainfall of 200-400 mm depending on the area within the zone. Major crops include vegetables, strawberry, citrus, guava, dates, field crops, and almonds. Groundwater salinity and pollution are serious problems affecting crop production.

17

1.2. Objective of the Study:

The primary purpose of the evaluation of the extension services is to provide the MOA with an objective, qualitative and quantitative assessment of the extension-relevant attributes that can generate new knowledge, lessons learned and recommendations for improving the design, programming, and interventions of the extension services, towards enhancing impact of these services in the Palestinian context. More specifically, the primary objective of the study is:

To evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the public extension services as to better understanding its role in Palestinian agricultural development and to set in place suggestions for improvements.

1.3. Analytical Methods and Approaches:

The MOA contracted a team of local experts to conduct a full review and assessment of the Palestinian public agricultural extension system. Throughout the review, the GDoERD management and staff provided consistent support, oversight, and input. As a part of the process, the review team engaged a wide set of stakeholders, including the regional agricultural directorates, national agricultural research center (NARC), agriculture experimental stations (AES), and some key.

1.4. Data collection Methods:

Methods used to collect information for the study included a desk review of relevant literature, including studies from previous projects; and some existing extension documents (annex-2). Moreover, the inclusion of, key informant interviews; stakeholders’ consultations; and field visits and surveys to the agricultural directorates in WB districts as to cover a diverse set of agro-ecological zones, productions systems and to reflect a wide range of local extension.

In each district, the study team interviewed the directors of DAD, agriculture experimental stations, and a group of farmers as end-users of the agricultural extension services. More details on the interviews, surveys and data sources can be found in the sub-sequent sections as well as in the attached annexes.

18

1.5. Report Structure:

The report is divided into seven main chapters. Following this introduction, chapter two presents findings concerning some organizational aspects of the agricultural extension service. Chapter three presents concise information on the main agricultural extension service providers in oPt. Chapters four, five and six, respectively, summarizes the perception of Directors of DAD, Directors of Agriculture Experimental Stations, and Farmers groups on the existing public agricultural extension services in terms of: coordination, relations with farmers, factors affecting extension services and opinion about extension service. Chapter seven provides decision-makers with a description of the suggestions about improvements and conclusion to be introduced for research and extension services. The annexes section includes some additional and detailed information such as: list of persons interviewed, list of documents reviewed, and three types of questionnaires of the study field survey.

19

CHAPTER-2

2. Some key organizational aspect of the extension service:

Based on the findings of semi-structure interviews and literature review, the present section is going to present some key organizational aspects concerning the extension service in Palestine in terms of : Historical background, definition and roles of the agriculture service, organizational structure, staffing, M&E, reporting system, coordination, methods of extension services, etc.

2.1. Historical background on Agricultural extension and research:

Modern agriculture, which requires a large spectrum of public and private service-provision institutions, was practically not known in the Near East region before the end of the Second World War. Agricultural institutions existing at that time were, more or less, of the administrative types that monitor the abidance to laws and regulations. Among the very few services that started during the British Mandate were education, research, and to some extent, extension. However, agricultural education was neglected, agricultural research was concentrated on seed development, and extension was mostly for distributing developed seeds to farmers.

The situation was improved after 1948, when the departments of agriculture started to be more active in service provision. The Agricultural Credit Corporation of Jordan and the Jordan Central Cooperative Union and some commercial banks became somewhat active in the supply of agricultural credit in the WB.

Agricultural research and extension activities started in Palestine during the British Mandate and continued after 1948 until 1967, where some improvements were effected during the sixties. Improvement continued during the early years of occupation. However, occupation authorities soon reversed this policy. Research budget was slashed and experimental stations were requested to operate their fields on commercial basis, closing those realizing losses. Eventually, experimental stations were closed and research was almost completely halted. Except for very little effort in the field of applied research, most of the research activities were in the form of surveys rather than research experiments. To encounter these developments, some

20

NGOs were organized to carry out, among other activities, some research and extension work. Colleges, with the assistance of NGOs and in some cases by supplier of inputs, kept carrying out some research. In spite of the fact that their work was limited in scope, they succeeded in introducing some new crop varieties, protected agriculture, plant protection, cultural practices and irrigation techniques.

While the extension budget was also cut to barely cover salaries, free access to Israeli research was substantially reduced, and extension staff was reduced to one-third, the situation was relatively better. Extension work was continued at a substantially reduced level with only about 71 extension officer in the WB and Gaza. They performed their duties through certain programs, working with farmers groups rather than individuals. Many national and international organizations involved in rural development and extension work filled in the gap, enabling the continuation of extending some services to the Palestinian farmers. Extension services were provided to cooperatives and selected farmers, demonstrations at selected model farms were performed, some field days and seminars were organized, and some extension pamphlets were produced, mostly translated from Israeli publications. However, these activities reached less than half of the farmers’ communities.

2.2. The Definition and Role of Agricultural Extension:

Agricultural extension is a difficult term to define precisely. It has different meanings at different times, in different places, to different people. The role of agricultural extension is to help farmers make efficient, productive and sustainable use of their land and other agricultural resources, through the provision of information, advice education and training.

In the context of Palestine the following definition could be adopted:

• Agricultural extension is a service or system which assists farm people, through educational procedures, to improve farming methods and techniques, increase production efficiency and income, better levels of living, and lift the social and educational standards of rural life.

• Agricultural extension is assistance to farmers to enable them identify and analyze their production problems, and to increase their awareness of the opportunities for improvements.

Clearly, agricultural extension is an extremely important process which can accelerate technological, social and economic development. In particular, effective extension:

21

• Helps farmers identify and overcome production, farm management and marketing problems at farm level through the exchange of information among farmers, extension staff, inputs suppliers, credit agencies and marketing agents;

• Helps farmers make better use of existing technology, for example, through more efficient use of feed, fertilizer or irrigation, etc.

• Introduces new technology to farmers, such as new breeds, new varieties, new crops and new equipment;

• Provides information to agricultural research institutions on farmer’s production constraints so that appropriate basic, applied or adaptive research can be carried out to address them;

• Helps in the successful creation of opportunities or situations in which farmers again the abilities and skills necessary to meet their needs and interests in such a way as to attain continuous improvement and self-satisfaction;

• Helps farmers learn to put information into use in ways that result in improvements in their living standards;

• Helps farmers gain a clear vision of what can and should be done and encourages farmers to improve their pattern of living and helps them develop the necessary skills to so.

2.3. Analysis of Laws that Govern the Provision of Extension Services:

The MOA is governed by the 2003 Law No. (2) on Agriculture, and the revised agriculture Law on 2005, No. (11), four articles were revised namely (1), (2), (3), and (4). The Law established the national goal of increasing food self reliance. Under these laws, the MOA is responsible for (please refer to article no.2):

• Legal, strategies and policies framework identification as well as setting in place sustainable development plans and programmes.

• Optimizing the uses of natural resources in a sustainable way;• Organizing and maintaining of animal health, photosanitary, plant, animal, epidemic and

common diseases control;• Developing agricultural extension services, raising agricultural awareness and its role in the

agricultural sector development;• Organizing, developing and protecting the applied agricultural research and, facilitating

modern technology transfer, as well as establishing of agricultural statistics databases;

22

• Developing the agricultural infrastructure through encouraging investment, supporting and encouraging necessary agricultural frameworks, cooperatives and unions;

• In close collaboration with concerned parties developing the existing agricultural systems and patterns, such as: rangelands and forestry development, protection and rehabilitation- natural resources, wild and aquatic life management and protection- agricultural biodiversity maintenance- desertification control,

• Development and supporting of Palestinian rural areas through realization of integrated rural development;

• Enhancing Palestinian food security;• Participating in public health maintenance.

As to achieve the Agricultural Law objectives, it is recommended to carry out the following (please refer to article no. 3):• Establishment of natural calamities agricultural compensation fund;• Palestinian Gene Bank for seeds and propagation material.• Agricultural credit bank;• National Agricultural Research Center (NARC);• Agriculture experiments and experimental stations;• Central agricultural laboratories;• Water harvesting projects through establishment of dams and small-scale barriers;• Animal and plant quarantines;• Agricultural advisory council,

The above said activities will be regulated and organized according to certain regulations prepared by the MOA and rectified officially by the Palestinian Cabinet. Expect, the Natural calamities fund and the agricultural credit bank which they need special laws to be established.

Based on a review of the Laws available to the consultants, no apparent significant gaps exist within the current legal framework that impedes the delivery of effective extension services to farmers as well as modern agricultural technologies transfer.

2.4. Present Structure of Extension within the MOA:

All line directorates within the MOA were organized within a top-down organizational structure that was managed closely from the national to the district level. The MOA organization structure is figured out in the Annex No. (2.4.1).

The General directorate of extension and rural development (GDOERD) consists of the following departments and sections, as follows:

23

(1). The Horticulture department including the divisions of: Horticulture, Olive trees, Citrus, Date Palm, Nurseries, and demonstrations.

(2) The Rural Development and Women Department including the divisions of: Rural Development, Women development and Bedouins development.

(3) The Vegetables and cut flowers department including the divisions and sections of: Cut flowers, soil extension, demonstrations, and vegetables (open vegetables and protected vegetables sections).

(4) The livestock department including the divisions of: Ruminants, Poultry, Poultry mother stock, Hatcheries, Bees, Animal feed, Dairy products, Animal Biodiversity, and Animal Demonstrations.

(5) The Mass media department including the divisions and sections of: Audio and visual agricultural media (incl., Audio media, and visual media sections), Print Agricultural Media, and Archives.

(6) The Plant Protection Department including the divisions: Control of Pest on field crops, Control of pest on vegetables, Control of pest on fruit trees.

(7). The Planning of Extension programme Department including the divisions and sections of: Planning of extension programme (training of E.O section), and Monitoring.

(8) The Field crops department including the divisions and sections of: Field crops, Medicinal plants, seeds and legumes, rain-fed vegetables, biodiversity (taxonomic studies, save and multiplications of local seeds varieties, and awareness and extension) and the division of demonstrations.

(9) The Agricultural mechanizations including the divisions of: machinery and equipment, and operation and maintenance. The GD of Extension organizational structure is shown in the chart (2.4.2).

At the district level there are twelve District Agricultural Directorates. Their organizational structures consist of divisions and sections, as follows: (1)- Plant Production Division consists of the following sections: irrigated vegetables, horticulture, field crops, and plant protection; (2)- Animal extension consists of the following sections: Poultry, livestock, and Bees; (3)- Rural development division; (4)- Media division; (5)- Planning division; (6)- Plant protection and Marketing division; (7)- Natural Resources division; (8)- Extension field units division; (9)- Agricultural laboratories division;

24

(10)- Agricultural Demonstrations Farms division. The DAD’s organizational structure is shown in the chart (2.4.3).

This structure was workable in helping the MOA to overcome barriers and mobility restrictions during second Intifada, but its top-down approach was not helpful in terms of indentifying farmers’ needs, priorities’ and formulating a demand-driven extension programme.

At village level:

There are (38) operated extension units distributed all over the district of WB. They render extension services by (65) extension officers. Their areas of specializations are mainly plant and animal production.

The extension units’ premises are usually one office-room given, in most cases, by villages and towns’ local authorities they serve, with almost no office or field equipments. Approximately (269) villages are served by the extension units in all WB districts. Each extension unit renders its extension services to a cluster of surrounding villages. Due to lack of means of transport rendering extension services became restricted only to the village where the extension unit is located.

The extension units were created before the second intifada and their effectiveness in rendering extension services clearly noticed during the second Intifada as a good response to the Israeli’s policy of severe roads’ closure and restricted mobility, more specifically, between main cities and their surrounding rural areas. Due to a set of organizational and financial constraints the extension units are unable to provide effective extension services as should be, which pose a big question on their performance and existence. Table (2.4.4) present detailed information on the operated agricultural extension units

25

Chart (2.4.1)

26

Chart (2.4.2): The Organizational Structure of the G. Directorates of Extension & Rural Development

27

Chart-4.2.3

28

Table (2.4.4)- The Agricultural Extension Units distributed all over the WB Districts-2011

No. Name of the Extension

Unit Village District Location No. of

E.O Area of

specialization Served villages

No. of workin

g day/wk

1 Al-Yamoun Al-Yamoun Jenin Municipality 2 Plant Protection (1) 9 5

2 Seelit Al-Harithyia Seelit Al-Harithyia Jenin Municipality 1 Plant Protection (1) 1 5

3 Arrabah Arrabah Jenin Municipality 1 Animal Production 21 5

4 Mythaloun Mythaloun Jenin Municipality 3 Plant Production, Animal Production (2) 15 5

5 Seelit Al-Daher Seelit Al-Daher Jenin Municipality 1 Plant Protection

Diploma 1 5

6 Qabatya Qabatyia Jenin Municipality 1 Animal Production 10 5

7 Beit- Qad Station Beit- Qad Station Jenin Beit Qad station 1 Plant protection 10 5

8 Alkhader Al-Khader Bethlehem Municipality 2 Plant protection (1) 13 5

9 Taqou' Taqou' Bethlehem Municipality 1 Plant Protection 5

10 Bani zied Al-Gharbyia

Bani zied Al-Gharbyia Ramallah Three-room office

– Municipality 2 Animal Production 9 1

11 Biet-Or Biet-Or Ramallah Municipality 1 Plant Protection 7 2

12 Silwad Silwad Ramallah Silwad association 1 Plant Protection 11 1

13 Sinjel Sinjel Ramallah Municipality 1 Animal Production 8 1

14 Alsarrah Al-Sarrah Dora Municipality 1 Animal Production 9 4

15 Dier-Samit Dier-Samit Dora Municipality 1 Plant Protection 5 4

16 Al-Majd Al-Majd Dora Municipality 1 Plant Protection 8 5

17 Al-Thahiryia Al-Thahiryia Dora Government building 3 Plant Protection +

Animal Production 5 2

18 Hebron Hebron Hebron Old City- old building 1 Plant Production 8 5

19 Halhoul Halhoul Hebron Three room office rent by the MOA 1 Plant Production (1) 1 5

20 Sa"eer Sa"eer Hebron One room office - the Municipality 1 Plant Production (1) 6 5

21 Bani Naeem Bani Naeem Hebron One room office granted by the Municipality

1 Plant Production (1) 2 5

22 Biet-Ommar Biet-Ommar Hebron One room office- the Municipality 4

Plant Production (2), Soil and water (1),

Agricultural diplom (1)

2 5

23 Sorif Sorif Hebron One room office - the Municipality 1 Plant Production (1) 2 5

24 Tarqoumia Tarqoumia Hebron Municipality- One room office rent

by the MOA 2 Plant Protection (2),

Animal Production (1) 5 5

25 Ithna Ithna Hebron Municipality- One room office rent



26 Yatta Yatta Hebron Municipality- One room office rent

by the MOA 3

Plant Protection (1), Plant production (1),


27 Al--Sammou Al-Sammou' Hebron One room office – Municipality 1 Plant Production (1) 2 5

28 Al-Sha'rawyia Ateel Tulkarm Local Service Center 4

Animal Production (2)+ Plant Production

(1)+ (1) admin 15 5

29 Wadi- Al-Sha'eer Anabbta Tulkarm Municipality 4

Anima Production (2) + Plant Production

(1)+ (1) Admin. 7 5

30 Al-Qbebih Al-Qbebih Jerusalem Village Council 3 Plant Production+ Admin, technician 16 3

31 Al-Aghwar

Al- Shamaliyyah

Ein-Al-bbeida Tubas Village Council 1 Plant Protection 6 4

32 Bidia Bidia Salfit Municipality 3 Animal Production (1) 7 5

33 Al-Auja Al-Auja Jericho One room office granted by the

Village Council 2 Animal Production (1) 2 4

34 Al-Jiftlik Al-Jiftlik Jericho Rented office –Jeftlik 1 Plant Protection (1) +

(3) officers 4 4

29

19 Halhoul Halhoul Hebron Three room office rent by the MOA 1 Plant Production (1) 1 5

20 Sa"eer Sa"eer Hebron One room office - the Municipality 1 Plant Production (1) 6 5

21 Bani Naeem Bani Naeem Hebron One room office granted by the Municipality

1 Plant Production (1) 2 5

22 Biet-Ommar Biet-Ommar Hebron One room office- the Municipality 4

Plant Production (2), Soil and water (1),

Agricultural diplom (1)

2 5

23 Sorif Sorif Hebron One room office - the Municipality 1 Plant Production (1) 2 5

24 Tarqoumia Tarqoumia Hebron Municipality- One room office rent



25 Ithna Ithna Hebron Municipality- One room office rent



26 Yatta Yatta Hebron Municipality- One room office rent

by the MOA 3

Plant Protection (1), Plant production (1),


27 Al--Sammou Al-Sammou' Hebron One room office – Municipality 1 Plant Production (1) 2 5

28 Al-Sha'rawyia Ateel Tulkarm Local Service Center 4

Animal Production (2)+ Plant Production

(1)+ (1) admin 15 5

29 Wadi- Al-Sha'eer Anabbta Tulkarm Municipality 4

Anima Production (2) + Plant Production

(1)+ (1) Admin. 7 5

30 Al-Qbebih Al-Qbebih Jerusalem Village Council 3 Plant Production+ Admin, technician 16 3

31 Al-Aghwar

Al- Shamaliyyah

Ein-Al-bbeida Tubas Village Council 1 Plant Protection 6 4

32 Bidia Bidia Salfit Municipality 3 Animal Production (1) 7 5

33 Al-Auja Al-Auja Jericho One room office granted by the

Village Council 2 Animal Production (1) 2 4

34 Al-Jiftlik Al-Jiftlik Jericho Rented office –Jeftlik 1 Plant Protection (1) +

(3) officers 4 4

35 Assira Al-Shamalyia

Assira Al-Shamalyia Nablus

One room office granted by the Municipality

2 Animal Production (2) 4 5

36 Annasaryia Annasaryia Nablus (4) room office- Village Council 2 Plant Production (1),


37 Aqraba Aqraba Nablus No special room office 1 Animal Production 1 4

38 Beita Beita Nablus Municipality- Wholesale market 1 Animal Production (1) 2 5

Grand Total 65 269

30

2.5. Number of Extension Officers:

The total number of the E.O within or under the umbrella of GDoERD\MOA goes up to approximately (168) in the WB districts. Table (2.5) illustrates the number of the E.O in the DAD and the General Directorate of Extension. The number of female E.O’ is (45) which constitute less than one third (27%) of the total number of the MAO extension officers which is slightly better than other developing countries. Actually, around (141) extension officers are actively involving in rendering extension services to farmers, as frontline extension staff.

Table (2.5)- Number of Extension officer working in the agricultural directorates

# DistrictNumber of E.O

Percent (%)Male Female Total

1. Jenin 16 3 19 11.3%2. Tubas 4 4 8 4.8%3. Nablus 14 4 18 10.7%4. Tulkarem 10 1 11 6.5%5. Qalqilia 5 1 6 3.6%6. Salfit 3 4 7 4.2%7. Ramallah 6 6 12 7.1%8. Jericho 6 2 8 4.8%9. Jerusalem 7 1 8 4.8%10. Bethlehem 9 3 12 7.1%11. Dora 9 2 11 6.5%12. Hebron 17 5 22 13.1%13. Extension HQ 17 9 26 15.5%

Total Number 123 45 168 100%Source: Field survey data -”Qualification assessment study”, May, 2011E.O.: Only those who involved in rendering extension services to farmers (fixed & temporary staff).

1.6. Current institution staffing:

In 2000, the Food and agriculture organization (FAO) reported that worldwide 75% of small farmers were not being reached by extension services. While no optimal ratio of E.O to farmers exists, the situation in Palestine can be compared to that in other countries. For example, in India the ratio is 1 to 48, in Colombia 1 to 29, and in Nicaragua 1 to 134. According to FAO, developed countries in Europe, North America, and Asia report an average ratio of 1 to 400. In North America the ratio is 1-233. In the oPt there are 141 E.O for the 1.342,752 dunums, resulting in a ratio of 1 E.O to 9523 dunum. It can be concluded that the numbers of extension officers are too few relative to the area covered. Furthermore, aside from their field work, extension officers are often given administrative,

31

inspections, and project implementation assignments that add to their workload, see table (2.6a).

The current staffing at the MOA’s extension directorates in terms of numbers appears to be insufficient, by the above discussed standard. However, staff attitudes and the quality of service are directly related to the support that the personnel receive. While staff numbers are inadequate at this point in time, the MOA should focus on hiring more E.O as well as improving support and training opportunities for the existing staff.

Table (2.6a)- Ratio of extension officers to cultivated areas in the WB-2011

District Cultivated areas\ dunum No. of E.O E.O.: C. areas

Jenin 350, 990 19 1 :18473Tubas 102,140 8 1: 12768Nablus 246,087 18 1:13672Tulkarem 160852 11 1:14623Qalqilia 72672 6 1: 7578Salfit 87642 7 1:12520Ramallah & Al-Bireh 214393 12 1: 17866Jericho & Al-Aghwar 49272 11 1: 4281Jerusalem 23357 8 1:4479Bethlehem 55714 8 1:6964Dora - 11 --Hebron 330623 22 1: 15028

Source: The Extension Administration Records-MOA, April-2011** 1 dunum = 0.1 ha** The average agricultural holding in Palestine in 2004 was estimated at around 5 dunums** Agricultural season 2007\2008** Extension Officer: Any staff who is currently involved in rendering extension services to farmers

As for the ratio of extension officer to farmer, it is about 1 extension officer to 157 farmers which is actually close to that of developed countries see table (2.6b). However, we should deal carefully with this ratio as there is no reliable database concerning total number of farmers at district level. Additionally, this ratio was actually calculated based on number of served farmers, which means, it does not consider other farmers who might not be reached or served by the MOA extension services.

Therefore, an assumption is made, that the extension services reached less than half of Palestinian farmers’ communities. This can be calculated and verified by looking at the Ratio of extension officers to farmers and the Ratio of extension officers to cultivated areas. The average agricultural holding in Palestine was estimated around (5) dunums which means that the ratio of extension officers to farmers is about (1:9523du\5du) or (1: 1900). This ratio is far above the international standards and even worse than some other developing countries.

32

Table (2.6b)- Ratio of extension officer to served farmer in the WB district-2011District No. of E.O No. of Served farmers E.O: FarmerJenin 19 3886 1:240

Tubas 8 1215 1: 125

Nablus 18 3000 1:167

Tulkarem 11 1680 1:153

Qalqilia 6 838 1:140

Salfit 7 300 1:43

Ramallah 12 2260 1:188Jericho 11 1200 1:109Jerusalem 8 260 1:33Bethlehem 8 616 1:77Dora 11 625 1:57Hebron 22 6000 1:272

Source: The Extension Administration Records-MOA, April-2011

As for extension officer to village ratio, it is about 1 extension officer to 3.7 village, which is actually doesn’t give a good indication on extension services performance and effectiveness without providing information about number of field visit conducted per year. It is worthy to mention that this type of information is not yet calculated and not available at the districts agricultural directorates (2.6c).

Table (2.6c)- Ratio of extension officer to served villages per District -2011District No. of E.O No. of village E.O: villageJenin 19 80 1:4.2Tubas 8 10 1:1.25Nablus 18 52 1:2.8Tulkarem 11 35 1:3.2Qalqilia 6 33 1:5.5Salfit 7 19 1:2.7Ramallah 12 73 1:6Jericho 11 12 1:1.1

Jerusalem 8 45 1:5.6Bethlehem 8 41 1:5.1Dora 11 36 1:3.3Hebron 22 86 1:3.9


33

District agriculture Directorate

G.D of Extension & Rural Development

Division-1

Division-2

Division-3

Depratment-2

Depratment-1

Depratment-3

One consolidated file of different monthly progress reports of

different divisions along with a cover letter signed by the Director

Monthly progress report submitted by the head of division to his director

Monthly progress report submitted to

the Director of concerned department

for review, records, and quarterly

progress report preparation

1

2

3

EPPD

2.6. Reporting system:

Information is recorded in details in a monthly report that is prepared by the E.O and extension units’ staff. The reports usually send to the DAD where reports are unified and gathered in one comprehensive report. Next, they forward to the G. Directorate of Extension in the Ministry, at the attention of, the Extension Programme Planning Department (EPPD). In its turn, it sends all progress reports to concerned technical extension departments for their reviews, validation and record. Based on that, the Extension Departments will provide the Extension Programme Planning Department with copies of quarterly progress reports in a regular basis. Finally, the aforementioned reports are kept at EPPD without further processing and feed-back to the extension staff in the field.

Flow chart of reporting mechanism:

34

The General Directorate for Policy and Planning (GDPP) often requests for certain information concerning periodic achievements made by the DAD in quarterly and yearly basis. The requested and gathered information is incorporated and compiled in one comprehensive achievements report usually submitted to the Palestinian Cabinet, Ministry of Planning, and the policy-makers in the MOA. In case there is information gaps and some ambiguous, the DAD is often requested for further information and clarifications.

2.7. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E):

In most countries agricultural extension is considered as an important policy tool of agriculture to help farmers and enable them to compete in the world market. However, M&E are not always properly performed. And the major purpose of M&E is to provide the management with information on how efficiently the extension organization is operating.

In the MOA case, the role and mandate of the M&E section which belongs to the GDoERD is not clear and unrighteous to all cadres in the extension services. It is seen as a simple data collection body set up to collect regularly data for the internal uses simply.

As a matter of fact, ineffective performance by M&E section is often the results of not clear mandate, the mixed overlapping functions as monitoring, supervision and collection of statistics. It is heavily involved and associated with the planning function, or writing annual completion reports, and having the M&E unit tied into an inappropriate administrative structure, which does not taking its role as should be.

The ineffective performance is also due to scarce resources, lack of well-trained staff, operational fund, inadequate extension personnel, inadequate training of extension personnel in the methods and skills of M&E and the lack of clear directives from the extension service.

2.8. Financial resources of Extension:

The needs of Agricultural directorates, extension units and agriculture stations, are suggested annually in order to cover the expected operational costs, wages and bounces and other needed costs. Then the budget is discussed and presented to the General Directorate of financial and

35

administrative affairs in the Ministry, to be analyzed taking into consideration the priorities and available means, which are identified by the Ministry of finance.

Then the issue is presented and discussed with the Ministry of Finance, which approves it taking into account the available resources, and allocate credits of the MOA for the current financial year.

In 2010, (87,169,463.87 NIS) or around (87 million NIS) are allocated for the MOA, of which, no budget goes for development of agricultural extension and research programmes. The majority of amount allocated under extension budget line is covering only the following items: salaries and wages, building rental fees, monthly bills, fuel, vehicles insurances & licenses, few amounts for farming inputs, and some petty cash amount not more than (2500NIS) given to the DAD as one or two payments a year. The petty cash often used for covering maintenance works and daily expenses, which is inadequate to cover simple expenses.

2.9. The relationships with other MOA Directorates:

Beside the GDoERD, there are several other services, within and outside the MOA, which implement some agricultural extension activities.

Obviously, the GDoERD occupies the most important role and it uses all methods and available extension instruments to transmit the new technologies, skills, and information to the farmers. It aims at increasing the farmers’ productivity and improving the production (quantitative and qualitatively), as to improve the welfare of peasants and, more generally, the national income.

A weak role is played by NARC, which cooperates with the GDoERD for studying the technical problems of crops, animal wealth, designing suitable extension programs, and implementing the different extension services.

In addition, the General Directorate for soil and water has its own laboratory in certain district and it works to create new agricultural techniques and technologies (soil analysis, new irrigation system, optimizing uses of water resources); it obviously cooperate with the Agricultural directorates and extension staff for transferring their results into practice.

Furthermore, the GDoERD has certain relationships with some other General Directorates in the Ministry such as: General Directorates for Plant Protection and Inspections Services, General Directorate for Veterinary Services, and General Directorate for Land development. Their inter-relationships and cooperation are regulated and guided at all levels by setting in place different joint technical committees so to regulate and organize some cross-cutting issues, of which the following: Pesticides, Licensing, Nurseries, animal diseases control and preventions.

36

2.10. The role of rural women in agricultural Extension:

Groups of rural women are formed on the village level and they cooperate with the MOA female E.O in conducting certain extension programme. The women associations or groups are usually provided with training and extension services in the forms of lectures, visits, training courses, demonstrations, and exhibitions organizations to spread new methods in food industries such as drying, freezing, pickling and manufacturing dairy products as well as some aspects concerning home-gardens cultivations.

The MOA female Extension officers are trying to reach many farmers with limited resources. E.O should design more participatory extension approaches to reach and involve all rural women in all rural areas. Indeed, the extension-oriented to rural women reaching out to approximately 64% of total number of Palestinian villages. Table (2.10) indicates that the MOA female extension officers provide their extension services to a few numbers of rural women associations (385 rural women associations). The Ratio of female extension officer to rural woman is (1) female E.O to (772) rural women (1:772), which is relatively higher than international standards set for the public extension service.

According to the MOA, the main extension methods used are: training sessions, meetings, exhibition and demonstrations. It was estimated that the conducted number of field visit to one rural women association is ranging from (3 to 8 visits a year) which is inadequate level of contacts and assistance.

During field visits, the female E.O provide extension services to rural women on certain topics concerning food processing and home gardens as they considered as main activities of income generation to most subsistence farmers and rural families. Also women farmers suffer from inadequate access to marketing services.

There are very few female E.O in Palestine (27% of the total MOA extension officers). To reach women farmers, more female E.O should be hired, trained and their visits to rural areas be supported. Another problem of extension, besides lack of operational fund and transportation, is the cultural constraints on women. The gender of E.O is an important factor in rural areas. Since women farmers did not feel comfortable around male E.O, they prefer to receive visits and training programmes from female E.O.

Extension programmes and materials should be developed that take into consideration the woman’s talent, educational levels and needs. The illiterate level of rural women is higher than other regions in Palestine so more demonstrations, field days, audio-visual presentations, radio and television programmes should be used more extensively.

37

Furthermore, the extension officers have to schedule the training and extension programme depending on women’s free time to ensure higher participation. Moreover, labour-saving technologies such as single milking machines and house appliances for cooking and cleaning should be offered to rural women by extension services.

38

Tabl

e (2

.10)

- Num

ber

of w

omen

ass

ocia

tions

serv

ed b

y th

e M

OA

Wom

en e

xten

sion

of

ficer

s:

Dis

tric

tTo

tal N

o.

of V

illag

es

No.

of s

erve

d vi

llage

s\

loca

litie

s

Num

ber

of se

rved

w

omen

ass

ocia

tion/

dist

rict

Cov

erag

e Pe

rcen

t (%

)

Aver

age

num

ber

of

mem

bers

\ as

soci

atio

ns

Tota

l nu

mbe

r of

be

nefic

iari

es

Num

ber

of v

isit

per

Year

# of

V

isit

per

Ass

ocia

tion\

ye

arJe

nin

8022

2528

3587

520

08

Tuba

s10

1018

100

3054

012

06

Nab

lus

5230

4058

1560

012

03

Tulk

arem

3525

2571

4010

0014

46

Qal

qilia

3317

2551

2050

072

3

Salfi

t19

1525

7920

500

904

Ram

alla

h73

5480

7420

1600

200

3

Jeri

cho

1210

1884

2036

014

48

Jeru

sale

m45

2922

4820

440

120

5

Bet

hleh

em41

3028

6825

700

150

5

Dor

a36

5522

4020

440

120

5

Heb

ron

8657

5766

3017

1019

03

Sour

ce: T

he E

xten

sion

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Reco

rds-

MO

A, M

ay-2

011

39

2.11. Main contents of the annual extension plan:

At present, extension plan are prepared for all main crops and animal production. It usually elaborated at national level in close cooperation with regional agricultural directorates by the MOA frontline extension officer each in his own field of specializations. The extension plan composed of the following main components:

• Goals• Special objectives • Methods of extensions (i.e. field visits, lecture, demonstrations…)• Schedule of extension activities • Number of target farmers• Number of target dunums• Name of target locations

This plan is usually implemented by the MOA front-line E.O in close collaboration and support of the Agriculture Subject Matter specialists (SMSs). A regular monthly progress reports are requested as to follow-up and supervise the extension plan implementation.

A few general comments on the annual extension plan, its framework and objectives are prepared by top management in the extension HQ and passed down through DAD for further information, discussion and completion. Once the annual extension plan is approved. Next, the DAD begins its implementation. The progress made in the extension plan over the course of the agricultural season will be tracked and supervised through regular monthly and quarterly progress reports.

The overall extension plan’s objectives are usually not harmonized with the national agricultural strategic plan with no special attention made to logical consequences of its objectives, activities and outputs. Additionally, no key performance indicators are set in place for the extension plan outputs and impacts measurement and evaluation.

The extension plan is produced each year. It is reviewed before each agricultural season to ensure that it remains appropriate. Unfortunately, most of extension plan remain the same as the previous season with slightly revision and updating, to the extent that, you find two identical extension plans of two different agricultural seasons? The extension plan contents and format were used since decades with no updating and revision have been made. The DAD does not conduct any review for farmers’ needs and ideas for extension programmes for the coming agricultural season, and for the next annual extension plan. Also, no involvement of farmers in the extension plan preparation

40

process.

2.12. Main Objectives of the Extension Programme:

The most important goals for the Palestinian Agricultural Extension are:

• Expanding agricultural activities in the field of crop and animal production;• Increasing the yield through modern agriculture techniques• Improving the quality of agricultural products;• Assisting the farmers in solving technical problems at farm levels;• Transferring new techniques and training the farmers to use them; • Enhancing the acquired experience of the farmers by providing them with new agricultural

techniques;• Increasing and diversifying the income of the farmer’s family;• Detecting the reactions of farmers towards the new techniques and transferring these reactions

to the agricultural scientific research centers, so as to develop proper techniques, appropriate for farmer’ situation.

2.13. Environmental problems and extension activities:

Agricultural extension activities include the following topics related to environmental protection:

• Biological pest control in order to minimize the use of chemicals;• Reduction of crops wastes burning;• Proper fertilization according to soil analysis;• Proper use of irrigation water• Proper agricultural practices, as to avoid soil erosion;• Reforestation programmes, through planting trees during the annual celebrations of the Tree

Day.

2.14. Extension Methods and Media:

There are several extension methods for collective and individual interaction, which the E.O can choose to achieve the desired goals within the extension programme. The extension methods often selected either by an extension officer or by the extension service management, it depends on the following: number of target population, extension topic, and best way of addressing farmers’ problem. The adopted extension methods and media are illustrated as follows:

41

A) Field and office visits:This entails individual meetings with farmers in their fields or farm to know the agricultural operations applied in the field along with existing technical problems through watching and direct talk. This is an effective method applied daily by the MOA extension officers. Table (2.14.a) provides some information concerning number of field visits conducted by the MOA extension officers between 2008 and 2010.Table (2.14.a)- Aggregated number of field visits conducted over 2008-2010

District 2008 2009 2010Jenin 157 394 594Tubas 340 234 379Nablus 174 280 811Tulkarem 264 129 686Qalqilia 190 90 351Salfit 198 165 131Ramallah 17 10 26Jericho 199 52 374Jerusalem 105 58 147Bethlehem 167 59 673Dora 330 549 722Hebron 255 317 310Grand Total 2396 2337 5204


b) Extension Lectures:One of the collective methods of conveying skills and information to farmers is through planned meeting with specialists of the relevant lecture topic.

In these meetings, PPT and audio visual aids are used to increase the effectiveness of the lecture, which is held at the local authorities’ buildings and farmers associations. Table (2.14.b) provides further information concerning number of lectures conducted by the MOA extension officers between 2008 and 2010.

Table (2.14.b)- Aggregated number of lectures conducted over 2008-2010District 2008 2009 2010

Jenin 10 34 11Tubas 25 10 34Nablus 50 1 26

42

Tulkarem 44 17 38Qalqilia 27 5 20Salfit 89 23 12Ramallah 28 4 9Jericho 35 2 10Jerusalem 11 - 38Bethlehem 20 1 22Dora 47 - 17Hebron 36 1 25Grand Total 422 98 262


c) Field days and demonstrations:It is one of the collective extension devices to convey ideas through watching something that has been made successfully in a normal farm. This method is accompanied by the presence of specialists to show the differences and reasons of production increase, through improved agricultural operations on these fields. Table (2.14.c): Shows number of demonstrations made in the last three years 2008-2011

Table (2.14.c)- Aggregated number of Demonstrations conducted over 2008-2010

District 2008 2009 2010Jenin 0 - 7Tubas 0 - -Nablus 7 - 4Tulkarem 0 - 4Qalqilia 3 - 4Salfit 0 - 1Ramallah 10 - -Jericho 0 - -Jerusalem 1 - 1Bethlehem 0 - 1Dora 3 - 6Hebron 0 - 5Grand Total 24 33


d) Farmer Field School:The farmer field school is a season-long training of farmers involving participatory activities, hands-on activities and decision making. The field school trainer plays the role of a facilitator rather

43

than an instructor. The objective of the field schools is to give farmers an opportunity to learn and achieve greater control over the conditions they face daily in their field. Farmers who participate in field schools learn how to reduce their use of pesticides, enhance their yields and increase incomes.

In Palestine, this method is applied only in five main districts under a regional programme entitled “Regional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programme” funded by the Government of Italy and implemented by FAO in close collaboration with the MOA. The programme is started late 2004 and will last until the end of December 2011. The total number of beneficiaries, in the current agricultural season, is approximately (180) farmers distributed over (12) localities in five districts. It targets different types of crops such as: protected tomato, grapes, almonds, and citrus. The primary objective, as mentioned, is to teach farmer how to optimize the uses pesticides. Each Farmer Field School consists of 15 farmer participants and receives a grant of US$1000 for farming inputs procurement. Table (3.14.d) shows some further information on FFS in the oPt.

Table (3.14.d)- Aggregated number of Farmer Field School conducted over the agricultural season 2010\2011

District No. of FFS Village Names No. of

BeneficiariesNo. of

Facilitator FFS, crops

Jenin 2Deir Abu-Da›ef,

Qabatyia30 1

Application of IPM on Protected

Tomato

Nablus 2An-nassaryia,

Sabastyia30 1 Citrus , Almonds

Tulkarem 2Thennabeh,

Al-Sha’rawyia30 1 Protected Tomato

Qalqilia 2Flanyeh Hableh

30 1 Protected Tomato

Bethlehem 2Al-Khader

Beit Skaryia30 1 Grape

Hebron 2Hebron city,

Halhoul30 1 Grape

Grand Total 12 -- 180 6 --

Source: FAO Programme’s Administration Records-MOA, April-2011

The FFS is recommended to be adopted by the MOA Extension officers as collective and participatory extension methods and as a key tool of improving effectiveness and efficiency of the MOA extension services.

e) Extension PublicationsThey include extension pamphlets, posters, extension messages, agricultural booklets …etc. These publications aim at achieving certain extension goals and transferring technical information to farmers and workers in agriculture, as to add new expertise and modern agricultural styles through

44

written words and photos. The Agricultural Publicity section published and distributed a large number of copies and editions as illustrated in table (3.14.e).Table (3.14.e)- Aggregated number of Brochure prepared and distributed between 2008 and 2010

District 2008 2009 2010Jenin 13 120 30Tubas 1 - -Nablus 3 2 -Tulkarem 13 4 2Qalqilia 25 2 2Salfit 8 3 6Ramallah 3 - -Jericho 7 1 5Jerusalem 9 4 1Bethlehem 1 1 29Dora 11 4 58Hebron 13 - 2Grand Total 107 141 135


f) Television:There has been no regular TV agricultural programme (episodes) being produced and aired despite its importance in reaching a wide range of farmers and interested people. However, and from time to time, some local TV’s broadcast one or a series of episodes concerning some agricultural topics in close collaboration with the MOA.

j) RadioThe radio is considered an important mass media. It reaches a wide range of people, because it depends on easy and clear information conveyed in suitable language. The audience of the radio can listen to the programmes being broadcasted while working or while driving, without any effort to get the information.

Due to these advantages, there are two agricultural programmes being produced and broadcasted as of 2010 and the second half of 2011, as follows:

(i). Mahattat Zira’eyeh “Agricultural Stations”.Sponsored by Radio Voice of Palestine, it releases daily early morning between 6:45 to 7:00 hr, for (15) minutes.

(ii). Al-Majalla Al-Zira’yeh “Agricultural Magazine”, sponsored by Radio Voice of Palestine,

45

it broadcasts every Monday between (17:00) and (17:30hr) and it re-broadcasts every Tuesday between (21:00 hr) and (12:30 hr).

The program takes technical and scientific information from the Mass media department within the MOA. In its turn, it prepares and receives technical materials from all Extension departments and DAD.

1.15. Mobility:

During all interviews with the different extension staff the lack of transportation was singled out as the main cause for the inefficiency of the extensions service in visiting farms. Equipping the services with a number of vehicles is a key and long waiting intervention.

1.16. Building:

The headquarters of the GDOERD exists in the old building headquarter of the MOA in Ramallah; it is in-compliance with good standards in terms of adequate office space, designs, meeting hall, internal networks communications. And the same situation can be found in several district agricultural directorates and some other extension facilities. To perform their duties in a more

efficient way they should be upgraded and provided with adequate and comfortable office space.

1.17. Equipment and Facilities:

Office equipments: The single most important device is the computer, but it is not necessary to provide each extension officer with a computer, because most of their time should be invested in visiting farms and looking for solutions to production problems. However, modern communications and information search capabilities can be greatly facilitated by means of a computer. Consequently, each DAD must be equipped with a minimum of one computer for every two E.O with permanent

and reliable access to internet.

Field instruments and tools: Extension officers will have to be equipped with some office and field equipments needed for providing effective extension services.

46

CHAPTER-3

3-1- MAJOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES PROVIDERS:The MOA and its affiliated extension organizations such as: DAD, agricultural experiment stations, and the extension units as well as the National Agricultural Research Center (NARC), are the major extension and advice providers to Palestinian farmers. The local key NGOs and some private sector firms also play a no significant role in supporting and rendering extension service in Palestine. Finally, universities carry out some research on agriculture but they provide no technology transfer or extension services. Chart (3.1.1) provides concise information concerning the characteristics of Major Providers of Extension Services in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (oPt).

(i). National Agricultural Research Center (NARC):

The National Agricultural research center was found in 1997 to be primarily a research organization, driven more by academic study than by solving production constraints experienced by farmers. Nonetheless, applied NARC research activities have permitted limited amounts of technology transfer through written publications, field days for farmers and on farm trails. Palestinian universities also conduct research in agriculture, but they also have very limited technology transfer or extension activities.

(ii). Non-governmental organizations (NGOs):

Although traditionally extension services in the oPt have generally been provided by the government with minimal involvement of the private sector, recently, some key NGOs and farmer-led initiatives have started to supplement public extension services. However, these services have not been formally integrated into the national extension system, nor has their potential to reduce public expenditure and improve quality of extension services been considered.

It is estimated that currently there are more than five key NGOs involved in various types of agricultural extension programs, either as a major activity in itself, or as part of donor funded project or program.

(iii). Private agribusiness:

The main types of private agribusiness firms are those which distribute and market agricultural inputs such as seeds, agrochemicals, and equipments; those which deal with processing; and those

47

which procure agricultural products especially, cucumber, cash crops. Unlike firms dealing with crop procurement, distributors of agrochemicals and other related inputs have a long tradition of operation in the oPt. Observations reveal that most of these firms tend to concentrate in high potential areas where demand for their products is likely to be highest (see annex-3).

Nearly all private agribusiness maintain a simple and less bureaucratic organization structure with a small cadre of staff. In general, the organizational structure, like that of NGOs, varies very much from one company to another depending on the purpose and size of operations of the enterprise.

It should be emphasized here that nearly all-private agribusiness firms are more concerned with enterprise and profit maximization than the empowerment or personal development of the farmer and his\her family.

(iv). Farmer-led groups:

However, farmer groups face also the following bottlenecks:1. Very limited coverage is due to their small numbers and expertise2. Poor coordination mechanism between groups3. High dependency on external support4. Lack of leadership skills5. Lack of credit facilities6. Low level of education of members7. Conflict of interest among members 8. Sustainability of groups mostly questionable due to the above.

48

Chart- (3.1.1)- Characteristics of Major Providers of Extension Services in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (oPt):

Parameter MOA NGOs Private agribusiness

Others e.g. Farmer groups/associations

1.Coverage National

Selective: operate in specific locations, varying from region to region, even ward, depending on donor funded projects› target areas

Selective: only in areas where there is potential for profitable business

Area specific and very limited

Steeply hierarchical and bureaucratic, wildly dispersed field staff

Less hierarchical and bureaucratic, dependent on government staff for field extension activities as they don›t have adequate field staff

Variable structure, emphasis on small but efficient organizations

Flexible & democratic

Difficult to coordinate with other non-extension services

Amenable to coordination with other non-extension services, but difficult to coordinate with other NGOs doing extension

Coordination possible if it does not add to operational costs

No coordination mechanisms between groups although networking is desirable to enhance coordination.

49

4.Internal cost structure

Large proportion of budget covers personnel costs, no operational fund is allocated for the extension services development, except, some budget allocated from certain donor projects

Aim to ensure a larger proportion of budget goes to field activities, Budget to large extent, depends on Donor-funded projects

Strategy to minimize costs for extension activities, costs recovered from sales of inputs or agricultural products and services

Limited coordination available for communal work

5.Training & capacity building

Emphasis placed on staff training, less emphasis on capacity building for farmers to make them less dependent on government

Attention paid to short-term staff training, capacity building of farmers in an explicit objective, through organizational empowerments and technical interventions

Mostly short-term in-house training for very specific messages, not much attention to capacity building of farmers

Mostly dependent on external donor agencies

6.Ownership &

Non-ownership by farmers in perception and reality, as staff are accountable to government not to farmers

In successful cases, increased ownership perception by farmer where farmers are organized into groups or associations, increased staff accountability to such groups or organizations

Ownership and accountability is strictly with the organization

Limited to group members, accountability issues not adequately addressed

7. Financial &

Maintaining acceptable levels of funding difficult, No operational fund is allocated for the extension programme, the PNA including the MOA reply heavily on Donors financial supports as to ensure at least paying extension personnel salaries

Most NGOs dependent on, and unsustainable without donors. Also dependent on the building of strong grassroots/ farmers organizations

Everything dependent on profitability of operations, and benefits outweighing costs.

Not sustainable at start-up

50

8. Strengths

National coverage, guaranteed minimum level of funding and staff resources, suitable for addressing common issues of national interest, e.g. environmental conservation and for implementing government policies, concerned with all the enterprises of the farmer «whole farm approach»

Integrative extension with other related services depending on donor funded project, e.g. credit, inputs, and water, concerned with organizational empowerment of farmers (specifically target women, youth, the poor), higher level of organizational and operational flexibility to respond to varying needs of target groups; easier to institute innovative measures like cost-sharing; capable of complementing government in poor and marginal target groups, e.g. youth, women and remote communities; tendency to cover a specific area intensively with visible impact.

Profit motive spurring efficiency and cost-effectiveness; indirect, cost recovery for extension services, complementary to government for commercial-oriented farmers; focus on a particular area and enterprise with visible results.

Better atmosphere for introduction and evaluation of «new» technical information, capable of a multiplier effect through farmer motivators; enhanced sharing of information and experiences and the group support spur better and more informed decisions. More appreciation of small farmers› problems and views; capability to increase or maintain the level and quality of contact with farmers and improve the effectiveness of farm visits with members. Capability to reduce the cost of inputs and\or to organize the marketing of their produce and to grow into a pressure

9. Weakness

Tendency to treat all farmers as a homogenous group, resources too thinly spread out due to extensive coverage, creativity and innovativeness of the staff stifled by national MT&V approach, inability of staff to link and collaborate with other providers, being always subject to influence by donor countries but not able to influence them, not participatory

Lack of financial and material resources as well as adequate qualified extension staff; reluctance to collaborate due to territoriality, too much variation in nature, objectives and means of NGOs. Too selective in their involvement, short-term span.

Concern more with enterprise than the personal development of the farmer, selective involvement, (cost-effective or profitable), reluctant to be drawn into collaborative efforts; requiring very strong linkages in the provision of services, e.g. inputs, advice, marketing and processing to recover costs.

Failure to establish definite purpose or objectives due to failure to identify real needs; conflict of interest; low level of managerial and group leadership skills, misuse of funds.

51

Chapter4

4. Opinion of the Director of District Agricultural Directorates:

4.1. Material and methods:

In order to improve knowledge about the present situation in oPt, it was decided to interview a sample of Directors of Agricultural Directorates or their deputies as the latter consider the main point of contacts regarding extension services in the districts. They represent a very important part of the administration and they have close contact with the farmers and with local experimental stations.

Twelve (12) directors of agricultural directorates were selected and interviewed. They represent all the Directors of Agricultural Directorates in all WB districts and this amount attributes high meaningfulness to the results of the survey.

The interviews took place during months of April 2011 and were made personally by the team of this study, using a structured questionnaire, elaborated in March. The Questionnaire (see annex 4-1) contains 20 questions that cover different aspects of the Extension Service Organization, the relationship with experimental stations and with the farmers and the suggestions for improvements.

The collected data were transferred into a database and then processed with the computer application SPSS, in order to elaborate the required tables.

Several questions were cross-analyzed, in order to verify the behavior of different strata of the interviewees, while for other variables a system of scoring and weighted averages has been elaborated, in order to allow prioritization of some variables.

4.2. Characteristics of the respondents:

The respondents have various levels of experience in their position (table 4.2a): on one side, we find around two third (58.3%) with less than 7 years experience, while on the other side there are (5) directors, equivalent to (42%), with medium experience between 8 to 14 years and no director of long years of experience in their positions,14 years and above.

52

Table- (4.2a)- Years of experience

Years No. %<7 7 58.3%8-14 5 41.7%>14 0 0%Total 12 100%

This group of persons shows a job satisfaction (table 4.2b) relatively good, because the elaboration of the weighted average gave a final result of 76% but there is only one staff who is very unsatisfied. About one quarter has a medium level of job satisfaction, counterbalanced by a good number who declare to be happy or very happy in the current position.

Table-(4.2b): Job satisfactionOpinion No. Weighted average (%)

1= very low 1

76%

2 03 04 05 16 17 18 39 210= very satisfied 3Total 12 100%

Job satisfaction is related with experience (Table 4.2c), because it grows with the number of years in such position. It must be noted, anyhow, that younger staff members show a higher level of satisfaction, while the staff of medium level of experiences also show reasonable level of satisfaction, which is in one way or another is good for the coming years and such attitude should be maintained for a better level of job performance.

53

Table (4-2c). Relationship between experience and job satisfaction

Experience (classes) Job satisfaction (score)

Low experience ( < 7) 80%

Medium experience (8-14) 67%

High experience (>14) 0

4.3. Management of Extension Services:

58.3% of the interviewees organized up to 50 visits to farmers per year and 8.3% organized visits between 51 and 100, and the remaining respondents organized more than 250 visits to farmers. This extreme variability might be due to the different number of E.O in the surveyed district directorates, or to different farming system, or to different strategies to approach the farmers. More in-depth study is needed in order to better know this particular aspect.

Table (4.3a) Visits to farmersVisits this year No. %Up to 50 7 58.3%51-100 1 8.3%101-250 0 0More than 250 3 25%Missing 1 8.3%Total 12 100%

66.7% of the interviewees organized up to 50 seminars for farmers; table (4.3b), whereas zero% declares to have organized more than 50 seminars for farmers. Also here we see a wide distance between those who made small number of seminars and those who made zero seminars. Again, more in-depth study is needed in order to better know this particular aspect. But, most probably the scarce of operation fund allocated for the extension services is the main determinant factors and reasons.

54

Table (4.3b)- Seminars (lecture) for farmersSeminars (No.) No. %

Up to 50 8 66.7%51-100 0 0101-150 0 0Missing 4 33.3%Total 12 100%

As a matter of fact, 50% of the respondents declare that the best way to reach the farmers in an effective way is represented by the field day, (table 4.3c), and individual visit (33.3%), followed at distance by group methods like meetings and training courses. Courses for farmers, which are a common activity in the countryside, receive a very low appreciation.

Table (4.3c) Preferred extension methods

Method No. %

Individual visit to the farmers 4 33.3%

Meeting 1 8.3%

Field day 6 50%

Demonstration 0 0

Training course 1 8.3%

Total 12 100%

The directors of agricultural directorates think that farmers like the mass media communication realized by the extension service. According to the interviewees, the weighted average for radio programme is 0.45 against 0.51 of TV programmes.

Table (4.3d)- Directors of agricultural directorates’ opinion of Radio programsAnswers of the Directors No. Weighted Average (%)

1= farmers do not like it at all 2

45%

2 13 14 15 36 17 28 19 010= farmers like it very much 0Total 12

55

As we have seen in chapter (1), Radio programmes for farmers have been used slightly in recent years and this study confirms the validity and importance of this extension methods.

Table (4.3e)- Directors of Extension Opinion of TV programs

Answers of the Directors No. Weighted Average

1= farmers do not like it at all 3

51%

2 0

3 1

4 0

5 2

6 1

7 3

8 1

9 0

10= farmers like it very much 1

Total 12

4.4. Relation with agriculture experimental stations:

The efficiency of agricultural extension, as far as technology transfer is concerned, depends very much on the quality of the applied research & experiments results. Without good, adapted and economically viable innovations, the E.O cannot propose anything to farmers.

Unfortunately, the efficiency of research is not so good, according to the opinion of the Directors of agricultural directorates, because the respondents who say the efficiency of research is very good are less than a third of interviewees.

56

Table (4.4a)- Opinion about experiment stations (N=9)Efficiency of experiment/research No. %

1= very good 2

57%

2 0

3 0

4 2

5 1

6 1

7 0

8 0

9 0

10= very poor 3

Total 9

As a matter of fact, the weighted average of the sample is 57%, including that something should be improved, in order to make the experimental stations work more effective. (table 4.4a).

The relationship between farmers and experimental stations is considered to be very poor, according to the Directors, because the results, (table4.4b) show that only (11%) of the respondents confirm that many farmers go to agriculture experimental stations, while few farmers (22.2%) go to experimental stations for recommendations and most farmers (44.4%) do not go there at all, and the remaining directors did not give their opinions.

Table (4.4b) Relationship between farmers and experimental stations (N=9)Opinion of Directors No. %

Many farmers go there 1 11.1

Few farmers go there 2 22.2

Farmers do not go to experimental stations 4 44.4

I do not know 2 22.2

Total 9 100%

According to the directors, most farmers do not go to experimental stations for different reasons. For example, according to (table 4.4c), about two third (60%) of respondents say that farmers do not go to experimental stations because they have a low level of education; even worse, about 20% of the respondents affirm that farmers do not go to experimental stations, because the research\demonstration is not relevant to their problems. Also, 20% of the respondents state that farmers do not go to experimental station because the researchers do not like to speak with farmers. Again, it is strange that more than half of our respondents, around (7), cannot give their opinion. As a general conclusion, most of the interviewees say that the relationship with experimental

57

stations is very poor (table 4.4d), which can be shown if you referred to the weighted average score of the total group which is only (47%) of respondents.

Table (4.4c) Why farmers do not go to experimental stations? (N=5)Opinion of directors No. %

Because farmers have a low level of education 3 60%

Because researchers do not like to speak with farmers 1 20%

Because the research is not relevant to their problems 1 20%

I do not know 0 0Note: (7) directors out of (12) did not answer this question

Table (4.4d) Opinion about experimental stations (N=9)Quality of relationship No. Weighted average (%)1= very poor 3

46.6%

2 0

3 0

4 2

5 1

6 1

7 0

8 0

9 0

10= very good 2

This situation needs to change, because a proper relationship between extension service and experimental stations, based on institutional and human links, is a vital condition for efficient work. At presents, it is not possible to know, which side is responsible for this poor quality of the relationships between extension and research, but action should be taken to overcome this situation.

58

4.5. Suggestions for improvements

Fortunately, it seems that most farmers continue to think that extension staff is supplying a good advice. The directors affirm that most farmers appreciate their work, with an overall weighted average that goes up to 71% (table 4.5a).

On other hand, there are margins for improvement, because some respondents are aware that not all farmers are satisfied and also within those who give positive answers there are several respondents who admit results below the optimal level of 10.Table (4.5a)- Opinion about farmers judgment (N=12)Opinion No. Weighted average (%)1= farmers do not appreciate our work 0

71%

2 03 04 05 16 37 38 49 110=Farmers appreciate our work very much 0

In order to achieve such better service for rural people, most of the interviewees ask for the following key needs:

Adequate operational fund (70%), more extension tools (70%), more supportive facilities (68%), better transportation means (68%), more effective extension units (60%), more extension personnel (57%), good reporting (54%), good monitoring and evaluation (51%), better relationships with farmers (50%), experimental stations should make more useful demonstrations and applied research (41%), more equipment (computer, telephone, ) (39%), extension officers must give their attention to extension service only (36%), more international relationships (26%).

The aforementioned suggestions are important for improving extension performance. For further information please refer to table (2.5b) in the subsequent page.

59

Table (2.5b)- Suggestions of extension staff to improve performance

Suggestions Top Priority=1 Lowest Priority= 10

Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

More operational funds 4 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 70%

More extension tools 1 3 1 4 1 0 0 1 1 0 70%

More supportive facilities (i.e., lab, .). 1 2 2 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 68%

Better transportation 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 68%

More effective extension units 1 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 1 0 60%

We need more extension officers 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 57%

Good reporting system 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 54%

Good monitoring and evaluation system

2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 51%

More relationships with the farmers 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 50%

Experimental stations should make more useful demonstrations and applied research

0 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 2 41%

More equipment (computer, telephone, )

0 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 39%

Extension officers must give their attention to extension service only

0 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 3 1 36%

More international relationships 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 26%

60

CHAPTER-5

5. Opinion of the Agriculture Experimental Stations

Agricultural extension cannot work properly without a good level of agricultural research and experiment, as it was described in Chapter (1). On the other hand, agriculture experiment and research needs a good agricultural extension services to spread the results of its investigations and to be informed about farmers’ needs and problems.

Of greatest relevance is therefore the relationship, at institutional level and at human level, between agriculture service and the research service. In the oPt case, as seen in Chapter (3), the agriculture experimental stations are affiliated to the GDoERD, within the MOA and consequently the institutional relationship with extension services should be very good. NARC belongs to other structure under the MOA umbrella, and the institutional relationship should theoretically be good.

In order to improve the quality and the coordination of applied research in agriculture, a three-year project funded by JICA, has been recently accomplished in Jordan River Rift Valley area. Its primary objectives were to propose adequate measure in order to improve the performance of the system linkage between extension and research.

5.1. Material and methods:

Still, in order to know the opinion of the Directors of Agriculture experimental stations in the oPt, a group of (4) Directors of different agriculture experimental stations in all concerned districts have been interviewed (table 5.1a). The Four agriculture experimental stations are the following:

• Beit Qad – Field crops • Tulkarem - Protected vegetables• Jericho - Protected vegetables and different date palm species• Al Aroub Agriculture Experimental Station – different fruit trees species

The persons interviewed in concerned districts are shown in table (5.1a): where all the agriculture experimental stations were investigated and covered. The outcomes are equally interesting, because they express the situation and the feelings of all Directors of agriculture experimental stations as a small and a representative group of conscious and well-informed people.

61

Table (5.1a)- Distribution of interviewed personsAgriculture E. Station Districts No. %

Beit-Qad Jenin 1 25%

Khadoury Tulkarem 1 25%

Jericho Jericho 1 25%

Al-Aroub Hebron 1 25%Total 5 100

All interviews took place during the months of March and April 2011 and were conducted personally by the team of this study, using a structured questionnaire, elaborated in March. The questionnaire (see annex 4-2) contains 17 questions that can be grouped as follows:

(1). Personal characteristics(2). Size and production of experiment station(3). Internal and external coordination (experiment)(4). Relationship with farmers(5). Relationship with and opinion about extension service

The last group of question, namely question no. (22): asked the Directors to propose suggestions about improvements to be introduced for experiment stations and extension service.

5.2. Personal characteristics

The years of experience of directors of agriculture experimental stations is as follows: one respondent has between 6 and 10 years of experience, and only one person has more than 10 years of experience. This means that almost half of the respondents have less than five years of experience in this position (table 5.2b)

Table (5.2b)- Years of experience Years No. %

Up to 5 2 50

6-10 1 25

>10 1 25

Total 4 100

Most agriculture experimental stations have an agricultural engineering degree (50%) (table 5-3c), two persons have a Master degree (50%) and no a Ph.D. degree.

62

Table (5-3c)- Educational LevelTitle No. %

Agricultural Engineer 2 50%

Master degree 2 50%

Ph.D. degree 0 0%

Total 4 100%

Most respondents think that farmers appreciate their work, where the score they give to this opinion is relatively good: altogether, they recognize a global level of appreciation of (60%), (table 5-4d). As a matter of fact, beside some directors who express a good optimism, there is also one who admits that peasants do not recognize their work very much.

Table (5-4d)- Opinion about farmers’ judgmentOpinion No. %

1= Farmers do not appreciate our work 0

60%

2 0

3 0

4 1

5 0

6 1

7 2

8 0

9 0

10= Farmers appreciate our work very much 0

Anyhow, interviews declare a job satisfaction (table 5-5e) level quite positive: 75%, with only one respondent that declare a medium level of satisfaction.

Table (5-5e)- Job satisfactionOpinion No. %

1= not at all 0

75%

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 1

7 0

8 3

9 0

10= very satisfied 0

63

Experience does not appear to be linked with job satisfaction, since respondents of the different categories (table 5-6f), express to some extent similar levels.

Table (5-6f)- Relationship between experience and job satisfactionExperience Score

Low experience (up to five years) 0.92

Medium (from six to ten years) 0.82

High experience (more than ten years) 0.0

Total 0.87

5.3. Size and Production of Experiment stations:

The size of most experiment stations is small (Table 5-7j), because the number of extension officers (researchers) at work is below five persons in 75% of the cases and only in one case we have more than 5 extension officers.

Table (5-7j): Researchers (extension officers) at the stations Size (no.) No. %

<5 3 75%5-10 1 25%11-15 0 0>15 0 0Total 4 100%

A general complaint is about available resources, in terms of money and personnel: this group of experiment directors declares a low level of fulfillment that is only 37.5%, as an overall average weighted score (table 5.8k). As a matter of fact, this is a common situation that characterizes all categories exist in Palestine (small and medium size), with a clear distinction between both of them (table 5.9l).

Table (5-8k): Available resources Answers No. %

1= We do not have enough 0

37.5%

2 03 34 05 06 17 08 09 010= We have enough resources 0Total 4

64

Table (5-9l): Size and resources Stations› size No. Level of resources

Small (below 5 extension officer) 3 0.75Medium (5-10) 1 0.25Large (11-30) 0 0Very large (more than 30) 0 0Total 4 100

Coordination with experiment stations belonging to other directorates is little and it needs more development because these (stations) are specialized in one field of agricultural research only and most of their experiments are carried out on one distinct sub-sector area (table 5.10m). Furthermore, lack of strong guidance and supervision by the top management of the extension service.

Table (5-10m): Coordination with Experiment stations out of the DirectorateAnswers No. %

1= coordination is very weak 1

45%

2 03 04 15 06 17 18 09 010= coordination is very good 0

During the year 2010, demonstration work has been very limited (Table 5-11n), but obviously the number of activities depends very much on available financial resources and on the size of the experimental station. Table (5-11n) proposes an elaboration of the researchers’ productivity: as average each staff has made less than (0.5) demonstration per agricultural season in all sizes of experiment stations.

Table (5-11n): Researches “demonstrations” made in year 2010Number of demonstrations No. %

None 2 50%Up to 3 2 50%3-5 0 0More than 5 0 0Total 4 100%

65

Another, taking into account the different scientific requirements of the different scientific fields, this type of analysis is not meaningful by itself, but it must be enriched with a deeper study and further investigation.

About future research or demonstrations, once again we find that some agriculture experimental stations are planning to conduct up to 10 demonstrations each, (table 5-11o). This can be done if an adequate budget for demonstrations or researches are available, also in most cases, they are unable to secure an adequate financial resource in proper time.

Table (5-11o)- Investigations planned for 2012Number of Investigations No. %None 0 0Up to 10 4 100%11-15 0 051-100 0 0More than 100 0 0

In 25% of cases, the decisions about research\demonstration activities are taken at the Ministry (Table 5.11p) and Directors only execute demonstrations programs decided in Ramallah (extension HQ), but a small number of respondents (25%) also declare a good level of autonomy. Only in one case (50%) the interviewees said that they were waiting for “suggestions from the farmers”

Table (5-11p)- Decision about future demonstrations\ researchesAnswers No. %I wait for the decision from the Ministry 1 25%I wait for the suggestions from the farmers 2 50%I decide by myself, because I know the needs of the farmers 1 25%Total 4 100%

Autonomy seems not to grow with experience as illustrated in (table 5-11q).

Table (5-11q)- Relationship between experience and autonomy

Experience (Years)Decision making (%)

From above With farmers By myselfUp to 5 0 1 16-10 0 1 0>10 1 0 0Total 1 2 1

66

5.4. Relationship with E.O and with Farmers:

There is no much direct relation between agricultural experimental stations and the extension service (Table 5-11r), with weighted average score being 67.5%. According to our respondents, in one case (25% of observations), there is weak contact between the experiment stations and the E.O at work in the area, with all other respondents in better position. In the three remaining cases (75%) the Directors declare to work very much in order to transfer scientific results to E.O, with different levels of transmission. The weighted average of results transmissions is about 67.5%.

Table (5-11r): Transmission of results to Extension officersAnswers No. Weight score

1= we do not transfer at all 0

67.5%

2 03 04 05 16 07 28 19 010= Yes, we transfer very much 0Total 4

As a matter of fact, the communication from extension to research seems to be even worse (Table 5-11s), because (25%) of respondents declare that they do not receive any suggestions, or very few, from the local E.O. Only in a few cases, local Extension officers seem to be to build a two ways communication channel. The average weighted score is 55%, which is considered a low level of communication.

Table (5-11s): Suggestions for research (demo.) from local E.O Answers No. Weight Score

1= we do not receive any suggestions 1

55%

2 03 04 05 16 17 08 09 010= Yes, we receive many 1Total 4

67

This lack of communication is evident also from the next table (5-11t), with most of the respondents (100%) affirming that they have no communication at all with the local extension service.

Table (5-11t): Motivation of poor communication with extension (n=1) Answers No. %

I do not need any suggestions 0 0We do not have good communication 1 100%Farmers of this area do not have problems 0 0Total 100 100%Missing 3 0

This group of experimental station directors was also interviewed about the relationships between farmers and extension officers (Table 5-11u). Their response is quite clear: the majority (75%) of the extension officers have a good and very good relationship with farmers.

Table (5-11u): Motivation of poor communication with extension (n=4) Opinion of Stations directors No. %

Very good 1 25%Good 3 75%Poor 0 0Very Poor 0 0Total 4 100%

Clearly, these are opinions expressed by the Directors of all experimental stations, acting as third party, sometimes biased or likely to be biased; they reveal to be a good situation.

The responses of stations directors, with respect to the relation with farmers and their estimation of the demonstrations results, reveal (Table 5-11w) that in many cases only few farmers (between 10 an 50) have visited the experimental stations, 25% confirmed that farmers (between 50 and 100) have visited the experimental stations and 25% receive no visitors.

Tables (5-11w)- Famers looking for advice at Research stationTentative number No. %

None 1 25%Less than 10 0 0Between 10 and 50 2 50%From 50 to 100 1 25%More than 100 0 0Total 4 100%

68

5-5. Suggestions for improvements:

Finally, the suggestions for development of agriculture experimental stations are illustrated in table (5-11a), the directors of agriculture experimental stations were recommended the following suggestions for improvements, where the highest average scores were, respectively, as follows: (97.5%) more operational funds, (80%) more equipment, (70%) more researchers and demonstrations, (62.5%) better coordination with extension service, (57.5%) more extension officers/ researchers, (57.5%) more autonomy in deciding research themes, (52.5%) more relationship with the farmers, (42.5%) more international relationships, other (20%)

Table (5.11a)- Suggestions to improve performance of experimental stations

SuggestionsHighest Priority=1 Lowest Priority=10

Score1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

More funds 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 97.5More equipment 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 80More researches and demonstrations

0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 70

Better coordination with extension service

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 62.5

We need more extension officers

1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 57.5

More autonomy in deciding the research and demonstrations themes

0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 57.5

More relationships with the farmers

0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 52.5

More international relationships

0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 42.5

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 20

As a matter of fact, most interviewees expressed other key needs such as: information and access to modern databank and subscription to a specialized international journal as to get updated information and reliable source of internet as a tool for communications and exchanging information with other scientific and concerned parties.

69

CHAPTER- 6.

6. Famers’ perception about the Agricultural Extension Services and Extension officers:

6.1. Materials and Methods:

In order to know the opinion of the farmers about agricultural extension and research in oPt, a group of 304 farmers in twelve districts have been interviewed. They have been selected randomly, from the lists available at the agricultural directorates, or simply met on their farms. Great care has been put in the effort to cover a wide area in each district and to select farmers living at various distances from the agricultural directorate and unit.

The farmers interviewed in each district are shown in table (6.1): the smallest percentage of interviewees was in Bethlehem (5.3%) and the highest in Jenin, Tulkarem, and Jericho, (9.9%).

Table 6.1- Distribution of Interviewed farmers

DistrictInterviewed Farmers

Frequency %Jenin 30 9.9Tubas 25 8.2Nablus 24 7.9Tulkarem 30 9.9Qalqilia 25 8.2Salfit 25 8.2Ramallah 25 8.2Jerusalem 25 8.2Jericho 30 9.9Bethlehem 16 5.3Dora 25 8.2Hebron 24 7.9Total 304 100%

All interviews took place during the months of March and April 2011 and were made personally by the team of this study, using a structured questionnaire, elaborated in March. The Questionnaire (see attach 4-3) contains 22 questions, all closed, that can be grouped as follows:Question 1-8: description of farmQuestion 9-19: relationship with extension service

70

Question 20-21: relationship with experiment stationsQuestion 22: invited the farmers to propose suggestions about improvements to be introduced in research and extension services.

The collected data were transferred into a database and then processed with the statistical computer application SPSS, in order to elaborate the required tables.

6.2. Characteristics of the respondents:

The distribution of the interviewed farmers reflects, to some extent, the average size of the Palestinian farms (PCBS 2004): 52% are below 15 dunums (1.5 hectares), 19.7% of the respondents have cultivated lands between (16 and 30 du), 25% of farm size of (31-60 du). Only a few people have farms relatively big (table 6.2a).

Table (6.2a)- Cultivated land (dunum)Size No. %1-15 158 52%16-30 60 19.7%31-60 76 25%61-120 6 2%More than 120 4 1.3%Total 304 100%

Most farmer (70.7%) are full owners, 18.8% are partial property “part under lease” of their holding, (table 6.2b), while only 5.6% cultivated land that is totally leased and the remaining minority (4.9%) are cultivated their lands in different forms.

Table (6.2b)- TenancyType Frequency Percent (%)Total Property 215 70.7%Partial Property, part under lease 57 18.8%Total lease 17 5.6%Other 15 4.9%Total 304 100%

71

The dimension of the labor force (table 6.2c) shows that most farmers (63%) run small scale operations, with less than five people per farm, 25.3% employ between 6 to 10 people, 5.9% employ between 11 and 15 people, and only 5.3% of the interviewed farmers employ more than 15 persons.

Table (6.2c)- Labor forceSize of labour force Frequency Percent (%)Up to 5 people 192 63%6-10 77 25.3%11-15 18 5.9%16-30 16 5.3%Over 30 1 0.3%Total 304 100%

This group of farmers has different levels of education (table 6.2d), since (16.8%) declare only a few years of schooling up to 5 years, whereas (42.2%) has between 6 and 10 years, and (35.2%) of farmers also have between 11 and 15 years of education, and non of interviewed farmers have more than 15 years of education. those respondents have therefore a reasonable educational level that would assist dealing with extension publications and adopting new technologies.

Table (6.2d)- Educational level of respondentsYears of schooling Frequency Percent (%)Up to 5 years 51 16.8%6-10 129 42.4%11-15 107 35.2%Over 15 0 0Missing system 17 5.6%Total 304 100

The income of their agricultural activity (table 6.2e) has evolved positively, according to 32.2% of the respondents, whereas a higher percentage (39.9%) affirms that its income has worsened. A minority of respondents 28% believe that their income is more or less the same as ten years ago.

Table (6-2e)- Evolution of farm incomeOpinion of farmers Frequency Percent (%)Today is better than ten years ago 98 32.2%Like ten years ago 85 28.0%Worse than ten years ago 121 39.9%Total 304 100%

Relationships between size of the farm and income evolution, (table 6.2f), shows that (10) of large farmers believe that their income has decreased, (3) of large farmers believe that their income remained the same, while (1) of them affirm that their income has increased.

72

On the other side, (78) of small famers answer that their income has remained constant, (94) believe that their income has decreased, while (82) affirm that their income has increased, and the rest of the respondents are divided into different groups of diverging opinions, as shown in the tables below..

Table (6.2f)- Relationships between size and opinion about income (N=304)

Size of farmsOpinion about income evolution

Increased The same Decreased TotalSmall (50 dunum) 82 78 94 254Medium (51-100 d) 15 4 17 36Big (> 100 dunum) 1 3 10 14Total sample 98 85 121 304

Still, most (62.8%) interviewed farmers think to have an income similar to the majority of the farmers in their area (Table 6.2j), while only a minority (24%) affirms to be in a better position and (13.2%) of our respondents feels to have an income which is lower than the average (like other farmers’ income).

Table (6-2j)- Level of farm income, compared with other farmers

Opinion of farmers Frequency Percent (%)

My agriculture income is higher than other farmers 73 24%

My agriculture income is like other farmers 191 62.8%%

My agriculture income is lower than other farmers 40 13.2

Total 304 100%

As a matter of fact, most farmers (60.5%) believe to have the same yields like people in surrounding holdings (table 6.2k), while the other ones split into two groups with diverging opinions.

Table (6-2k)- Level of yields, compared with other farmers

Opinion of farmers Percent (%)

My yields are higher than other farmers 74 24.3%

My yields are like other farmers 184 60.5%

My yields are lower than other farmers 46 15.1%

Total 304 100%

73

6.3. Extension Methods:

The most common method of advice in Palestine is the individual visit of the extension officer to the farmer. This is confirmed by our respondents, few (18.7%) of who affirm to have been visited quite recently (between 1 week and 1 month), (table 6.3a). On other hand, about (40.2%) of the farmers complain that they were visited long time ago (3 and 6 months), 16.1% more than six months ago and around (22.4%) were not visited at all. This is a good indication that the frequent contacts with farmers are inadequate as well as the MOA extension service is unable to cover the whole rural areas in the oPt.

Table (6.3a)- Last visit of extension officerTiming Frequency Percent (%)Last week 14 4.6%Last month 43 14.1%Three months ago 61 20.1Six months ago 61 20.1More than six months ago 49 16.1%Not visited 68 22.4%I do not remember 8 2.6Total 304 100%

Cross-checking this answer with the size of farm and with the number of farm visits (table 6.3b), let us confirm that small and medium farmers received equally the same ratio of field visits during the week before the interview, whereas a lower percentage of big size owners had receive the extension officer’s visit during the previous week.

Anyhow, the continuous presence of E.O is quite evident, if we consider that almost (43\304) equivalent (14%) of farmers in all categories had been visited during the previous month.

Table (6.3b)-Relationship between size and farm visits (N=57)

TimingVisits

Last week Last monthSmall (20 dunum) 6 15Medium (21-49 dunums) 5 12Big (> 50 dunum) 3 16Total 14 43

The relationship between many farmers and the local E.O is proved also by the next answer (table 6.3c), with 6.6% of interviewees who have visited the Agricultural directorates during the week before the interview and 12.2% who visited it in the last month and approximately (33.2%) of farmers have not gone to any agricultural directorates.

74

Table (6.3c)- Last visit to the office of the DADTiming No. %Last week 20 6.6%Last month 37 12.2%Three months ago 44 14.5%Six months ago 53 17.4%More than six months ago 41 13.5%Not visited 101 33.2I do not remember 8 2.6Total 304 100%

As we have seen before, table (6.3b), shows clearly that small size owners are those with the closest relationship with the extension service.

(8\304) of them had paid a visit to the E.O the week before the interview, against (3\304) of the small farmers and (9\304) of the bigger farmers. Anyhow, (12\304) of the bigger farmer declared to have gone to the agriculture office the previous month.

These results are to some extent low because they didn’t show a good relationship between E.O and farmers, only 33% of farmers had not visited any agricultural directorate and around 3% did not remember last visit.

Table (6.3c)-Relationship between size and visits to extension directorateTiming Visits

Last week Last monthSmall (20 dunum) 8 14Medium (21-49 dunums) 3 11Big (> 50 dunum) 9 12

Another very common method is the field day, when farmers can meet on the fields of the best farmers, in order to get informed on the results of improved technologies. This type of event is appreciated by (61%) of the farmers (table 6.3d), whereas approximately one third (30%) of the responding farmers do not like the field days, with small proportion of farmers (9.2%) did not go.

Table (6.3d)- Opinion about field daysFarmers› opinion Frequency Percent (%)I like them 185 60.9%I don›t liked them 91 29.9%I did not go 28 9.2%Total 304 100%

The majority of the farmers also use to attend the meetings organized at village level by the extension officer, for spreading information about technical issues or economic problems. Many of

75

these events are organized together with the Farmers’ groups or with the cooperatives and they allow sharing opinions with technicians and other farmers too.

Meetings are appreciated and considered useful by 35.5% of respondents, whereas only 23.7% found the participation useless (table 6.3e). Yet, more than one third does not participate, for a variety of motivations and this gives room for improvement, and (7.6%) of the respondents did not go, because they do not need any information.

Table (6-3e)- Participation and opinion about extension meetingsFarmers› opinion Percent (%)I attended and it was useful 108 35.5%I attended, but it was not useful 72 23.7%I did not go, because I had other things to do 101 33.2%I did not go, because I do not need any information 23 7.6%Total 304 100%

Contacting the farmers, with proper timing, about a forthcoming group event, can be a difficult task, especially in the remote, seam zones and closed areas, but it seems that the extension units established by the MOA works quite well.

Almost (18.1%) of the group of our farmers was contacted directly by the extension officer himself (table 6.3f), supported by written communication (43.1%) and by farmers themselves spreading the new of a next meeting (17%).

Table (6-3f)- Information about extension meetingsFarmers› opinion Percent (%)By a friend 52 17.1%By an extension officer 55 18.1%With a letter 131 43.1%Other 66 21.7%Total 304 100

6.4.General comments:

In general terms, farmers believe that E.O can answer to most of their questions. Table (6.4a) shows that 48.4% of the farmers with a low-level education and 59% of those with medium level education believe so. While 65.6% of the respondents with a high level of education ensure that they prefer the extension officer’s help to other kind of help.

76

Table (6.4a)- Relationship between educational level and opinion about E.O

SuggestionsOpinion (1= very poor; 10= very good) Final

Score1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Low level of education (up to 5 years)

11 5 2 5 4 5 3 7 7 0 48.4

Intermediate level (form 5 to 10 years)

23 7 1 5 8 17 9 25 18 10 59.1

High level of education (more than 10 years)

15 2 2 2 9 9 13 28 18 10 65.6

Total 49 14 5 12 21 31 25 60 43 20 59.7

The information method most appreciated by the framers is obviously the visit of the extension officer (53.6%) to their farm (table 6.4b), followed at long distance by the field day (17.7%), group meetings (13.8%), visits to the extension office (9.9%), and the training course (4.9%) which receives the lowest score.

Table (6.4b)- Preferred relationship with extension officerMethod No. %Visits of the extension officer\ 163 53.6

Visit to extension worker›s office 30 9.9

Group meetings 42 13.8

Field days 54 17.7

Training course 15 4.9

Total 304 100.0

In most cases, farmers are to some extent satisfied with the suggestions provided by the E.O. The relationship between educational level and satisfaction of the extension officer’s job table (6.4c) indicates that the degree of satisfaction is poorly good, with the same ratio for the three levels of the respondents, accounting to 58%.

Table (6.4c)- Relationship between educational level and satisfaction

SuggestionsOpinion (1= very poor; 10= very good) Final

Score1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Low level of education (up to 5 years)

13 0 2 2 4 8 6 8 7 0 52.8%

Intermediate level (from 5 to 10 years)

24 5 2 5 11 15 16 20 21 5 57.7%

High level of education (more than 10 years)

13 1 5 5 12 19 19 14 15 7 61.2%

Total 50 6 9 12 27 42 41 42 43 12 58.2%

Finally, in case of problems, 42.8% of farmers go to the extension officer for support, with a minority (13.5%) who refers to a friend and very few going to members of the family or to the owner of the agricultural store (table 6.4d).

77

Table (6.4d)- Information in case of problemsFarmers answer No. %A farmer friend, who knows more than me 41 13.5%The extension area of this area, who is very good 130 42.8%A member of my family, who knows more than me 47 15.5%The owner of the agricultural store, who is well informed 86 28.3%Total 304 100%

There is a clear indication that educational level also affects the farmer’s behavior. From Table (6.4e) we can see that all respondents go first to the extension officer asking for help, but the highest ratio is in the high educational level.

The table indicates that other farmers are the last resorts for the low and intermediate educational level, but it is not the case for high educational level, and the minority of farmers prefers family members and other farmers help.

Table (6.4e)- Relationship between educational level and first source of information (N=288)

Educational levelFirst source

O t h e r farmer

Extension officer

F a m i l y member

S t o r e owner Other

Low (up to 5 years) 7 15 9 18 1Intermediate (from 5 to 10 years) 15 46 23 42 1High ( more than 10 years) 19 58 10 21 3Total 41 119 42 81 5

Percent (%) 14% 41% 14.5% 27% 1.7%

6.5. Extension Media

In general, the Radio programmes provided by the MOA have not very well satisfied the farmers. Table (6.5a) indicates a moderate degree of satisfaction, with average weighted score received by the radio programmes for farmers is 43% that means a moderate level of appreciation. This can be attributed to certain reasons such as: the radio programme contents and its frequency.

The television programmes which are provided by the MOA in a scattered and not regular ways. They mostly depend on agricultural occasions or events. For this reason, farmers’ opinions get negative concerning TV programmes.

78

Table (6.5a)- Radio Programmes for farmersFarmers› opinion Frequency Weight Score 1= I do not like them at all 91

43%

2 153 194 145 656 237 258 329 1110= I like them very much 9Total 304

Low level of respondents is appreciating the good effects of these media. From Table (6.5b) it seems that the publications produced and distributed for free by the extension service of the MOA are appreciated by 32% of the farmers, 52% do not like them and 16% have an intermediate opinions. As a matter of fact, the overall score attributed by all respondents is 43\100, the same previous score attributed to radio. The low level of appreciation of respondents can be attributed to the following reasons of which: lack of adequate resources available for publications design and production, some farmers were not able to get benefit of publications, insufficient number of printed publications, were not reached farmers in rural areas, and probably their contents are irrelevant and not understandable by farmers.

Table (6.5b)- Publications for farmersFarmers› opinion No. Weight Score1= I do not like them at all 102

43%

2 173 134 235 486 197 218 319 1310= I like them very much 17Total 304

79

6.6. Relationship with Agriculture Experimental Station:

As any other country, direct relationship between farmers and researchers is limited to few cases (table 6.6a). Anyhow, only 7.2% of the interviewed farmers affirm to have found solution to their technical problems, (61.2%) did not go to the local experimental station because there is no station in their areas, (18%) did not go because their work is not useful to them, (13.2%) they went but they had no good suggestions for their problems. Unfortunately, most farmers are not satisfied and they declare to live too far from the experimental stations and therefore they miss the opportunity to go to the stations.

On the other hand, it is to some extent worrisome to see that many farmers (18.4%) think that the experimental stations are doing experiments on subjects that are not useful for them and (13%) of farmers had no good suggestions for their problems.

Table (6.6a)- Visits to experimental stationsFarmers› answer Frequency Percent (%)I did not go, because there is no research station here 186 61.2%I did not go, because their work is not useful to me 56 18.4%I went but they had no good suggestions for my problems 40 13.2%I went and I found a good solution for my problems 22 7.2%Total 304 100%

6.7. Suggestions to Improve Efficiency:

The respondents express a clear need for extension officers with more practical experience (83%), also the following are a set of suggestions expressed by the responding farmers: More extension officers (80%), “extension officers should listen more to our problems” (73%), a closer relationship with the extension officers, who “should spend less time in the office and more with us” this demand gets a total score of 64.5%, followed by a precise demand for “ experimental station should make more useful demonstrations and applied research” (52%) and more market-oriented advice (51%). Farmers also wish to have more meetings on technical problems (49%). The need for more useful Radio & TV programmes and publications useful research is expressed quite good, with a general score of (43%) and (38%) respectively.

80

Table (6.7a)- Suggestions to improve performance of Extension Officers

SuggestionsHigh Priority= 1 Low priority= 10 Final

Score1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10E.O. with more practical experience

127 58 38 25 19 12 11 7 4 3 83%

More extension officers 45 118 64 26 14 16 13 2 3 3 80%

E.O should listen more to our problems

34 47 87 59 32 16 10 7 8 3 73.4%

They should spend less time at office and more with us

32 27 41 61 47 33 26 18 15 3 64.5%

Experimental station should make more useful demonstrations and applied research

18 13 15 29 46 53 63 37 27 3 52%

We need more information for marketing

21 11 19 37 31 47 47 50 38 3 51%

We need more meetings on technical problems

10 17 21 12 36 62 67 51 25 3 49.5%

More radio & TV programmes

1 9 4 32 50 33 38 79 55 3 43%

More publications (leaflets,…)

12 3 12 18 22 31 27 52 121 6 38%

81

CHAPTER-7

7.1. CONCLUSIONS

The overall outcome of the surveys made for this study has shown that public extension service can be rated at a good level of efficiency and effectiveness. However, it reached less than 50% of rural and farmers’ communities, there are wide margins for improvement.

The ratio of extension officers to farmers can be estimated at (1:1900) which is far higher than international standards and other developing countries. Therefore, more development and extension officers are needed.

The main extension service providers in the oPt is the MOA and its District Agricultural Directorates (12), agriculture experimental stations (4) and extension units (38). For the years to come, it is likely that the MOA will continue to be the major officer in the Agricultural Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) and it is absolutely necessary to improve its performance, in both research and extension.

The female extension officers represent around (27%) of the total extension staff, the majority of the extension officers (62%) were in the age groups of (30-39 years), where around (68%) of the extension officers are belonged to the category professional experience of (5 to 13 years).

The results study also showed that the majority (58%) of the respondents’ farmers had a better perception about the effectiveness of the provided agricultural extension advisory services. While, 60% of the respondent farmers felt that the MOA extension officers are credible and able to provide extension services, in case farmers face problems, (43%) of farmers go to the extension officers for support, as first choice, and (28.3%) go to farming inputs suppliers for support.

According to the study results, the most common methods of advice used is the individual visit of the extension officer to the farmer, as mentioned earlier, which is the most preferred methods by farmers. In general, the Radio and TV programmes have not very well satisfied the farmers. Also, the agriculture experimental stations have an ineffective role in technology transfer and solving farmers’ technical problems, also there is weak linkages and coordination among extension service, applied research and demonstrations.

The agricultural extension services should be understood a social process with important social outcomes, as well as a technical activity that produces and disseminate useful data to producers and a wide range of stakeholders. Our evaluation indicates that agricultural E.O play key role in both the social and technical aspects of agricultural productivity in the oPt;

82

The success of the agricultural extension services will hinge to a large extent, on amount of operational funds allocated for applied research and extension programme development.

There are several organizational constraints which are negatively affecting the effective performance of rendering extension services to farmers, of which the following: improper organizational structure, weak farmers’ priorities identification, weak annual extension plan preparation, lack of effective M&E process, scarce of financial resources, inadequate number of extension officers, mobility restrictions, inadequate and discomfort office space, shortage of field and office equipments, weal linkages among extension service and applied research, traditional methods of rendering extension services etc.

7.2. Recommendations for upgrading extension services

The team identified the following priority needs to improve the delivery of agricultural extension services to achieve more efficient natural resources uses and increased agricultural production and productivity:

7.2.1. For The improvements of Agricultural Extension Activities:

• Financing has to be increased to improve quality, frequency, and outreach of agricultural extension service in a more effective and efficient ways to all possible rural and farmer households.

• The low coverage and insufficient impact of the MOA extension services call for search for alternatives approaches to improve extension delivery, in a more efficient way as to achieve national strategic goals.

• For an extension system to be demand-driven, field E.O need sufficient financial resources under their direct control to provide the extension programmes and services that local producer groups want and need.

• The E.O must be able to respond effectively to the emerging skill, knowledge, technology, and information demands of rural farm households, especially as they work to intensify, diversify, and\or increase the productivity of their current and emerging farming systems, based on changing market demand, while using sustainable Natural Resources Management (NRM) practices. The principle of specialization poses another constraint. The tension between general and specific skills is a common one in the current Palestinian Public Extension System.

83

• The MOA extension officers will continue need to broader technical, farm management, marketing, and other professional skills so they can help farmers organize into producer groups and then help them link to specific markets for the expanding range of high-value crops and products.

• The MOA extension officers must not be burdened with double duties such regulator work and project implementations. They will also have the equipment and resources essential to do their work, including adequate access to internet, transport and fuel in order to reach clients.

• Establish electronic resource database\library of documents, brochures, posters, booklets on relevant and most pressing agricultural extension related topics. This would enable farmers and a wider range of stakeholders getting access on what they needs in terms of information.

• The E.O and Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) need to learn how to use interactive teaching/ learning skills more effectively as they organize and provide extension training and demonstration activities for various groups of farmers.

• The MOA should pay more attention to the supportive infrastructure which is necessary for supporting and improving the agricultural extension services efficiency and effectiveness.

• Local research institutions need to help address technology and information gaps. Researchers at NARC and universities should be enlisted to help indentify information and technology needs that cannot be addressed using information that is available internationally, and develop research programs to address these needs. For example, this could include information on the proper use of saline water for crop production, and alternate crops suitable for saline irrigation waters.

• Limited knowledge about how farmers use information provided by researchers and E.O. Both E.O and researchers need to have a better understanding of how farmers use information, what information is valuable, what are the best methods for delivering information. Recommendations that the MOA evaluate how farmers use the information provided through written materials, short courses, workshops, radio, etc, and use the results of these evaluations to modify future information and training efforts.

• It is recommended that the district agricultural directorates should advance to attain greater extension effectiveness and enhance farmer responsiveness. Also, they should pay more contribution to increased geographic coverage and number of farmers reached.

84

• The MOA should emphasis on strengthening linkages among the key agricultural stakeholders such as research, education, agricultural input and equipment, marketing and financial institutions, therefore, focusing on supply-side development, demand-side development and agricultural services provision objectives.

• In order to improve the present coverage of all Palestinian farming systems, which require different extension pressure, there is a need for more operational funds, more staff, a better distribution and effective extension units and of extension field staff. The number of employees in the extension agriculture directorates should be properly calculated, as to fulfill the requirements of different farming systems and provide better response to the farmers.

• Extension directorates and E.O should be properly equipped, as to facilitate their work: better transportation means, more teaching aids, better communication lines. As we have seen before, modern extension services need rapid access to information and effective links with research and with other sectors of the administration. The implementation of information technology could help greatly agricultural development in Palestine.

• The daily work of the extension employees is very much concentrated on controlling agricultural legislation and project implementation with less care in contacting experiment stations and farmers. E.O have additional tasks such as surveying the holdings, running statistical work, and disease control missions at their sites, which hinder the worker to do his extension work. We suggest assigning additional personnel from the MOA HQ to assist in carrying out these tasks.

• The rural development department and the female E.O at the GDoERD should be more supported to reach a greater number of rural women and have a bigger impact.

• Extension plans and programmes should be based on information from farmers about their problems. Farmers should be more involved, true ad hoc committees, in the planning and evaluation of extension activities, at all levels. Continuous coordination with farmers, farmers associations, and peasant unions should be fostered, for delivering lectures, carrying out field days and exhibitions. Villages and farmer groups could participate in choosing the topics to be developed by the extension units.

• Taking into account the small number of field officers, and the great number of farmers asking for support, individual contacts should be limited and greater emphasis should be given to group activities (field days, courses, demonstrations, etc).

• Mass media utilization should also be increased, with a higher use of agricultural TV and radio programs, pamphlets, brochures, and leaflets (printed media).

85

• Monitoring and evaluation activities should be improved, as to ensure a regular flow of information to the management, at all levels. M&E should be properly planned and executed and their results should be used for improving the next activities and for the continuing education of extension staff.

• More research and study are needed in order to acquire a better knowledge of the behavior of Palestinian farmers, of the impact of different methods and media, and of the relationships between communication, adoption and impact of the innovations.

7.2.2. For the Improvements of Agricultural Experiment stations

• At presents, experiment stations are scattered institutionally amongst many different DAD and this does not favor good links amongst them and between experiment stations and extension service; a structural re-organization could therefore be made, putting all experimental stations under one department.

• The experiments stations lack the necessary tools for modern experimentation activities. It is important to review the distribution of funding allocations and to increase the expenditure for agricultural research and demonstrations, in order to develop the necessary innovations enhancing competitiveness of Palestinian products.

• Scientists and E.O working in the agriculture experiment stations need research facilities such as laboratories, computers, publications, and external contacts with national and international research centers. They access to Internet and the creation of an intranet system could greatly facilitate the circulation of modern extension and scientific information, in real time.

• It is strongly recommended that the present financial system, adopted by the MOF, and used by the agricultural experimental stations to be amended, whereas, the MOA, would be able to collect and deposit annual agricultural returns in a distinct sub-account. That, in its turn, would have contributed significantly towards making available adequate operational fund for the agricultural extension programme in the upcoming agricultural seasons and so on.

• The MOA E.O and researchers must attend national and international courses, seminars, conferences, during their career, as to remain always at the edge of their scientific field.

• Experimental stations should be more open to farmers and E.O, providing whenever possible, the information required. In order to promote a better mutual knowledge, the experiment

86

stations could annually organize an Open Day (lasting one or two days), with demonstrations, competitions, workshop, etc.

• Demonstrations and extension activities must be properly monitored and evaluated, in order to reward the scientists and E.O who work more and better and in order to allocate properly the next funds.

• Recruiting adequate number of E.O according to the actual needs of the agricultural experiment stations.

7.3. WAY FORWARD

The study team emphasized that the outcomes of the study needed to be a practical strategy to address what they saw an urgent and significant agricultural extension advisory services development in Palestine. It is proposed to prepare a specific action plan of three main components assembled under the following headings

Priority technologies- identify the different technologies, which promote the efficient use of natural resources and new crops cultivation methods, to be addressed in an advisory service including irrigation application system, irrigation scheduling services, minimum application chemicals, GLOBAL GAPS, performance evaluation, support to farmers associations, etc.

Service Providers- Identifying existing institutions that could provide information\ services (e.g. government ministries, NGOS, private sector, farmers associations, colleges and research institutes), and facilitate the transfer of technologies to farmers and farmer groups. Identify better extension provision modalities as well as a mechanism to ensure cooperation and coordination among different stakeholders for an integrated approach for extension service provision.

Organizational capacity building\ training- identify ways of putting in place a programme of training for farmers and service providers, adopting participatory approach, developing sound national agricultural extension strategy, training materials and appropriate communications methods, including innovative ways of training and service provision.

In seeking a way forward, it is important to give a direct follow-up to the findings and recommendations of the study by formulating grant project proposals for fund-raising as well as a framework for technical cooperation with other concerned bodies.

87

LIST OF ANNEXES

88

Annex -1: List of persons interviewed

Annex (1-1)- List of Persons Interviewed-April-2011

# Name Position Organizations

1. Ibrahmi Eqteeshat G.D. Diretcor of extension MOA

2. Amin ABU-ALSOUD The MOA programme Coordinator MOA

3. Doha Aydi D. Director of Exten. Prog. Planning MOA

4. Salah Al-Baba Director of Horticulture department MOA

5. Mustafa Barakat Director of Plant Protection MOA

6. Abedulallah Lahlouh D.G. of Planning & Policy MOA

7. Dr. Moahhmed Abu-Eid D.G of NARC MOA

8. Wajdi Bsharat Director of Jenin Agr. Directorate MOA

9. Wajdi Odeh Director of Tubas Agr. Directorate MOA

10. Mohammed Fattayer Director of Nablus Agr. Directorate MOA

11. Ahmed Abed Al-Wahab Director of Tulkarem Agri. Directorate MOA

12. Ahmed Fathi Director of Qalqilia Agr. Directorate MOA

13. Ibrahim Al-Hamad Director of Salfit Agr. Directorate MOA

14. Samir Samara Director of Ramallah Agr. Directorate MOA

15. Omar Bsharat Director of Jericho Agri. Directorate MOA

16. Ahmed Fares Director of Jerusalem Agr. Directorate MOA

17. Safinaz Bader Director of Bethlehm Agr. Directorate MOA

18. Majdi Amer Director of Dora Agr. Directorate MOA

19. Bader Hawamdeh Director of Hebron Agr. Directorate MOA

20. Alia Qanadilo Director of Tulkarem Agr. Exp. Station MOA

21. Abed Al-Qader Kharaz Director of Jericho Agr. Exp. Station MOA

22. Abed Alwahab Halaiqa Director of Al-Aroub Agr. Exp. Station MOA

23. Mohamad A. Al- Omari Director of Beit-Qad Agr. Exp. Station MOA

24. Saeed Al-Laham Director of Vegetables Department MOA

89

25. Mahmoud Fatafta Director of Animal Production Dept. MOA

26. Rola Al-Tamimi Director of Field Crop Department MOA

27. Amjad SalahD. G. of Plant Protection & Inspections services

MOA

28. Samah Abu-Hikal Deputy Director\ Mass Media Department MOA

Annex (1-2)- List of Persons Interviewed “Private Sectors”# Name Position Organizations

1. Maher Al-Junadi Director Al-Junadi Nursery

2. Loai Nairat Marketing manager Al-Sharabati Co.

3. Mohammed Al-Barqawi Director General Al-Barqawi Co.

4. Moamen Adwan Marketing Manager Meqdadi Co.

5. Mahdi KhawajaField coordinator- North West Bank

Meqdadi Co.

Annex (1-3)- List of Persons Interviewed “NJOS”# Name Position Organizations

1. Izat Zedan Director of Extension Department PARC

2. Omar Tabakhna Director of Public Relations UWAC

3. Omar Tomazi Project Coordinator ESDC

90

Annex -2: List of documents Interviewed

Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011, Ramallah- Palestine

Change W. 1986. Basic in-service training of extension staff, Jones E.G. (Ed.) Investing in rural extension: strategies and goals, Elsevier Applied Publ., London

MOA & JICA, 2007, “The project for Strengthening Support System Focusing on Sustainable Agriculture in the Jordan River Rift Valley”, Baseline Survey Report, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., August- 2007.

MOA & JICA, 2007, “ The project for strengthening support system Focusing on sustainable Agriculture in the Jordan River Rift Valley”, Progress report-1, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., December 2007.

MOA & JICA, 2008, “ The project for strengthening support system Focusing on sustainable Agriculture in the Jordan River Rift Valley”, Progress report-2, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., March 2008.

MOA & JICA, 2009, “ The project for strengthening support system Focusing on sustainable Agriculture in the Jordan River Rift Valley”, Progress report-4, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., February 2009.

MOA & JICA, 2009, “ The project for strengthening support system Focusing on sustainable Agriculture in the Jordan River Rift Valley”, Progress report-5, Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., September 2009.

MOA, 2010, a study on “the assessment of the organizational capacity of the MOA”, conducted under a project entitled “Improving the MOA capacity building” implemented by the MOA and FAO, funded by the Spanish cooperation office, December-2010.

PNA, Ministry of Agriculture, “Palestinian Agricultural Policy”, second draft, Ramalleh, 1999. (Unpublished).

PNA, Ministry of Agriculture, “Strategy for Agricultural Research and Extension”, prepared in cooperation with the Adaptive Agricultural Research and Extension Project, UNDP/Pal/96/J21, Ramallah, February 1999.

PNA, Ministry of Agriculture, Strategy for the Palestinian Agriculture Sector “Shared Vision”, prepared in cooperation with the FAO, Ramallah, December 2010

91

The Revised Palestinian Agriculture Law, No. (11), 2005

Records and various administrations files existing at the General Directorate of Extension and Rural Development, April, 2011.

Ann

ex (3

)- Li

st o

f far

min

g in

puts

sup

plie

rs

#C

ompa

ny N

ame

No.

of e

xten

sion

offi

cer

Loc

atio

nTe

lFa

rmin

g In

puts

1.A

l-Shr

abat

y C

o.4

Heb

ron

0599

-402

.555

All

farm

ing

Inpu

ts

2.A

gro-

Pal C

o.2

Jeric

ho05

99-2

94.1

35A

ll fa

rmin

g In

puts

3.A

l –Sa

ba› I

nter

natio

nal C

o.5

Qal

qilia

0599

-555

.137

= =

4.A

l-Sab

a› A

gric

ultu

re C

o.-

--

The

sam

e ow

ner

and

the

sam

e st

aff o

f ot

her t

hree

bra

nche

s

5.A

l-Sab

a› C

omm

erci

al C

o.2

Qal

qilia

0599

-555

.137

All

farm

ing

Inpu

ts

6.Jo

thoo

r Co.

4Tu

lkar

em05

99-3

7.66

.04

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

7.M

eqda

di C

o.4

Tulk

arem

0599

-731

.487

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

8.A

gric

ultu

re T

echn

ical

Com

mer

cial

co.

1

Tuba

s05

99-2

0.40

.41

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

9.Te

chni

ques

Co.

4N

ablu

s05

99-1

7.22

.71

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

10.

Agr

o-Te

ch C

o.

1N

ablu

s05

99-1

8.66

.08

All

farm

ing

inpu

ts

11.

Al-M

aqal

deh

Co.

2Tu

lkar

em--

All

farm

ing

inpu

ts

12.

Rad

wan

Ham

zeh

Co.

Non

Tulk

arem

0599

-25.

26.4

6A

ll fa

rmin

g in

puts

13.

Med

-way

Co.

1Tu

lkar

em05

97-2

5.98

.25

Seed

s

92

Ann

ex (3

)- Li

st o

f far

min

g in

puts

sup

plie

rs

#C

ompa

ny N

ame

No.

of e

xten

sion

offi

cer

Loc

atio

nTe

lFa

rmin

g In

puts

1.A

l-Shr

abat

y C

o.4

Heb

ron

0599

-402

.555

All

farm

ing

Inpu

ts

2.A

gro-

Pal C

o.2

Jeric

ho05

99-2

94.1

35A

ll fa

rmin

g In

puts

3.A

l –Sa

ba› I

nter

natio

nal C

o.5

Qal

qilia

0599

-555

.137

= =

4.A

l-Sab

a› A

gric

ultu

re C

o.-

--

The

sam

e ow

ner

and

the

sam

e st

aff o

f ot

her t

hree

bra

nche

s

5.A

l-Sab

a› C

omm

erci

al C

o.2

Qal

qilia

0599

-555

.137

All

farm

ing

Inpu

ts

6.Jo

thoo

r Co.

4Tu

lkar

em05

99-3

7.66

.04

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

7.M

eqda

di C

o.4

Tulk

arem

0599

-731

.487

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

8.A

gric

ultu

re T

echn

ical

Com

mer

cial

co.

1

Tuba

s05

99-2

0.40

.41

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

9.Te

chni

ques

Co.

4N

ablu

s05

99-1

7.22

.71

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

10.

Agr

o-Te

ch C

o.

1N

ablu

s05

99-1

8.66

.08

All

farm

ing

inpu

ts

11.

Al-M

aqal

deh

Co.

2Tu

lkar

em--

All

farm

ing

inpu

ts

12.

Rad

wan

Ham

zeh

Co.

Non

Tulk

arem

0599

-25.

26.4

6A

ll fa

rmin

g in

puts

13.

Med

-way

Co.

1Tu

lkar

em05

97-2

5.98

.25

Seed

s

93

Ann

ex (3

)- Li

st o

f far

min

g in

puts

sup

plie

rs

#C

ompa

ny N

ame

No.

of e

xten

sion

offi

cer

Loc

atio

nTe

lFa

rmin

g In

puts

1.A

l-Shr

abat

y C

o.4

Heb

ron

0599

-402

.555

All

farm

ing

Inpu

ts

2.A

gro-

Pal C

o.2

Jeric

ho05

99-2

94.1

35A

ll fa

rmin

g In

puts

3.A

l –Sa

ba› I

nter

natio

nal C

o.5

Qal

qilia

0599

-555

.137

= =

4.A

l-Sab

a› A

gric

ultu

re C

o.-

--

The

sam

e ow

ner

and

the

sam

e st

aff o

f ot

her t

hree

bra

nche

s

5.A

l-Sab

a› C

omm

erci

al C

o.2

Qal

qilia

0599

-555

.137

All

farm

ing

Inpu

ts

6.Jo

thoo

r Co.

4Tu

lkar

em05

99-3

7.66

.04

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

7.M

eqda

di C

o.4

Tulk

arem

0599

-731

.487

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

8.A

gric

ultu

re T

echn

ical

Com

mer

cial

co.

1

Tuba

s05

99-2

0.40

.41

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

9.Te

chni

ques

Co.

4N

ablu

s05

99-1

7.22

.71

Farm

ing

inpu

ts w

ithou

t Pla

stic

She

ets

and

irrig

atio

n eq

uipm

ents

10.

Agr

o-Te

ch C

o.

1N

ablu

s05

99-1

8.66

.08

All

farm

ing

inpu

ts

11.

Al-M

aqal

deh

Co.

2Tu

lkar

em--

All

farm

ing

inpu

ts

12.

Rad

wan

Ham

zeh

Co.

Non

Tulk

arem

0599

-25.

26.4

6A

ll fa

rmin

g in

puts

13.

Med

-way

Co.

1Tu

lkar

em05

97-2

5.98

.25

Seed

s

Annex-4- Questionnaires

94

Annex-4-1: Questionnaire for Directors of DADs

Dear Respondent

The following questionnaire has been developed within the context of the Netherlands Programme “Improving livelihoods in the OPt in the WB districts”. The identity of the respondent is ignored and all data will be used in an aggregated form. Anonymity is ensured. Please feel free to answer what you really think being the truth, for the improvement of Palestinian Agriculture.

Characteristics of the respondents:

1. How many years have you occupied this position ? No._____.

2. Do you think that farmers appreciate the work of your extension services? (circle only one)

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

3. Are you satisfied with your job ? (circle one) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

4. Which is your level of education? (please mark only the highest)• B.Sc. degree

• Master degree

• PhD degree

• other

Management of extension services

5. How many qualified E.O are at work in the agricultural extension services delivery? No.___________

6. What is your total annual budget ?____________________________NIS

7. How much allocated for the Extension Services programme_________________ NIS

Relationship with agriculture experimental stations

8. How do you rate the coordination with the experimental stations and NARC in the districts?Very weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 very good

9. How many times per month do you visit the extension unit in the district? No.______

10. How many visits to farms did you make this year ? No.___________

95

11. How many seminars (lecture) for farmers did you organize this year ? No._________

12. Are the E.O in your directorates able to answer to the questions of the farmers? (circle one) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

13. Which extension method do you prefer to use with the farmers ? (mark only one)• Individual visit to the farmer• Meeting• Field day• Demonstration• Training course

14. Do you think that the farmers in your area like the Radio programme? (Mark only one)Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

15. Do you think that the farmers in your area like the TV programme for them? (Circle only one)

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much16. What do you think about your own continuing education? Do you think that you are properly updated with the most recent results of the reseach? (Circle only one).

Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

17. What do you think about the efficiency of experimental stations in this area? (Circle one)

Very good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very poor18. Do you know if farmers go directly to experimental stations to receive information? (mark one)

• Yes, many farmers go• Yes, few farmers go• No, farmers do not go• I do not know

19. If you know that farmers do not go Experimental stations, can you tell why? only one• Because farmers have a low level of education;• Because researchers do not like to speak with farmers• Because the research is not relevant to the problems of farmers• I do not know

Suggestions for Improvements

20. In order to improve the results of this agricultural directorate, what do you suggest? (Please, rank from 1=top priority, to 10=lowest priority; two suggestions cannot have the same number)

• More operational funds

• Good reporting system

• Good monitoring and evaluation system

96

• More extension tools

• Better transportation

• More supportive facilities (i.e., lab, …).

• More equipment (computer, telephone, )

• More effective extension units

• We need more E.O

• More international relationships

• More relationships with the farmers

• E.O must give their attention to extension service only

• Experimental stations should make more useful demonstrations and applied research

• Other (please specify)_____________________.

• ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Any other feed-back:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

97

ANNEX-4-2: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DIRECTORS OF AGR. EXPERIMENTAL STATIONS

Dear RespondentThe following questionnaire has been developed within the context of the Netherlands Programme “Improving livelihoods in the OPt in the WB districts”. The identity of the respondent is ignored and all data will be used in an aggregated form. Anonymity is ensured. Please feel free to answer what you really think being the truth, for the improvement of Palestinian agriculture.

Personal characteristics:

1. How many years you occupied this position ? No._____.

2. Which is your level of education? (please mark only the highest)• B.Sc. degree• Master degree• PhD degree• other

3. Do you think that farmers appreciate the work of this station? (circle only one) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

4. Are you satisfied with your job ? (circle one) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

Size and production of agricultural experiment stations:

5. How many researchers (E.O) are at work in this station? No.___________

6. Do you have enough resources (people and money) ? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much Annual budget US$:__________________________

Internal and external coordination:

7. How do you rate the coordination with other agriculture experiment stations of other directorates? (Circle only one) Very weak 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very good

8. How many researches or demonstrations did you make this year? No._______________9. How many researches or demonstrations do you plan for next year? No._____________

98

10. How do you decide the research or demonstrations themes? (Mark only one)

• I wait for the decision of the Ministry• I wait for the suggestions of the farmers• I decide by myself, because I know the needs of the farmers

11. Do you refer the results of the researches\demonstrations to the E.O of this area ? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

Relationship with and opinion about extension service:

12. Do you receive suggestions for research from the DAD? circle only one Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

13. If not, why ? (Please, mark only one)• I do not need any suggestions, because I know already• We do not have good communication• Farmers of this area have no problems• I do not know

14. How do you rate the relationship between farmers and E.O? Please, mark only one• Very good• Good• Poor• Very Poor

15. If you gave a negative answer, can you tell the main reason? Please, only ONE answer

• Farmers have a very low level of education• E.O cannot communicate with farmers• Farmers do not believe in what is said by E.O• Other reason (please write) ____________________• I do not know

16. How many farmers came directly to this experiment station, this year, looking for advice from you or from other extension officer (researchers)? Please, give a tentative number ______________.

99

Suggestion for improvements:

17. In order to improve the demonstrations and research work in this station, what do you suggest? (Please rank from 1= top priority, to 10= lowest priority; two suggestions cannot have the same number).

• More funds

• More researches and demonstrations

• More equipment

• We need more E.O

• Better coordination with extension service

• More international relationships

• More relationships with the farmers

• More autonomy in deciding the research and demonstrations themes.

• Other (please specify)_____________________.

100

ANNEX-4-3: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FARMERS

Dear Respondent

The following questionnaire has been developed within the context of the Netherlands Programme “Improving livelihood of the oPt-WBs districts”. The identity of the respondent is ignored and all data will be used in an aggregated form. Anonymity is ensured. Please feel free to answer what you really think being the truth, for the improvement of Palestinian agriculture.

Description of the Farm:

1. How old are you ? _____________________

2.How many dunums do you grow ? No._____.

3. Under which title you manage this farm ?• 100% property

• Partial property, part under leas

• 100% lease

• other

4. How many years of school attendance do you have ? ________5. How do you judge the income from the farm ? (mark only one)

• Today is better than 10 years ago

• Today is like 10 years ago

• Today is worst than 10 years ago

6. How do you judge your income from the farm? (mark only one)• My agricultural income is higher than other farmers

• My agricultural income is like the other farmers

• My agricultural income is lower than other farmers

7. How many people work with you in this farm ? No______________

8. How do you judge the yields of the crops grown in your farm ? (Mark only one)• My yields are higher than other farms

• My yields are like in the other farms

• My yields are lower than in other farms

101

• Relationship with extension service:9. When did you receive the last visit of the extension officer? (mark only one)

• Last week

• Last month

• Three months ago

• Six months ago

• More than six month ago

• Not visited

• I do not remember

10. When did you go for the last time to the office of the Extension Officer ? Mark only one• Last week

• Last month

• Three months ago

• Six months ago

• More than six month ago

• Not visited

• I do not remember

11. Did you like the field day organized by the E.O in your area?(mark only one)• Yes

• No

• I did not go

12. Did you attend any meeting organized by the E.O, during the last months? (mark only one)

• Yes, and it was very useful

• Yes, but it was not useful

• No, because I had other things to do

• No, because I do not need any information

13. How were you informed about the meetings or about the Field day? (Mark only one)• From a friend

• From the E.O

• With a letter

• Other

102

14. Do you think that E.O are able to answer the farmers’ questions? (circle one) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

15. Which type of relationship do you prefer to have with the extension officer? (mark only one)

• I like when the officer comes to my fields

• I like to meet him at his office

• I like the group meeting, with other farmers

• I like the field day, when I can see real things

• I like the training course, because they give more time to learn

16. In general terms, are you satisfied with the suggestions provided by the E.O? (Circle one) Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

17. Do you like the Radio programme for farmers? (circle only one number)Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

18. Do you like the TV programme for farmers? (circle only one number)Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

19. Do you like the Publications of the Extension service ? (circle only one number)Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yes very much

Relationship with agriculture experiment stations:

20. During the last year, did you visit the agriculture experimental station in your area ? (mark only one)

• No, because there is none

• No, because what they do is not useful for me

• Yes, but they had no good suggestion for my problems

• Yes, and there I found a good solution for my problems.

21. If you have a problem in your farm, where do you go first ? mark only one• To a farmer friend, who knows more than me• To the extension officer of my area, who is very good• To a member of my family, who knows more than me• To the agriculture suppliers, where the owner is well informed• Other _____________________________________________

103

22. In order to have a better extension service, what do you suggest? (please rank from1=top priority, to 10=lowest priority; two suggestions cannot have the same number)

• We need more E.O• E.O should have more practical experience• E.O should listen to our problems• E.O should spend more time with us and less at office• Experimental stations should make more useful demonstrations and applied research• We need more meetings on technical problems• We need more information for marketing our products• We need more Radio and TV programmes• We need more publications (leaflets, posters and brochures)• Other (please specify)_______________________________

• ________________________________________________

• _________________________________________________

• _________________________________________________.

Documents

assessment of the public agricultural extension system of palestine