ED 320 807

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

SO 020 897

Roberts, Nigel, Ed.

Agricultural Extension in Africa. A World BankSymposium.

World Bank, Washington, D. C.ISBN-0-8213-1195-689

106p.

World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC20433.

Speeches/Conference Papers (150) -- Reports -Descriptive (141)

MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS.*Developing Nations; *Economic Development; HigherEducation; Modernization; *Research and Development;Research Projects; *Rural Development; *RuralExtension

IDENTIFIERS *Africa (Sub Sahara)

ABSTRACT

The contributors to this document compare the mainapproaches to agricultural extension in sub-Saharan Africa; thecost-effectiveness in view of precarious national budgets; theweaknesses of the system for generating technology; the difficultiesin forging productive partnerships between .esearchers, extensionistsand farmers; the ineffective public services and fragileinstitutional networks; and the degree to which farmers are allowedto participate in extension management. The articles include: (1)"Agricultural Extension and Its Linkage with Agricultural Research"(D. Pickering); (2) "The Commodity-Driven Approach of the CottonCompanies" (G. Mandrvi); (3) "The Extension System ofBritish-American Tobacco (Kenya) Limited" (F. N. Kimani); (4) "TheWorld Bank and the Training and Visit System in East Africa" (N.Roberts); (5) "A Few Questions on the Training and Visit Method" (D.Gentil); (6) "The Design of T&V Extension Programs for Small Farmersin Ethiopia" (A. Dejeno); (7) "Proposals for a New Approach toExtension Services in Africa" (G. Belloncle); (8) "VillageAssociations and Agricultural Extension in the Republic of Mali" (B.Sada Sy; M. Yero Bah); (9) "On-Farm Research with a Farming SystemsPerspective" (M. Collison); (10) "The Farming Systems Approach andLinks between Research and Extension" (N. Okigbo); (11) "The FarmingSystems Approach in Senegal" (J. Faye); (12) "Extension under EastAfrican Field Conditions" (J. R. Morris); (13) "Public Investment inAfrica's Extension Services" (J. Howell); and (14) "New Developmentsin Agricultural Extension" (M. Baxter). A reference list of 95 itemsis appended. (NL)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.k*********************************************************************

SCOPE OF INTEREST NOTICE

The ERIC Facility has assignedthis document for processingto:

In our Judgment, this documentis also of interest to the Clear-inghouses noted to the right.Indexing should ref feat theirspecial points of view.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOnce of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

72;h Is document has been reproduced asreceived from the person Or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLYHAS BEEN GRANTED BY

O

edited byNigel Roberts

klitt

A World Bank Symposium

BEST COPY AVAILABLE-2

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Agricultural Extension in Africa

A World Bank Symposium

3

Agricultural Extension in Africa

edited byNigel Roberts

The World BankWashington, D.C.

4

© 1989 The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/mE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing April 1989

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressedin this study are entirely those of the authors and shouldnot be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to itsaffiliated organizations, or to members of its Board ofExecutive Directors or the countries they represent.

The drawing on the cover and title pages is by Mylene Falloux.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Agricultural extension in Africa.

(A World Bank symposium)Papers which had their genesis in two workshops held

June 1984 at Eldoret, Kenya and the other held February1985 at Yamoussoukro, C8te d'Ivoire.

Bibliography: p.1. Agricultural extension workAfricaCongresses.

I. Roberts, Nigel, 1951 . II. Series.S544.5.A4A37 1989 630'.7'1506 89-5579ISBN 0-8213-1195-6

Contents

Preface

Contributors

Abbreviations

Introduction, Nigel Roberts and Francois Falloux

1 Agricultural Extension and Its Linkage with Agricultural Research,Donald Pickering

Extension Approaches 4Some Pointers 5

COMMODITY-BASED EXTENSION

3

2 The Commodity-Driven Approach of the Cotton Companies, Guy Mandavi 7

Intensive Cultivation 7The Evolution of Extension Systems for Cotton 9Conclusion 10

3 The Extension System of British-American Tobacco "{enya) Limited,Francis N. Kimani

Extension Objectives 13

The Extension Structure 14Financing of the Tobacco Project 16Summary 16

TRAINING AND VISIT EXTENSION

4 The World Bank and the Training and Visit System in East Africa,Nigel Roberts

The T&V System and Its Origins 19The Controversy 20Unanswered Questions: Participation and Costs 23

v

13

19

vi Contents

5 A Few Questions on the Training and Visit Method, Dominique Gentil 25The Context 25The Applicability of the Tiv Method 27Compatibility between Farmers' Problems, Technical Innovations,

and Channels of Dissemination 28Conclusion 28Notes 29

6 The Design of T&V Extension Programs for Small Farmers in Ethiopia,Alemneh Dejene

The Origin and Organization of ARDU 31The T&V System in Ethiopia 32A Comparison of To and ARDU Extension 33Adapting T&V Extension to Ethiopian Conditions 34Recommendations 35

COMMUNITY-BASED EXTENSION

7 Proposals for a New Approach to Extension Services in Africa,Guy Belloncle

A Critique of Present Approaches 37A New Approach to Extension Services 40Scientific Agricultural Training for Young People 42Ensuring the Participation of Women 43Conclusions 43

8 Village Associations and Agricultural Extension in the Republic of Mali,Boubacar Sada Sy and Mamadou Yero BahCFDT/CMDT Experience 45Village Associations 48Conclusion 48

FARMING SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND EXTENSION

31

3?

45

9 On-Farm Research with a Farming Systems Perspective, Michael Collinson 51The Farming Systems Perspective in Technology Development 52A Link between Research, Extension, and Farmers 53Operational Linkages for CFRIFSP 54Country Coverage and the Costs of OFR/nP 56

10 The Farming Systems Approach and Links between Research and Extension,Bede N. Okigbo 59Farming Systems Research 60Upstream and Downstream Components 61Need for Interdisciplinary Interaction 62Institutionalization and Popularization of FSR 62Linkages between FSR and Agricultural Extension 62UTA Experience with FSR 64Problems in Adopting the FSR Approach in Africa 66

11 The Farming Systems Approach in Senegal, Jacques Faye 67The Senegalese Agricultural Research Institute 68The Research Program of Basse Casamance 68Conclusion 71

COMMON THEMES

12 Extension under East African Field Conditions, Jon R. MorisWeak Technical Packages 74The Bureaucratization of Extension 75Working Conditions in the Field 77Reforming African Extension 79Farming Systems Research 80The TO System 81

Conclusion 83Notes 83

73

13 Public Investment in Africa's Extension Services, John Howell 85

Trends in Expenditure 85Research and Extension 86Technical Support for Extension and Input Supply 87Financing Extension 88Managing Field Staff 89Conciusion 90

14 New Developments in Agricultural Extension, Michael Baxter 93

Communications Systems and Technology 94Privatization and Cost Recovery 95Group and Individual Approaches 96Extension-Research Linkages 96Extension and Women as Farmers 97Conclusion 97Notes 98

References 99

Contents vii

Preface

In recent years the World Bank has become Joselyi identified with the training and visit (T &v) system of ag-

ricultural extension, which now enjoys a dominant po-sition among the extension methodologies in much ofthe developing world. Less well known, perhaps, is thefact that the World Bank gives significant support toother extension approaches and values vigorous debateon the relative merits of different systems. This volumeand the workshops that gave rise to it are a testamentto the Bank's interest in fostering such a debate.

The fourteen contributions that appear here all focuson agricultural extension in Sub-Saharan Africa. Theyhad their genesis in two workshops in Africa. the firstheld in June 1984 at Eldoret, Kenya (African Workshopon Extension and Research), and the second in Febru-ary 1985 at Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire (AgriculturalExtension and Its Link with Research in Rural Develop-ment). Some of the chapters were originally presentedat the workshops as papers and have subsequently been

modified, whereas others were written later by work-shop participants.

The workshops were organized by the World Bank,with the cooperation of the government in each hostcountry. Funding for the Eldoret workshop was pro-vided by the World Bank, the United Nations Develop-ment Program (uNDF), the Centro Internacional deMejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (mom), the U.S. Agencyfor International Development (usAm), and the Britishgovernment's Overseas Development Administration(on); for the Yamoussoukro seminar, by the WorldBank, USA1D, and the French government's Fonds d'Aideet de Cooperation (FAc) and Caisse Centrale de Coopera-tion Economique (cccE).

The proceedings of the Yamoussoukro workshophave been compiled by Guy Belloncle and published inFrench as Recherche, vulgarisation et developpementrural en Afrique noire by Focal Coop, Ministre de laCooperation in Paris.

Contributors(Affiliations at the time of writing)

Mamadou Yero Bah, Director General, Office de De-veloppement Integre de Production Arachidieres etUrea Beres

Michael Baxter, Western Africa Projects Department,The World Bank

Guy Belloncle, Professor, Department of Sociology,University of Tours

Michael Collinson, cimmyr Economics Program, EastAfrica

Alemneh Dejene, Visiting Scholar, Harvard Institutefor International Development, Harvard University

Jacques Faye, Director, Departement des Systemes,Institut Senegalais de la Recherche Agricole

Francois Fa lima, West Africa Projects Department,The World Bank

Dominique Gentil, President, Institut de Recherches etd'Applications des Methodes de Developpement

John Howell, Deputy Director, Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Francis N. Kimani, Divisional Leaf Manager, WesternKenya, British American Tobacco Limited

Guy Mandavi, Technical Director, Compagnie Fran-caise pour le Developpement des Textiles

Jon Moris, Overseas Development Institute

Bede N. Okigbo, Director, Farming Systems Depart-ment, International Institute for Tropical Agricul-ture

Donald Pickering, Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentDepartment, The World Bank

Nigel Roberts, Eastern and Southern Africa ProjectsDepartment, The World Bank

Boubacar Sada Sy, Director General, CompagnieMalienne de Developpement des Textiles

. 10

Abbrejations

AAEO Awraja (district) extension officerAEO Agricultural extension officerARDU Arssi Regional Development UnitBAT British-American Tobacco LimitedCADU Chilalo Agricultural Development UnitCFDT Compagnie Francaise pour le Developpement des Textiles (French Com-

pany for the Development of Textiles)CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural ResearchCIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (International Center for

Tropical Agriculture)CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (International

Maize and Wheat Improvement Center)CMDT Compagnie Malienne de Developpement des Textiles (Malian Textile De-

velopment Company)FSP Farming systems perspectiveFSR Farming systems researchGTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft ffir Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German

Agency for Technical Cooperation)IAR Institute of Agricultural ResearchIDRC International Development Research Center (also CRDI, Centre de

Recherches pour le Developpement International)IITA International Institute for Tropical AgricultureIRAM Institut de Recherches et d'Applications des Methodes de Developpement

(Institute for Research and Implementation of Development Methods)IRRI International Rice Research Institute!SRA Institut Senegalais de la Recherche Agricole (Senegalese Institute for Ag-

ricultural Research)ODA Overseas Development AdministrationOFAR On-Farm Adaptive ResearchOFR On-farm researchRDA Rural development agentSMS Subject matter specialistTAC Technical Advisory Committee, Food and Agriculture OrganizationT &V Training and visit system of agricultural extensionUSA1D U.S. Agency for International Development

xi

11

Introduction

Nigel Roberts and Francois Fa lloux

A basic objective of this wilume is to compare the mainapproaches to agricultural extension used in Sub-Saharan Africa today. Thus Pickering (chapter 1) offersa typology of the extension methodologies most com-monly found in the Afrir.an ronteut. The chapters thatfollow analyze the strengths and weaknesses of fourmajor approaches or illustrate them in practice withspecific case studies: first the commodity-driven ap-proach (Mandavi, Kimani), next the T&V system (Rob-erts, Gentil, Dejene), then farmer-participatory exten-sion methodologies (Belloncle, Sy and Bah), and fi-nally the farming systems perspective on extension(Collinson, Okigbo, Faye). The volume concludes withoverview pieces on field conditions, financing, andnew directions in African extension (Moris, Howell,Baxter).

Despite the diversity of approaches described andperspectives employed, there is a high degree of con-currence when authors come to identify the types ofproblems that any African extension system must seekto overcome. Considerable attention is given to review-ing the question of cost-effectiveness in view of theprecariousness of the budgetary situation in manycountries (Mandavi, Roberts, Howell, Baxter). A secondarea of universal concern is the weakness of the conti-nent's systems for generating technology and the diffi-culties inherent in forging more productive partner-ships between researchers, extensionists, and farmersfor the purposes of problem identification znd tech-nology testing (Roberts, Gentil, Be lloncle, Collinson,Okigbo, Faye, Moris, Baxter). A third set of basic mis-givings relates to the ineffectiveness ofmany countries'public servi :es and to the fragile institutional andinfrastructural networks found in most of Sub-SaharanAfricamisgivings which translate into concern about

1

the pitfalls awaiting overoptimistic extension planners(Mandavi, Gentil, Belloncle, Moris, Howell). A fourthissue commonly identified is the inadequate degree towhich farmers themselves are allowed to participate inextension management and the tendency of govern-ment extension services to respond more to bureau-cratic imperatives than to the demands of the farm-ing populations (Belloncle, Collinson, Okigbo, Faye,Moris).

Although there is a fair degree ofconsensus on whatthe important problems are, it will be apparent to thereader that the contributors to this v,-;lume do not readi-ly agree on a set of solutions to them. On many topics,perspectives and opinions differ markedly. For example,authors such as Howell and Moris see in T&V a po-tentially valuable approach to extension management,provided that the classic Indian model is sensitivelyadapted. For Belloncle, however, and to some extent forCentil, the T&V system is based on a set of assumptionsabout rural society and the role of interventionist bu-reaucracies that are patronizing and erroneousandthat therefore undermine the T&V system's rationale.Howell and Baxter strongly question both the validityand the practicality of recovering from farmers thecosts associated with extension when it is oriented to-ward food crops. Mandavi and Roberts, however, regardcost recovery of this type as a way of introducing trueconsumer evaluation into the extension process andthereby providing an objective basis for determiningwhether extension services should expand or contractand what they should strive to provide.

In other respects, however, the authors evidence im-po.tant areas of agreement. What is more, we wouldargue that the exchanges of experiences and views atthe Eldoret and Yamoussoukro workshops have been

12

2 Nigel Roberts and Francols Fa Roux

strongly instrumental in fashioning common assump-tions. One such area of agreement is the reaffirmationof both the need for pragmatism in the design of exten-sion systems and the dangers of rigidity, particularly inthe multifaceted African milieu. Giving expression tothis idea, several authors call for blending the strengthsof different systems, specifically the top-down, mana-gerially oriented approaches exemplified by T&V andthe bottom-up, locale-sensitive methodologies such asfarming systems research (FsR) or recherche-devel-oppement (Roberts, Collinson, Moris, Baxter). Anotherissue on which there is no dissent is the budgetaryunsustainability of most public or parastatal extension

structures in Africa when funding agencies withdrawtheir assistance, and therefore the importance of devis-ing less costly systems (Mandavi, Moris, Howell). Apoint reiterated at Eldoret and Yamoussoukro, and oneoften downplayed by advocates of extension, is the tru-ism that good extension by itself is only of limitedvalue; unless farmers have adequate financial incentivesand timely access to inputs and credit, they will notusually adopt new technologies on any significant scale(Pickering, Mandavi, Roberts, Okigbo). All of these real-izations, simple as they may be, are now part of thecommon lore of African extension and should shape thedesign of extension in years to come.

13

1

Agricultural Extension and Its Linkagewith Agricultural Research

Donald Pickering

The need to increase the productivity of Sub-SaharanAfrican agriculture is urgent and clearly compre-hended. Basic food production in many countries can-not keep pace with the rapid growth of population; agri-cultural exports have declined in most instances; thearea has suffered, and is still suffering, from widespreadadverse weather conditions; and reserves of potentiallyproductive agricultural land have been severely de-pleted in many countries.

Sub-Saharan Africa depends unequivocally on agri-culture for economic growth and the well-being of itspeople. If sustained growth is to be achieved, and if itspeople are to enjoy higher living standards, agriculturemust become more productive. But this is more easilysaid than done.

It is not necessary to catalog here all the factors thatgovern agricultural productivity. It is enough to re-member, and to keep bringing to the attention of policy-makers and politicians, that achieving an increase inagricultural productivity is a complex business; to ob-tain maximum results a range of factors, many of theminterdependent, must be in place and in harmony.

Two of these factors are agricultural extension andresearchthe means for developing and conveying tofarmers the information needed to increase their ownproductivity and the productivity of their land. To per-form their duties, researchers and extensionists need toknow who the farmers arewhether they includewomen and children as well as men, and how the workis divided among them; what they are doing and whythey are doing it on their farms; and how the recom-mended new technologies are likely to affect thefarmer, the farm, and other important factors such asthe supply and suppliers of agricultural inputs andcredit, and the market for the farmer's output. The ben-

3

efits to be obtained from improved extension are thusclosely related to the availability of improved technol-ogy, inputs, credit, and market infrastructure. Sincethese complementary factors are in short supply inmany parts of Africa, especially in marginal subsistenceareas, improvements in extension and research must gohand in hand with efforts to increase their availability.Indeed, in many cases, extension may not warrant thehighest priority.

A historically informed review of West African agri-culture indicates that over the years many different sys-tems of agricultural research and extension have beenpr:ached, and some have been practiced, in the region.These systems were designed with different and some-times unclear objectives in mind, for different agro-ecological zones, and for different crop or livestockenterprises; and they were applied in, but not necessar-ily designed for, varying socioeconomic circumstances.It should be obvious that there is no single blueprintfor the "best" research or extension approach, sinceeach research center and extension service must takeaccount of its own context and the conditions underwhich it operates. There are, however, some basic prin-ciples that need to be respected, properly defined, andadequately translated into operational procedures.

Between 1970 and 1980 the World Bank committedmore that $745 million in support of twenty-seven full-scale agricultural extension and/or research projects inthirteen countries. In addition, financial assistanceamounting to about $370 million was provided duringthe same period for research and extension componentsin 312 agricultural and rural development projects ineighty countries. Substantial financial and staff re-sources have thus been deployed to improve extensionservices and strengthen agricultural research. Since

14

4 Donald Pickering

1980 the Bank has continued to give strong supportand impetus to the search for innovative approaches inextension, to the elimination of chronic organizationalweaknesses that have plagued extension services, andto the formation of sound policies for linking agricul-tural research to extension work and to farmers' needs.In pursuit of this, the Bank has supported various ap-proaches to extension, constantly looking for increasedeffectivenessand making numerous concessions tothe realities of local conditions and resources. It hasbeen a continuous learning process, based on criticalassessments of actual experience, while avoiding blindacceptance of one or another blueprint. With the pro-viso that such flexibility is essential, it may be helpfulto take a look at some of the different systems of, orapproaches to, extension practices in Africa in the re-cent pastto explore their relative strengths and weak-nesses, and to derive appropriate lessons for currentand future activities.

Extension Approaches

Without attempting to provide any definitive classifica-tion or categorization, I have adapted a typology from"Six Approaches to Rural Extension," a paper by Haver-kart and Ro ling (1983) that is used at the Interna-tional Agricultural Center, Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity, in their course on international rural exten-sion. As the approaches were used, they changed overtime in one or another respect and are now rarely prac-ticed in a pure form. Some of the approaches partiallyoverlap, and certain elements have been transferredfrom one to another. For the purpose of further dis-cussion, we can consider the following five broad cat-egories of extension: the commodity-based approach,community development-cum-extension, the approachcentered on technical innovation, the farmer-focusedapproach, and farmers' group-based extension.

One of the most widespread formal extension sys-tems in West Africa is the commodity-based approach.In its original form, it follows an organized and coher-ent set of procedures designed to cacilitate the produc-tion of a single cash crop and is not usually used forsubsistence agriculture. The approach is based on thetechnical, administrative, and commercial require-ments of the predominant crop and is managed usuallyby a parastatal board or society or sometimes by a pri-vate company. Preeminently successful examples in-clude the Compagnie Francaise pour le Developpementdes Textiles (CFDT), which provides extension servicesfor cotton growers in a number of francophone WestAfrican countries, and British-American Tobacco (BAT)Limited in both East and West Africa. In these and

other good schemes, a technically sound and well-researched package of recommendations for the crop inquestion is systematically conveyed to farmers, exten-sion advice is integrated with a reliable supply of inputsand with marketing arrangements, and the companypays farmers promptly for their production.

There are several disadvantages to this approach. Theparastatal or crop-processing and marketing organiza-tion often has monopoly power, and extension activitiesmay help the company earn excessive profits at thefarmers' expense. If the company is poorly managedand is forced to alter input or output prices to financeits inefficiency, then the comparative advantage of thecrop can be affected and poor returns to farmers canresult. The emphasis on one crop can sometimes meanthat local needs are ignored and that insufficient atten-tion is given to traditional food production. The bestexamples,..however, increasingly take account of thefactors affecting secondary crops as well. The cottonparastatals in C6te d'Ivoire, Mali, and Togo have ex-tended their crop coverage and now provide technicaladvice and credit for the main food crops grown alongwith cotton in the farming systems concerned.

Community development-cum-extension has oper-ated to a limited extent in Africa and rather more inother parts of the world, especially India. It is con-structed around a broad definition of the functions ofthe extension agent and makes positive attempts to linkextension to other aspects of overall community devel-opment. In practice, however, this approach hasdrowned the village agent in a long list of loosely de-fined tasks that infringe upon his specific responsibili-ties for agricultural extension and thereby disperseboth his attention and his accountability among manydifferent activities. Although often called an extensionagent, in reality the individual tends to be either a gen-eral community worker or at most a general agricul-tural officer. His wide variety of technical and adminis-trative duties can include family planning or healthservices, credit schemes, technology promotion, distri-bution of supplies, political mobilization, and ad hocassignments such as census-taking. This set of dutiesis so broad that the results are usually pour perfor-mance, confused supervision, discontinuity, and lack ofmobility; little organized work is done, and the agricul-tural extension function is normally neglected. At atime when specialization and professionalization areclear prerequisites for technical progress in agricul-ture, such extension canaot significantly increase pro-duction and productivity.

The innovation-centered approach in extension hasthe primary function of transferring to farmers tech-nology from outside their socioeconomic context, byactively promoting technical innovations and persuad-

I ti

ing farmers to adopt them. Inherent in this approachand undermining its effect is an insufficient apprecia-tion of the farmers' circumstances. Rather than start-ing from the actual conditions and constraints thatfarmers face, it attempts to graft ready-made, packagedinnovations (such as standardized types of fertilizer andrules for its application) on farming systems that maynot necessarily be capable of absorbing them. In Africaanother problem with this approach is often the inade-quacy of the technical information being extended. Thisshortcoming usually derives from a failure to carry outthe final stages of testing on farmers' fields in differentecological zones and with different types of farmers.

The fanner-focused approach is best exemplified bythe training and visit system (my), which is in essencea method for organizing and managing an extensionservice. It puts the farmer and his constraints. abilities,and needs at center stage and attempts to mobilize theentire extension apparatus and research system to ser-vice him. As do other approaches, my disseminates inno-vations and technical recommendations, but it takes asits starting point the farm and its immediate difficultiesand potential, addressing both food and cash crops tothe extent that relevant information is available. As amanagement system, Tor tries to overcome the prob-lems normally encountered by governmental extensionservices by stressing the need for extension agents tomake regular visits, to receive good supervision, and toacquire specialized knowledge. Its intention is to focusextension efforts on well-researched, key impact pointsand to ensure that contact farmers are representativeof different socioeconomic groups among the farm pop-ulation. Forging and sustaining research-extensionlinkages is a high priority in mvto be accomplishedthrough such exercises as the careful joint definition ofimpact points and the joint conduct of adaptive trialson farmers' fields. Typically the system has been graftedonto the innovation-centered approach, with the riskthat a top-down orientation will be retained. A con-scious effort must therefore be made to ensure that T&Vdoes, in fact, focus on farmers' problems, perceptions,and needs rather than on the management of informa-tion delivery alone.

Sometimes in the farmer-focused approach to exten-sion a useful operational distinction can be made be-tween variants in which the farmer is approached indi-vidually (through selected contact farmers) and othersin which the extension service works with farmers'groups, either those already in existence or groupsformed for extension purposes. The modalitiesof agent-farmer communication have significant methodologicaland sociological implications, and benefits may begained from comparing their advantages and disadvan-tages in different cultural contexts. Group formation is

Agricultural Extension and Its Linkage with Agricultural Research 5

a complex social task, and extension agents are oftenunequipped to do it properly. Roling (cited earlier) em-phasizes, on the basis of his field research, that the suc-cess of group extension depends on five different setsof activities by extension staff: mobilization, organiza-tion, training, technical and resource support, and rep-lication and maintenance. All five elements have to beaddressed if the approach is to be successful, since theyare closely interdependent. Various extension systemsare based on group activity and take into account theseprinciples to a greater or lesser degree.

One particularly interesting example of group exten-sion is the concept ofgroupements villageois, or villageassociations, which has developed in West Africa. Thisapproach has on occasion been successfully graftedonto the commodity approach, as in the World Bankfinanced cotton and food crop project in southern Malirun by the Compagnie Malienne de Developpement desTextiles (emur).

Cooperatives have also been used as a basis for groupextension efforts, but the success of extension in thiscontext is inevitably bound up with the success of thecooperative as a wholewhich tends to be almost in-versely proportional to the extent of administrative in-terference in its affairs by the government. Coopera-fives need to grow in response to the felt needs offarmers, not as a result of pressure from outside. Some-times such associations and groups have fallen into thehands of an elite that abuses them for its own politicalor financial ends. When cooperatives are successful,however, they may even reach the stage of financingtheir extension agentsas in Cameroon in the WorldBankfunded West Highland Rural Development Proj-ect. There, a percentage of the agent's salary and bene-fits is provided by the cooperative, while training andtechnical support is provided by the government. Themore impressive farmers' associations are likely to pos-sess a sense of service to their members and to offerthe prospect of relieving the government of part or allof the cost of providing extension staff at the grassroots, and perhaps at higher levels too.

Some Pointers

Every country needs a sound agricultural policy frame-work in which research and extension goals can be de-fined within a clear hierarchy of national developmentpriorities and in which appropriate budgetary provi-sions can be made for the effective use of extensionstaff. As a rule of thumb based on experience in manycountries, it is prudent to use no more than 70 percentof the recurrent funds available to extension for sala-ries; some 30 percent would then be left for transport

6 Donald Pickering

costs, allowances, and other items necessary to ensurestaff mobility and operational effectiveness. A numberof African countries have found themselves with an ex-tension payroll that has forced them to devote a dispro-portionate 85 to 95 percent of their recurrent funds tosalaries; as a result, the staff have become desk-bound,frustrated, and ineffective. To mitigate this situation,maximum use should be made of private sector initia-tives for specific crops that can bear the cost of an ex-tension or research service. In addition, self-reliantfarmer organizations should be fostered and encour-aged to take over appropriate government supportfunctions at the local level, since these services areoften costly to maintain and inefficient at best.

When pondering ways of reducing the costs of exten-sion, one needs to remember what an extension systemis supposed to accomplish. Al! successful systems in de-veloping countries emphasize face-to-face contact andpractical field based training and supervision, whichimpose certain cost parameters. The ratio of extensionworkers to farmers should vary according to the densityof population, settlement patterns, and the nature ofthe farm system; the number of staff can be contained,however, by the judicious use of farmers' groups andthe radiowhere appropriateor even television. Toooften, radio program; that should augment extensionare planned quite separately from ongoing field pro-grams. If instead they are made part and parcel of thesame program and planned together with it, they willnot only have a multiplier effect but also can often re-duce the requirement for contact staff in the field.

With regard to technology, the need for close liaisonbetween research and extension cannot be overempha-sized. Ensuring that research programs are relevant tofarmers' needs requires, among other things, that vali-dation programs are effectively and jointly carried outon farmers; fields with the active participation of farm-ers. In addition, one needs to institutionalize proce-dukesloyjoint review by research and extension staffof research, extension, and adaptive trial programs. Or-ganizing periodic workshops for research staff with ex-tension subject matter specialists has proved to be avaluable way of promoting communication and under-standing.

Any extension program must be well organized andplanned with specific objectives and responsibilities forall staff, particularly subject matter specialists. It willbenefit from a single line of command and continuous,

1

task-focused tr--.41 programs for agents In consider-ing various approaches and principles, policymakersneed to ask what can best be afforded in their respectivecountries and what features most need to be strength-ened. A likely candidate for attention in most instanceswill be manpower training to upgrade both technicalspecialists and extension and research managers.

Many policymakers continue to remain woefully ig-norant of the role of women -in African farming sys-tems. They need to recognize that a very large propor-tion of the family farm labor force is female and thatwomen are in many cases pivotal to the success of agri-cultural development. This realization calls for somefundamental rethinking of much of the conventionalwisdo-n on crop and livestock production, the improve-ment of technology to increase productivity, and theextension systems that promote information flows fromfarmers to research workers and from research workersback to farmers.

Investing in extension should be regarded by both in-ternational and national agencies as a continuouslearning process, with plenty of lessons on farmers' be-havior and on development dynamics to be harvested.It bears repeating that there is no panacea for agricul-ture in Africa and no single blueprint for the best exten-sion approach. The problems vary enormously in theirnature and severity, and each approach must be tai-lored to meet particular conditions. Blind adherence toa system that has been successful elsewhere can be arecipe for disaster. One must also understand a coun-try's existing extension system if one is to recom-mend improvements that can be introduced with aminimum of upheaval and a maximum of positive im-pact. It is important to take stock of the situation inthe light of national constraints -esource potentials,and existing research and extt.,,sion systems. Thisstocktaking should give full consideration to the eco-nc nic, social, and cultural conditions of the people:the men, women. and children who make up the farm-ing population and without whose support and under-standing the systems are valueless. Thereafter it shouldbe possible to begin to find ways and means of improv-ing existing systems to make them more effective andefficient.

Paper presented at the seminar on Agricultural Extension andIts Link with Research in Rural Development, Yamoussoukro,Cote d'Ivoire, February 17-23,1.485.

7

2

The Commodity-Driven Approachof the Cotton Companies

Guy Mandavi

The Compagnie Francaise pour le Developpement desTextiles (CFDT, French Company for the Development ofTextiles) was established in 1949 by the French govern-ment, whicn owns two-thirds of its capital, and wascharged with the development of cotton in the Frenchcolonies. The CFDT has two features: deliberate verticalintegration (from extension services at the producerlevel to the export of processed goods into the worldmarket) and close links-with agricultural research, inthis case the Institut de Recherches du Coton et desTextiles Exotiques (mil. After the countries in whichthe CFDT operated achieved independence, the CFDT en-couraged the establishment of parastatal companies(the "cotton companies") and continued to supply themwith technical assistance in agricultural extension, pro-cessing, marketing, management and accounting, andthe maintenance of equipment. Today the CFDT has atotal staff of 350, of whom 100 are at the Paris head-quarters and 250 are in the field; it operates in twenty-nine developing countries, twenty-four in Africa andfive in Asia.

For a long time there was a striking similarity be-tween the organizational framework and methods ofoperation of the CFDT and those of the companies it hadhelped establish; one even spoke in generic terms of the"CFDT method." Properly speaking, the CFDT method nolonger exists. There is, however, an approach to exten-sion which, though differing from one country to an-other depending on social, historical, and political fac-tors, is defined by a number of features. The extensionworker deals with all agricultural activities associatedwith cotton through group action at the village level.He does not work with pilot farmers or contact farmers,but with a group, even though some demonstrationsare done for individuals. In addition to his extension

7

work as such, the extension worker generally organizesthe supply of inputs and agricultural credit and is in-volved in marketing output and the formation of villagecommercial groups. The extension worker will nor-mally transmit only those recommendations that havebeen thoroughly tested and that are no longer experi-mental; these recommendations can usually be appliedin full by interested farmers because the equipment andinputs necessary to implement them will also be madeavailable through the same extension system. Anemerging trend is for the extension workers to transfertheir responsibilities more and more to farmc.rs' associ-ations. The group approach facilitates this transferandencourages the creation of such groups.

These features are found in most cm-derived exten-sion services, despite scale differences in approach andorganization. This integrated approach to extension,provision of services, and marketing activities has beenhighly instrumental in boosting cotton production to850,000 tons a year in West Africa, with an averageyield of 1,000 kilograms per hectare. Furthermore, inthese cotton-growing areas, surpluses of food cropshave developed because the producers have made effi-cient use of available resources by employing appropri-ate modem production systems and techniques.

This chapter focuses on the evolution of intensivecultivation in the cotton areas of West Africa and on thedevelopment of the extension systems and farmers' as-sociations that have fostered this evolution.

Intensive Cultivation

For many centuries, throughout the world, agriculturemade little dynamic progress. Established farming

1U

8 Guy Mandavt

techniques were repeated by successive generationswithout major changes; at best, soil fertility was main-tained. The productivity of human labor was modifiedonly with the use of draft animals and with farmingtools which remained similar for long periods. Farmers'techniques and resources remained relatively un-changed from the early periods of recorded historyuntil the nineteenth century, when some countriesstarted to use fertilizer and agricultural machines.Plant material and farming techniques were adapted tothese new productive conditions, and intensive cultiva-tion began.

African farmers, however, did not take part in thisevolution. Many continued, as nomads or seminomads,to practice a system of cultivation that let fields lie fal-low for long periods of time. These techniques resultedin low productivity, but were generally adequate to en-sure survival and were appropriate to the prevailing re-quirements of society. If the productivity of labor andland were to be increased, however, this balanced butlimited traditional system had to be replaced withsomething which would allow the introduction of im-proved techniques for managing time and resources Incotton-producing regions, this change took place ;ntwo phases.

First Phase

Cotton was a new crop for most of the countries inwhich the CFDT worked, though not entirely new to WestAfrica (it had been grown in Ghana since the 1890s, forexample). At the outset the challenge was to persuadefarmers that cotton growing could, under their ownmanagement, be financially attractiveand this oftenin regions where the introduction of cotton marked thefirst time that the farmers' world was opened up to cashcropping and to a market economy.

It has taken about one generation (twenty years) forCFDT farmers to assimilate basic improved techniquesand to accept the changes thereby introduced into theirwork methods. For example, row cultivation and singlecropping, which are now universally accepted, had toprove their effectiveness to a population used to sowingseveral types of plant at random in the same fields. Thistook time, since the habit of interplanting was a ra-tional response to local circumstances. By employingthis technique farmers ensured that land was in useover the longest possible time during the season andthat harvesting would be spread out and more manage-able as a consequence; they spread the risks of adverseweather and pests over several crops; and they took ad-vantage of the fact that certain plants complement oneanother and control soil erosion when they are grown

together. Random sowing had another advantage forthe women who were responsible for sowing and weed-ing. A mother could work around the spot where shehad placed her baby, keeping him safely in view, thenmove him and begin again.

Cotton growing, which was performed in addition tothe farmers' traditional activities, increased their workload. In order to grow all their crops successfully, thefarmers had to improve the productivity of their labor.The introduction of row seeding facilitated weeding andmaintenance and prepared the way for the use of draftanimals and mechanization. The new techniques wereaccepted only when farmers came to realize that theyincreased productivity. Single cropping on an annualbasis, for example, was adopted when farmers saw theadvantages of giving different crops different fertiliza-tion and spraying treatmentswhich of course re-quire their spatial separation. The CFDT approach wasto induce farmers to intensify each crop separatelywithin the framework of a three- or four-year crop rota-tion and, by means of organic and mineral fertilization,to eliminate shifting cultivation. Fields could then becleared with a view to introducing draft animals andmechanization in the near future.

Although these basic techniques improved labor pro-ductivity and farm income somewhat, they did not pro-vide any significant leap forward. They also destroyeddeeply rooted agricultural traditions which had allowedsocieties to survive and develop in an environmentoften hostile and difficult to control. If no other mea-sures were adopted, production would stagnate, andfarmers weuld tend to revert to their traditional tech-niques if they were not satisfied with the yields obtainedby using the new techniques alone. Something else wastherefore requirednamely, crop intensification.

Second Phase

Crop intensification implies the use of fertilizer, pesti-cides, and agricultural machines, together with appro-priate agricultural techniques, on land where the useof such products can be effective. 1.n the CFDT'S experi-ence, farmers have accepted these radically new tech-niques with surprising ease once they have movedthrough the first phaseprovided that they saw a trulysubstantial increase in their net income as a result (thatis, a return on investment in a particular "package" onthe order of 25-100 percent). Conversely, all effortshave failed when the disseminated technology has notbeen able to produce the incremental incomes requiredto motivate farmers, and traditional practices have thenbeen taken up again.

At present, the success of cotton growing in West Af-

1 9

rica is based on a fairly uniform adoption of all the fol-lowing recommendations: cultivation by draft animalsor mechanization, planting of improved varieties, appli-cation of 50 to 100 kilograms of fertilizer per hectare,and the use of effective pesticides and spraying tech-niques, as well as weed killers and mechanized weed-ing. Such packages were accepted almost immediatelyby farmers already acquainted with row seeding, sowingdates, plant population, and weeding and aware of thelimitations of those basic techniques.

As a result, entire regions covering tens of thousandsof hectares now achieve or exceed yields of 1,500 kilo-grams of cotton seed per hectare. Modern farming hasbeen developed and promoted, thereby retaining on theland young people attracted by this technology whowould otherwise have swelled the sanks of the unem-ployed in the towns. The rural landscape in parts of Af-rica is accordingly undergoing change and has becomewell managed and intensively farmed; the productionlevels achieved are enabling farmers to sustain tech-niques, such as mechanization, which are feasible onlywith a certain level of farm income. The introductionof draft animals, and subsequently of mechanization,has in itself provided the discipline and efficiency re-quired to grow a highly technical crop at internation-ally competitive standards. Families that were until re-cently subsistence farmers have now entered themodern world; their objective is no longer merely tosurvive, but to achieve relative prosperity.

Another change is the development of village associa-tions. In my opinion these groups can become the basisfor the organization of rural society in the future, butthey will thrive only if there is strong economic supportfor them. The high-profit cash crop, for which the sea-son's prices and a market are guaranteed, stimulatestilt development of such structures through the in-come it brings, the organization it requires, and its im-pact on the regional economy. Without crop intenshi-cation, though, such developments are almostimpossible.

The Evolution of Extension Systems for Cottoi

Three stages can be identified in the evolution of theextension systems that are commonly associated withcotton growing in West Africa.

The first stage corresponded to the introduction ofcotton. The main question was whether farmers couldbe persuaded to accept additional tasks and differentfarm management regimes, even though they wouldstand to gain more income thereby. Ways also had tobe found to increase the productivity of their labor in

The Commodity-Driven Approach of the Cotton Companies 9

order to pei_ait them to take on this additional work.And given the novelty of cotton cultivation, farmersas observed abovehad to be provided with techniqueswhich would enable them to achieve yields suff zient togive a significant return. Despite the sociological com-plexities involved in introducing cotton, the techniqueswere such that it was not necessary for the cotton com-panies to use highly trained extension personnel at thisjuncture.

Since the cropping season lasts only six months inmost areas, the extension workers were also put incharge of marketing activities to keep them busythroughout the year. At this time, the pyramidal struc-ture of extension services was also developed. At thebase of the pyramid, workers with relatively little tech-nical training were charged with conveying, withoutquestion, the message: transmitted down the hierar-chy. Supervision and training were applied in a top-down manner, with each level supervised and trainedby the level immediately above it. The extension systemwas well disciplined and highly organized.

For years this system provided the necessary ser-vices. It permitted the successful introduction of cottonand modernized agricultural techniques. Contact be-tween exteir'on workers and farmers took place at agroup or vi!..:ge level: widespread changes and produc-tion increases were looked for, and the extension ser-vice believed this was best accomplished by dealing withfarmers en masse. Some attempts were made to usepilot farmers or leaders, but these failed to achieve ap-propriate results even though some individuals ob-tained significant successes.

The second stage was characterized by the integra-tion of the extension function with other activities.First, the supply of inputs, provision of equipment, andmanagement of both seasonal and investment creditwere added to the agent's extension and marketingtasks. It should be remembered that in most cottonareas there was no alternative private channel throughwhich farmers could be supplied with inputs. In addi-tion, attempts to launch free-standing agriculturalcredit had been by and large unsuccessful, since the or-ganizations concerned had no control over the market-ing of production and thus lacked the critical power toinsist on repayment of credit at the point of sale. Byvirtue of their produce-purchasing activities, however,the cotton companies were in a good position to admin-ister credit activities effectively. The multifaceted ex-tension worker who dealt with the marketing of pro-duction, who granted and collected payments, and whodistributed inputs and agricultural equipment thus be-came an important and respected member of his villagein the cotton areas.

20

10 Guy Mandavi

A second type of integration occurred with the ad-vent and implementation of integrated rural develop-ment projects. These projects became the responsibilityof the only strong and viable development structures intheir areasnamely, the cotton companies. The exten-sion workers were therefore made responsible for thedistribution of food-crop seeds and the disseminationof improved techniques for all farm activities. Many ofthem, however, were not knowledgeable enough to per-form these tasks. It thus became necessary to expandthe scope of their training and to create specialists whocould provide this training and later support extensionworkers in disseminating the techniques of food-cropproduction, animal care, and applied research.

In addition to this training and in order to increasethe cost-effectiveness of their agents, the cotton com-panies promoted the formation of farmers' associations.This innovation constitutes the third and current stagein the development of the cFDT- derived extension sys-tem.

The job of an extension worker who deals with an in-formal farmers' group and that of an adviser to a formalassociation are very similar. The use of group-level orvillage-level contactsas opposed to individual contactfarmersfacilitates the evolution of farmers' associa-tions. The cotton companies have always wanted to cre-ate a structure compatible with villagers' own interestsand have therefore now given local groups the neces-sary financial means to control and manage all exten-sion activities at the village level. As a result, the exten-sion worker has over time become the village'sagricultural adviser, offering technical support for theintroduction of new technologies and for the adminis-tration of a variety of agricultural activities.

The articles of these associations vary from onecountry to another. Their functions, size, and the ori-gin of their resources likewise depend on the countryrid on the objectives for which they have been created.At the end of 1984 there were more than 5,000 suchgroups with about 130,000 members in the countriespracticing extension patterned on the CFDT model. Thedecision to form a group can be purely voluntary or insome cases subject to a village consensus. All the asso-ciations elect their own officers, and the membersjoin in group activities which include cotton and food-crop marketing and, more and more often, the manage-ment of input supply and the development of local infra-structure.

In three countries the associations have undertakencomplementary development activities, such as run-ning an infirmary and shops, providing contract culti-vation services, and conducting literacy classes. Thegroups receive a percentage of the value of marketed

products; most also have access to loans and subsidies,while the profits from their shops or other commercialactivities contribute additional resources to the associa-tion's funds.

Once such organizations are firmly established, theextension service must rethink its own structure andmethods. I believe that the basic extensior worker aswe now know him will soon disappear. Farmers' associ-ations, if properly supported by the development com-panies, will then oversee and execute the main tasks ofagricultural development. In the next few years the ex-tension worker will become an adviser who attends as-sociation meetings and transmits to his senior officersthe decisions on crops and on the inputs and equip-ment needed. When a new technique has to he dissemi-nated, the association's technical committee will be in-vited to attend a demonstration, or the adviser willperform the demonstration on a member's field. The es-sential difference will be that the extension worker willno longer have the command over farmers that he oncehad but will be seen and used more as an employee ofthe association than of the company. This may soundoptimistic, but some groups already work this way; andin view of the laccessful evolution of intensive cultiva-tion over the last generation or more, it is not impossi-ble to foresee this kind of relationship between exten-sion workers and farmers developing throughout thewhole of the cotton area by the year 2000.

Once farmers are able to manage their associations,they can take over true responsibility for their own de-velopment. The extension worker can supervise themanagement of the associations and can continue toadminister literacy and postliteracy programs and over-see the supply of equipment and inputs. The inter-dependency of producers and development companieswould thus persist, embodied in a more subtle relation-ship between association and extension worker-cum-adviser. This arrangement will for a number of yearsplay an important part in providing technical support,organizational ability, and a channel of communicationwith the company. The strength of a group is greatlyenhanced by having the support of a technical organi-zation with a similar economic interest in the produc-tion of a c, op. For lack of such backup and interest,many village cooperatives in many other settings havemet with failure.

ConcluF;ln

I have given a brief description of how an integrated ex-tension system based on the cultivation of a cash cropcan change and modernize the rural environment. Can

2.1

this approach to extension lead to unbalanced rural de-velopment? Will extension workers neglect other crops?

The results ol-Aained in cotton-producing contriesseem to indicate the opposite: modern agriculturaltechnology is widely used on the whole farm, and it israther with traditional or official marketing organiza-tions that farmers face the most difficulties. The exis-tence of a reliable source of cash income enables farm-ers to have access to seasonal credit for inputs so theycan also grow food crops, and this is not possible with-out a cash crop. The CFDT lesson is that farmers, in

The Commodity-Driven Approach of the Cotton Companies 11

time, can engineer their own development through dy-namic farmers' associationsbut for this to occur,there must be sound economic support of the type thatonly a cash crop can ensure..

Adapted from papers presented at the African Workshop onExtension and Research, Eldoret, Kenya, June 10-16, 1984,and at the seminar on Agricultural Extension and Its Linkwith Research in Rural Development, Yamoussoukro, C6ted'Ivoire, February 17-23, 1985.

The Extension System of British-AmericanTobacco (Kenya) Limited

Francis Kimani

British-American Tobacco (BAT) Limited introduced to-bacco as a crop for small-scale growers in Kenya in thelate 1930s in Kitui and Sagana, and in the early 1950sin Embu. These three areas produced only about 10percent of Kenya's requirements for tobacco, and thebalance was imported from Uganda and Tanzania.

In 1974 BAT decided to boost tobacco growing inKenya in order to make the country self-sufficient influe- and fire-cured tobaccos. Four areas were identifiedas suitable for tobacco expansion: Meru in easternKenya, Migori and Kuria in Nyanza province, and a beltin Bungoma/Busia in Western province. To ensure thatsufficient fuel wood was available for curing the to-bacco, as well as for domestic needs, the companystarted a tree-planting program in 1977.

Before 1974 an average of 100 metric tons of tobaccoa year was grown in Kenya for sale to BAT, with yieldsgenerally less than 600 kilograms per hectare. Sincethen, production has expanded so much that the coun-try is now self-sufficient in flue- and fire-cured tobacco.In January 1984 the project had become so successfulthat for the first time tobacco was added to the coun-try's list of agricultural exports, and 105 tons of locallygrown fire-cured leaf were shipped to Europe. In 1982the company embarked on a new project to produceburley tobacco in the country.

The total production of tobacco in Kenya in 1983 was6,600 tons, 27 percent higher than the previous year.This was produced by approximately 10,000 small-holders in the five growing areas. Over the years therehas been a marked improvement in yields and quality.In 1983 the average yield of flue-cured tobacco was-1,260 kilograms per hectare nationwide, and 1,460kilograms per hectare in the three main growing areasof western Kenya. Fire-cured tobacco has recorded a

13

similar improvement, with average yields less than 800kilograms per hectare before 1980 and 1,285 in 1983.

The project is manned by 200 trained extension offi-cers and staff. Through the company's credit scheme,growers are advanced the necessary inputs and servicesduring the growing season. In 1983 approximately 15million Kenya shillings (roughly US$1 million) wereloaned to the growers. Loans are covered by the farm-ers' sales of tobacco in the same season. Over the years,loan recovery has improved tremendously, and todaymore than 95 percent of the loans are normally recov-ered. To maintain farmers' incentives, BAT ensures thatthe farmer is paid promptly on the day of sale. In addi-tion, tobacco prices are reviewed regularly in consulta-tion with the Ministry of Agriculture.

Extension Objectives

The Leaf Department of BAT is responsible for providingextension services to the growers. A relatively youngdepartment, it has expanded rapidly since 1974. Its ob-jectives are:

To plan the production of tobacco and then en-sure that the country's domestic and export re-quirements are met, at a cost acceptable to thecompany and farmers, and to plan and oversee theforestry targets

To produce tobacco of a quality acceptable to bothdomestic consumers and the export tradeTo maximize farmers' profits by helping them to:,..,,rease yields, while instituting strict controls onthe area of tobacco a grower can cultivate

To improve the overall living standard of the farm-

23

14 ftancis N. Kimani

er by giving extension advice on other farm ac-tivities, along with tobacco production

To guarantee the future viability of the tobaccoproject by assisting the growers and their commu-nities with tree planting to provide fuel for to-bacco curing and domestic use

To pay farmers promptly for their tobacco output.

The Extension Structure

The structure of the Leaf Department extension serviceis shown in figure 3-1. The duties of staff at the variouslevels are described in the following paragraphs.

The leaf director is responsible to the Board of Direc-tors for all the functions of the department. He com-municates to the department's managers the com-pany's policies pertaining to tobacco leaf productionand formulates leaf policies of a more general nature.He coordinates the setting of annual crop targets as dic-tated by domestic and export leaf requirements. He

Figure 3-1. Structure of the BAT Extension System

then approves crop and capital budgets for each divi-sion and sanctions all increases in staff in line withBoard decisions. He discusses all tobacco prices withthe government and makes recommendations. Hemonitors progress in the divisions through his leaf op-erations manager and visits to the field.

The main responsibility of the leaf operations man-ager is to deal with the technical aspects of the depart-ment. He advises all divisions on the preparation oftheir crop and afforestation plans, approves the plans,and ensures that all the recommended agronomic prac-tices are followed by the divisions. He also liaises withthe divisional leaf managers when they prepare theirannual crop budgets and their five-year operational andcapital budgets, which are discussed with all concernedbefore being transmitted to the Board by the leaf direc-tor for approval. In addition, he monitors the expendi-tures of all the divisions and takes action to ensuretheir efficiency, and he prepares with the division man-agers the five-year requirements for staffing the depart-ment.

The divisional leaf manager is the key actor in the

Managing director

I

Leaf director

Leaf operations manager

I I IDivisional leafmanager, Meru

Divisional leafmanager, Bungoma/Busia

Divisional leafmanager, Migori

Divisional leafmanager, Kuria

I

Area leaf manager

Assistant arealeaf manager

I

Leaf technician

Assistant technician

Farmer1

g

Assistantadministrative

manager

24

The Extension System ot Tritish-American Tobacco (Kenya) Limited 15

structure. He is in charge of approximately 2,000 grow-ers and 55 staff and strives to produce an average of1,200 tons of leaf annually. He manages an annualbudget of approximately 32 million Kenya shillings(roughly US$2.2 million) and has usually completed auniversity degree in agricultural science. His job hasfive main aspects: planning, implementation, monitor-ing, administration, and public affairs.

To ensure that his division produces the agreedquantity and quality of tobacco and the required num-ber of trees, the divisional leaf manager prepares an an-nual action plan that shows in detail how the crop andafforestation targets are to be achieved. He also makessure that all inputs, materials, and staff needed to im-plement the plan are received in good time. A crucialplanning tool is the five-year development program thatdetails production targets, staff requirements, and leafand overhead costs. He must continuously monitor theaction plan, compare it with the actual field situation,and revise it as additional relevant information be-comes available. He manages a system for monitor-ing all activities and reporting to the leaf operationsmanager.

Administrative duties include coordinating the prep-aration of the annual crop budget and the five-year fore-cast budget for his division, ensuring that the agreedbudgets are adhered to, and advising the leaf operationsmanager whenever changes in the budget are neces-sary. In addition, the divisional leaf manager preparesa five-year plan for staffing requirements, coordinatesrecruitment and replacement within the approved es-tablishment, and plans, organizes, and implementstraining programs for all field and administration staff.He also liaises with government officials and local lead-ers in his area.

The area leaf manager assists the divisional leafmanager in all aspects of his job, but with less emphasison planning and more on implementation and moni-toring. Hence he spends more time with the field staff.He would be a university graduate in agriculture.

The assistant area leaf manager also generally hasa university degree in agriculture. On the average, heis in charge of about ten field staff and 600 growers ina subarea of the division, who are expected to produceapproximately 400-500 tons of leaf annually. To thisend, he prepares and implements the area crop actionplan, a more detailed extension of the divisional plan.He recommends his growers' input requirements, setscrop targets for his field staff, and monitors all field ac-tivities in his area to ensure that agreed crop and affor-estation targets are achieved.

The leaf technician generally holds a certificate inagriculture. He has under him approximately three as-

sistant leaf technicians and is in charge of an area withperhaps 300 growers. He is therefore expected to pro-duce about 200 tons of tobacco annually. He also coor-dinates farmer meetings in his area, organizes all cropdemonstrations, and visits his farmers agularly, partic-ularly during the critical stages of the crop. In addition,he must liaise with the local government agents to en-sure that they undr7stand the company's plans.

The assistant leaf technician has usually passed sec-ondary school "0" or "A" levels and is the agent whodeals directly with the growers. He has approximately70-100 growers in his area, prepares and implementsa program to visit each farmer once every two weeks,and travels around to the farms by bicycle or motor-cycle. He is expected to produce 60-70 tons of leaf an-nually. He assists the leaf technician in advising thegrowers and making sure that they implement the rec-ommended agronomic practices properly and withinthe %greed time. He also distributes the recommendedinputs and services.

The Transmission of Messages

The company 1.,deves that extension agents at the levelof technician or below must clearly understand the di-visional targets and objectives if they are to be effective.To facilitate this the following procedures are used totransmit messages from the management to the techni-cians and farmers.

Before the start of the season the divisional leafmanager's crop action plan is thoroughly discussedin a meeting of all field staff, and targets are either ac-cepted by all or, if necessary, a.nended. At this timethe goal is to get commitment from all staff and to sat-isfy them that the targets set for them are realisticand achievable.

The division action plan is then amplified further bythe assistant area leaf manager, and copies of the ampl-fied plan are given to the leaf technicians and their as-sistants, who use it as the basic plan of operations.

The divisional leaf manager and the senior field staffmeet once a week to review specific aspects of the cropaction plans. The divisional leaf manager holds month-ly meetings with all field staff at which instructions forthe coming month are issued. Daily or regular fieldcontacts between the technicians and management fur-ther strengthen the system of communication.

Patterns of Contact

Contacts between the extension agents and the farmerstake place at meetings (or barazas) with groups offarm-ers and on visits to individual farms. A tradition in most

16 Francis N. Kimani

divisions is to invite all growers to a baraza at the endof each crop season. At this meeting the divisional man-agement reviews the performance of the growers in theprevious season, pointing out both weaknesses am; suc-cesses, acid farmers' representatives give their versionof the company's successes and weaknesses. The cropaction pt_an for the coming season is then thoroughlydiscussed, and where necessary recommendations foramendments are agreed by the staff and the growers.In addition, field staff regularly hold barazas for thegrowers to introduce, demonstrate, or initiate a specificskill or crop activity in the current crop action plan.

The main contact between the agent and the farmeroccurs on individual farm visits. By recruiting extrastaff or changing the mode of transport, the companykeeps the staff-farmer ratio within a range that enablesthe assistant leaf technician to visit each farmer onceevery two weeks. The ratios are 1:60-100 if the assis-tant travels by bicycle, and 1:100-150 if he uses amotorcycle. All other field staff, from management tothe leaf technicians, are also in regular contact with thegrowers during their field visits for supervision andmonitoring.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The success of the tobacco project is in significant partthe result of an intensive monitoring system that all di-visions use. Frequent field visits permit managers tocompare the action plan with the actual field situationand to have on-the-spot discussions with the field ex-tension agent. All staff submit weekly progress reports

Table 3-1. Credit Categories of Tobacco Growers

on the crups to their seniors; the': are summarized bythe area leaf manager for the ..visional leaf manager,who discusses the results in hie weekly meetings withhis ast tant managers. The division?l leaf manager'sregular monthly meetings with all field staff are an oc-casion to review the crop action plan, amend it if neces-sary, and issue fresh instructions for the comingmonth. The proceedings and reports of these meetingsform the basis of his monthly report to the leaf opera-tions manager.

Financing of '.ne Tobacco Project

The financing of the project involves both the opera-tional costs of the program and the cost to individualfarmers of inputs. The program costs are covered in thedivisional cn.,;) budget, which is expected to be fairly ac-curate, realistic, and adequate. Once approved it cannotbe amended without consultation with the divisionalleaf manager. In this wav the divisional leaf manageris held accountable for his budget and cannot claimcash shortages as an muse if the agreed crop targetsare not met. Once the company has approved the bud-get, it is committed to implementing the budget asdrawn up and agreed and to ensuring that the necessaryresources are 6vailable when and where they areneeded.

To assist the growers in meeting their costs, thecompany (on behalf of the Agricultural Finance Corpo-ration of Kenya) administers a credit program, and BATundertakes to supply all registered growers with the

CategoryGeneralremarks

Outstandingloins

(Kenyashillings)

Previousyield

(kilogramsper hectare)

Trees inu'oodlot Barns

Area oftobacco

permitted(hectares)

Loan limit1984

(Kenyashillings)

Loanrecovery

rate requiredper sale(percent)

3 star Highestrating

None 1,800 2,000+ 2 1 5,100 50

2 star None 1,600 1,500+ 1 large 0.75 4,600 501 star Average

farmerNone 1,400 1,000+ 1 good 0.6 3,500 70

New farmer 0.5 5,300 70Potential

bad debtorUp to 1,500

from pre-vious year

1,200 500+ 1 good 0.5 3,000' 70

Cash farmer Belowaverage,uncooper-ative

Over 1,500 < 1,200 < 500 0.5 All paidin cash

70

a. Inputs issued in stages, subject to satisfactory completion of previous crop (4

26

The Extension System of British American Tobacco (Kenya) Limited 17

necessary farm inputs and services to enable them toproduce the required' quantity and quality of frac. It isBAT'S responsibility to issue the inputs at the correcttime and in adequate amounts, and to make sure theyare true to type. To minimize bad debts, all the growersare divided into six main categories, and the limit oftheir seasonal loan is set by category (see table 31).Through the use of this system and subsequent closemonitoring, the Jivisions are generally able to limittheir unrecoverable bad debts to less than 1 percent.

Summary

The BAT tobacco leaf extension program has worked andcontinues to work for the following reasons:

Objectives and functions are very clearly under-stood by all agents and everyone becomes com-mitted to them.

Crop action plans are very thoroughly planned,and targets are realistic and always achievable.

The company recruits highly trained and skilled

personnel and has a reward system that keeps staffincentives higher than in the public services,thereby ensuring that staff are fully committed totheir jobs.

The company undertakes to provide all necessaryresources, both financial and otherwise, so thatthe crop plans are fully implemented without un-necessary delays.

The monitoring and evaluation system allowsearly detection of any constraints affecting theprogram so that corrective measures can be takenquickly when necessary.

All objectives and targets are quantified; thusevery agent is clearly accountable to his superiors,and the reasons and subsequent rewards or penal-ties are known to everyone.

Farmers are paid promptly for their tobaccointhe majority of cases cn the same day the farmersells his produce.

Paper presented at the African Workshop on Extensionand Research at Eldoret, Kenya, June 10-16, 1984.

4

The World Bank and the Trainingand Visit System in East Africa

Nigel Roberts

By the end of 1983 the World Bank had committed, orwas preparing to commit, more than $2 billion to proj-ects associated with the T&V system. There were abouta hundred of these projects in some fifty countries, in-cluding free-standing extension projects, research-extension projects, and multicomponent rural develop-ment projects. Of that $2 billion, approximately $1billion was committed directly tc extension for con-struction, vehicles and equipment, salaries, and otheroperating costs. More than twenty countries hadadopted some version of T&V as their national extensionmethodology, either countrywide or in a major sub-sector. About twenty other countries had made use ofT&V on a significant scale in subsectoral or regionalprograms.

Despite the evident appeal of the system, its popular-ization has not been free of controversy. This chapterdiscusses the nature of the controversy and suggestshow some of the more valid criticisms might be ad-dressed in the design of future extension programs.

The T&V System and Its Origins

One of T&V'S more sympathetic critics, Jon Moris (1983),described the objectives underlying T&V in the followingway. T&V, he wrote,

attempts to equip junior extension staff with chang-ing extension messages according to a two-week[cycle], and then through tight supervision to en-sure they do actually work with specific contactfarmers on a [regular two-week] schedule. At thecore, the system aims at upgrading the technical

19

content of field extension activities while making thefield agents' contacts more predictable, and thusmore accessible (to farmers) and more enforceable(by Ministry supervisors). The first of these two ob-jectives requires direct links with agronomic re-search; that farmers' fields are used for conductingfeasibility trials; and that attention is directed to thethree or four most important innovations .. . Thesecond objectivemaking the extension worker'sfield tasks visible and predictablerequires a simpli-fication of Ministry responsibilities (preferably by thecreation of a unified extension service and the re-moval of its regulatory and information-gatheringtasks); an insistence that field staff should not takeon other jobs like arranging input supplies or assist-ing community development; [and] provision oftransport and incentives so that field tasks can beperformed as planned .. . [Tstv's] central innovationis the all-day training sessions which Ministry staffare supposed to arrange for all field agents on a14-day cycle.

In essence, then, T&V is a set of managerial principlesthat are applied to agricultural extension. As ArturoIsrael (1982) explains, the T&V system recognizes thatin a geographically scattered operation some degree ofdiscipline and clear lines of command are essential toachieve results: in the office and the factory there arewonderful tools for controlling performance, but theyare not available in the circumstances in which T&Voperates.

T&V was developed for the World Bank by DanielBenor, the former director of the Israeli extension ser-vice. The methodology was first tested in Turkey and

20 Nigel Roberts

then adopted widely in India and Southeast Asia in themiddle and late 1970s; more than 70 percent of the ex-ternally financed investment in T&V by the end of 1983had been directed to the Indian subcontinent and toSoutheast Asia. An understanding of the reasons forT&V'S appeal in India is important when considering therelevance of T&V to Africa, where conditions are oftenso very different from those in the subcontinent.

Many people agree that extension was the weakestlink in the small-farmer agricultural developmentpackage in India in the early 1970s; in many other re-spects the agricultural environment was conducive tothe widespread and rapid dissemination of new technol-ogies. There was a backlog of poorly disseminated re-search results (based on emergent Green Revolutiontechnologies); inputs and credit were freely available,thanks to a well-developed private sector; grain marketsfunctioned reasonably efficiently; input-output price re-lationships were attractive enough for farmers to investin new technologies; and the country's infrastructuralbase was sound. An effective technology transfer systemwas lacking, however. Extension efforts were poorly fo-cused, with too little attention paid to the provision oftechnical advice (as opposed to the provision of eco-nomic and community services); programs had littleinspiration, no credibility, and insufficient funds; effec-tive working relationships between researchers and ex-te nsionis ts were a rarity. T&V entered the arena at a timewhen extension reform was a priority item on the agri-cultural development agenda. Because the precondi-tions for successful extension were in place, T&V wasable to deliver resultsto complete the circle, as itwere, and thereby to boost production. Visible resultswere often achieved early, and agricultural policy-makers, seeing these, became advocates both of effectiveextension and of the system that embodied it.

The T&V system appealed to policymakers because itproposed a method whereby large and moribund exten-sion organizations could be mobilized at a small incre-mental recurrent cost. T&V put extension personnel towork through a tightly organized management ap-proach something extension had lacked in Indiaand in most developing countries. The increased effi-ciency was obvious, and the impact on production wasapparent to many initially skeptical observers. The T&Vseed fell on ideal soil in India: on the one hand, effectiveextension was absent, was seen to be necessary, andwas blessed with the preconditions in which it wouldthrive; on the other, the deficiencies in the technol-ogy transfer system were above all deficiencies in themanagement of the extension and research bureau-craciesexactly the type of situation T&V is best suitedto deal with.

The Controversy

Let me now turn from Asia to East Africa and discussin this context the undeniable controversy that sur-rounds the T&V system. In doing so, I draw on the workof John Howell of the Overseas Development Institutein London, a prominent commentator on T&V. He hasfor several years served as a conduit for an internationaldebate on T&V among academics, aid administrators,and extension managers, and in a number of ODI discus-sion papers he presents contrasting views on the sys-tem. In his 1984 paper, for example, Howell distin-guishes between what he calls the "nonissues" and thetruly "contentious issues" surrounding T&V.

Nonissues, according to Howell, are criticisms whichfault mv for failing to accomplish things it neverclaimed to do in the first place. An example of this isthe criticism that T&V cannot operate successfully in theabsence of an effective research program. Most propo-nents of T&V would agree: the system is designed totransfer technology, not to create it; my assumes thata functioning research apparatus is already in place.This particular criticism has no doubt been encouragedby past mistakes. T&V programs have on occasion beenestablished where research institutions were inade-quate and where no sufficient technology base for pro-ductive extension existed. A clear example of this isSomalia, where for several years the World Bankfunded extension service, out of necessity, attempted toconduct its own adaptive research program in order toderive a stock of viable extension messages. This wasa costly and sometimes ineffective process that haseroded the credibility of the research service. Now,however, the World Bank is very wary of establishingnew T&V projects in areas with a poor adaptive researchcapacity. Normally, a preexisting or concurrent invest-ment in research by an external agency is a precondi-tion for the Bank's involvement in extension.

Another related nonissue is the complaint that T&Vcannot increase production unles' the complementaryparts of the small-farmer development package alludedto previouslyinput supply and credit, market mecha-nisms, and price incentivesare in place. Again, thisis something few T&V advocates would dispute. Perhapssome T&V designers have overlooked the importance ofsuch factorsbut not often, and very rarely now. InEthiopia, for example, widespread World Bank involve-ment in the development of the national extensionservice has been held back for more than two years, de-spite a highly successful T&V pilot project. The princi-pal reason is that the incentives and services availableto farmersin particular, officially determined ferti-lizer-to-grain price ratios and output marketing

29

rrangementsare not judged to be sufficientlyattractive to induce investment in available new technol-ogies. Implicit in this decision is the recognition thatextension is only one cogwheel in the agriculturalmachine, and rarely the most important one at that.This point is made forcefully by Donald Pickering inchapter 1.

Howell's discussion then turns to contentious is-suesthat is, issues on which there is a genuine de-bate. For example, he refers to the argument over theuse and selection of contact farmers in T&V. These con-tact farmers are usually selected by the extension ser-vice and are supposed to represent the range of socio-economic groups found in a particular local society.Critics argueand I would agree with themthat inpractice local pressures and staff preferences often tendto bias selection in favor of the richer or more powerfulfarmers. Some people are concerned less by operationalproblems, however, than by the whole concept of con-tact farmers, which they find misguided. Guy Belloncle,for one, claims in chapter 7 that the use of pilotfarmers or farmer-leaders can only represent profoundinsensitivity to the egalitarian social structures foundthroughout traditional African society. Belloncle's re-marks are in fact linked to a more fundamental criti-cism of the whole T&V systemthat it is top-down inits orientation, and that it responds more to the desiredmodus operandi of the bureaucrat than to the needs ofa community and its farmers. The question of whetherT&V encourages true farmer participation in the re-search and extension process is an important and avalid one, and I will return to it later.

A second contentious issue is the cost ofT&V. In dis-cussing costs, Howell is not concerned with the eco-nomic justification for T&V, nor even its cost-effec-tiveness as compared with other dissemination methodssuch as radio. Recent studies (Feder, Slade, andSundaram 1985; Feder, Lau, and Slade 1985) are en-couraging in their assessment of both these ques-tions, albeit in the Indian context. For Howell, the issueis rather the financing of T&V. In Africa T&V developmenthas involved either a major buildup of personnel in theextension service or the injection of critical funds tocover operating costs, which extension has long beendenied; a relatively costless reorganization of an exist-ing program is not enough. The concentration of effortassociated with successful T&V therefore tends to be ex-pensive, and under today's constrained budgetary sce-narios it is not generally something that African gov-ernments can afford without a good deal of externalassistance. And although the economic benefits fromT&V may indeed be considerable, they may not be cap-tured as government revenuelet alone reflected in

The World Bank and the Training and Visit System In East Africa 21

greater budgetary allocations to extension. As Howellalso points out,

the difficulty is that extension services have no built-in mechanism for direct cost recoveryunlesslinked to commodity boards in the case of specificcrops (like tea, rubber, etc.); yet they appear to havea built-in mechanism for continuing increases inlocal recurrent costs (as more farmers are includedin the program and as farmers make more demandson the services). Even without this trend, externallyassisted extension projects (in the T&V mold) be-queath a high level of recurrent expenditure.

I would agree with Howell that in adopting T&V govern-ments run an implicit risk that the resultant cost bur-den may not be easily sustainable without continuedexternal assistance. I will argue later that this problemhas now begun to be recognized clearly and addressed.The question of actual cost recovery, however, is onethat has so far elicited little real interest from T&V

designersand I believe it should. I shall return to thisset of issues, too.

But above all, the controversy surrounding T&V hasbeen generated by a perception that the World Bank isselling the methodology as the universal extension sys-tem, and that it is often doing so inflexibly and with lit-tle sensitivity to the needs of particular situations andcountries. When this has happened, I would attributeit in part to the overenthusiasm and inexperience ofpeople like myself who, without really appreciating thedifference in circumstances, brought T&V out of Asiainto a new environmentand in part, let it be said, tothe introspective tendencies of all large organizations,which are always tempted to replicate successful experi-ences without looking too far out of the window. Be-cause of their inexperience, Bank staff did not alwaysdistinguish between the forms of T&V found in India(the fortnightly visit, the monthly research-extensionworkshop) and the principles underlying these forms(the need for regular on-farm visits and for systematiccontact between research and extension). As a result,in the design of some African T&V projects, there havebeen instances not only of unnecessary rigidity, butalso of random modification: project designers havese-lected one or two features of T&V that seemed to themattractive, without focusing on the principles that un-derlie good extension.

It is, however, a perceived methodological rigiditythat has drawn the most adverse comments. I wouldargue that this is largely something of the past: experi-ence has taught most of us to be less doctrinal. A fewyears ago there was a good deal of discussion of the ex-tent to which T&V could be modified. Arturo Israel

30

22 Nigel Roberts

(1982, recalled in his 1984 paper) articulated a com-monly held view when he wrote that cluster of essen-:iai T&V elements . .. must exist in a cohesive packagefor the successful application of the system. The selec-tive application of only a few . . . elements defeats [its]interactive dynamics." Lists were drawn up of the es-sential elementsIsrael, for example, suggested thatthe T&V package must include an exclusive focus on ex-tension, a single line of command, a fixed schedule ofproperly supervised visits, reasonable staff-fanner ra-tios, systematic and continuous training, continuouslinkages with research, minimal paperwork and admin-istration, explicit field orientation, and the pursuit ofincremental changes in the farming system.

But in reviewing a rof-derived extension system inBurkina Faso, Israel (1984) wrote that "the Burkinacase shows, in particular, that the T&V system may bemodified significantly, retaining only a few core quali-ties ... and still have a positive effect on agriculturalperformance. Indeed, the high degree of adaptabilityfound in Burkina T&V probably enhanced its effect." Theevidence from Burkina Faso as interpreted by Israel isthat successes can be achieved even with a rathermangy version of T&V, consisting of little more than"relatively time-bound work, fixed training and visitschedules, tight supervision and field orientation."

Recent World Bank involvement in testing T&V underEast African conditions suggests that any list of essen-tial characteristics can be quite short. I have seen anumber of what I believed were key principles of T&Vomitted from Bank-assisted projects apparently withoutcatastrophic effects. In Sudan, for example, where thetraditional inspectorate system in the irrigated cottoncorporations is undergoing reform, inspectors will con-tinue their direct management of land and tenants aswell as provide extension advice. In the Comoros exten-sion agents must perforce be involved in input supplybecause at this juncture there are neither private sup-pliers nor other government staff to do the job. In Ethi-opia the integrity of the chain of command is main-tained only by a compromise in which agriculturalcoordinators at the district and regional level delegatetechnical authority on extension matters to extensionofficers on their staff. In every case T&V is making or isexpected to make headway, and I see little evidence thatthese necessary departures from the ideal will cause in-surmountable problems.

Indeed, I would now argue that there is a rather sim-ple way of looking at what is or is not essential to thesuccess of the system. T&V is characterized by its rhythmof regular training sessions and on-farm visits, and thegoal of the designer should be to ensure that thistraining-and-visit continuum is effective. Doing so re-quires setting up a coherent management structure,

which in the classic Indian context exhibits such fea-tures as systematic supervision and an unambiguouschain of command. But there is no reason why the con-stituent of the management system cannot be varied,so long as they deliver the goods. Viewed this way, theissue with T&V is not whether one can or should "go bythe book," in the literal sense of reproducing the formatdescribed in the T&V pamphlet; what matters is under-standing why classic T&V has the characteristics it does,then applying that understanding to an analysis of one'sown situation. At this point, it becomes less fruitful totalk of what is needed to achieve an effective T&V pro-gram than to discuss what is needed to ensure good ex-tension.

In other words, T&V offers the extension designer notso much a blueprint for an extension system, but rathera repository of extension principles from which todrawprinciples that should ideally underlie any effec-tive extension organization in a developing country,but which cannot at all times be held up as inviolate.Having said this, however, I do have my own list of fea-tures that I would recommend for any African publicsector extension system I have been associated with:regular visits to clearly identified fanners or farmergroups, regular and frequent staff training, in-the-fieldcollaboration between researchers and extensionists ontechnology generation, a clear chain of command inthe extension service, and the provision of adequatemeans and incentives to staff (including transport andpersonal allowances). When international financingagencies are involved, I would also hope to find a designprocess in which there is true collaboration betweenagency technicians and governments and in which newsystems are tested on a pilot scale before national repli-cation; both of these cow ses of action diminish the riskof implanting unsuitable methodologies. Also of greatimportance is that external financing agencies shouldnormally be prepared to commit themselves to an ex-tended period of support for a new extension ap-proachsay, ten or even fifteen years. Part of thechaos in African extension can be attributed to er-ratic and unpredictable donor support, a situation inwhich no new methodology, however sound, is likely toflourish.

The World Bank, in its extension work in Africa, haspromoted the adoption of sound extension principles inthe context of non-rxtv as well as T&V projects. Thereis ample evidence that the Bank's commitment to T&Vdoes not prevent it from giving substantial support toother distinctly different extension approaches. This isa necessary and desirable situation in Africa, with itsgreat diversity of resource bases, extension traditions,infrastructure development, and civil service efficiency.An obvious example of this is Bank support for the ver-

3 1

tically integrated systems of the West African cottoncompanies, in which the company provides extensionadvice as part of a package of services that includes sup-plying inputs, credit, and marketing. Indeed, the WorldBank sponsored the Eldoret and Yamoussoukro exten-sion workshops for the specific purpose of comparingdifferent extension approachesnot in order to pro-mote any one methodology, but to explore thestrengths of different approaches and thereby to facili-tate cross-fertilization among them.

Unanswered Questions: Participation and Costs

T&V designers have not yet done justice to two issues:true farmer participation in the design and manage-ment of research and extension programs, and the con-trol or recovery of recurrent costs.

T&V is often criticized as a top-down or supply-drivenapproach. In one sense this criticism is unfair becausethe T&V methodokgy provides for specific channels offeedback and communication between farmers and re-searchers. In practice, however, it is not uncommon tofind extension staff distributing undifferentiated blan-ket recommendations to farmers, making no conces-sion to their varied economic capacities and widelydifferent farming systems. Recommendations are fre-quently prompted not by farmers' expressed needs butby the bureaucratic and academic imperatives thatdrive much of the on-station research in developingcountries, and extension subject matter specialists areoften insufficiently expert to modify these recommen-dations to fit local requirements. This pattern of advicesignals a fundamental breakdown in the extensionprocesswhich should indeed be a two-way communi-cation system. I agree with Michael Collinson (1982)and other proponents of farming systems researchwhen they point out that the critical break in the re-search-extension-farmer chain occurs not between re-search and extension, but rather between the researchand extension establishments on the one hand and thefarmer on the other.

Participatory or democratic research and extensionapproaches attempt to generate a cooperative relation-ship between researchers, extensionists, and farmersthrough intensive dialogue and shared work at thefarm level. Examples are the recherche-developpementmethodologies being used in the Comoros and Rwandaunder the guidance of experts associated with the Insti-tut de Recherches et d'Applications des Methodes deDeveloppement (liwi), the new structures being testedby the Compagnie Malienne de Developpement des Tex-tiles (cMDT), and the farming systems research (FsR) ap-proaches sponsored by the International Maize and

The World Bank and the Training and Visit System in EastAfrica 23

Wheat Improvement Center (calm) and the U.S.Agency for International Development (usAID). All ofthese methodologies are able to break down unneces-sary institutional barriers, identify specific productionproblems, and involve farmers in designing solutions tothem. As a result, they have much to offer uvnotleast the on-farm training which can turn extension'ssubject matter specialists into true experts. Similarly,because T&V has the ability to organize public servantsfor the broad dissemination of information, it can effec-tively publicize the relevant results derived locally fromparticipatory farming systems research. Along withmany others (for example, Rivera 1985; Moris 1983) Ibelieve that this natural symbiosis between T&V and FSRmay well offer the best avenue for the future develop-ment of both systems. Much can be gained through thejoint efforts of national extension designers, the WorldBank, and bilateral financing agencies to integrate thetwo approaches systematically, as they are beginning todo, for example, in the Comoros, Malawi, and Zambia.One obvious fruit of such a union is the increased ac-countability of extension agents to farmers' groupswhich suggests the possibility that farmers' groupsmight in time be induced to pay part or all of the costsof an extension agent who is increasingly seen as theiremployee rather than a government servant.

With regard to the costs and the financing of T&V, Ihave mentioned Howell's concern that the T&V systemmay not be sustainable in some African countries with-out permanent external support for its recurrent ex-penditures. His concern is legitimate, given the historyof much externally supported extension in East Africain the 1970s. Indeed, T&V has often been introducedwhere extension efforts had run down or collapsed afterthe previous cycle of donor support came to an end. Alltoo frequently, the earlier projects left behind themlarge staffs whose work program had been supported byexternal contributions. Often this meant that minis-tries of finance and agriculture had managed to avoidcommitting a significant quantity of local funds to thesystem at its inception and were unwilling or unableto finance the entirety at a later stage. The common re-sult was that the staff of the extension project contin-ued to be employed, while the project's operating costs(maintenance and fuel for vehicles, staff allowances,and training) were cut. No system that relies on mobil-ity and on constant interaction can function underthese conditions.

If this problem is to be averted, three related coursesof action need to be considered when designing exten-sion projects. First, it is clearly necessary to confrontthe recurrent financing requirements of a new exten-sion approach squarely from the outsetand to do soat a central or sectoral level, where governmental prior-

32

24 Nigel Roberts

ities for agriculture are established. Unless this is doneit is not likely that sensible tradeoffs can be made be-tween optimal and sustainable extension designs. Norcan there be any realistic assessment of the supportthat a government might provide over the mediumterm. (Government commitment would in turn sig-nal lenders Lhe extent to which they must disciplinetheir design recommendations and the length of timefor which they may need to provide support.) Oftenthis type of exercise can be done only in the contextof a sectoral public expenditure or program budgetreview.

Second, it is important to search for ways of holdingdown the overall costs of any new system. Although thisneeds to be done more systematically than it has beenso far, it is clear that T&V in East Africa is emerging asa leaner creation than its Indian forebear. It has gener-ally been argued, for instance, that in African countriesthe T&V approach should focus on the agricultural areaswhich have the highest potential and for which trans-ferable research results are more likely to be availableor in the offing. Several experiments are afoot in whichthe classic visiting schedule of T&V is being diluted:monthly instead of fortnightly visits can halve the num-ber of agents required to serve a given area, albeit atsome cost to the desired degree of contact. Plans existto test the partial substitution of radio broadcasts forface-to-face contact. It is also planned to rotate the ef-forts of a deliberately small cadre of professional exten-sionists through different regions of a country in se-quence; the initial, intensive phase of extension in anarea would be followed by one in which farmer repre-sentatives would be the major providers of extensionservices.

Third, much more consideration ought to be givento recovering extension costs from beneficiaries. Withthe progressive elimination of price and tax biasesagainst farmers in recent years, the economic argu-ment in favor of levying user charges for extension incertain situations is growing stronger. Many people willstill contend that the idea is impracticalthat African

subsistence farmers will not willingly accept chargesfor such a nebulous commodity as extension advice, thebenefits of which cannot be confined to the payingcustomerbut this is often only a contention. Few se-rious attempts have been made to test the idea of costrecovery in African extension outside the vertically in-tegrated commodity schemes (such as the French Com-pany for the Development of Textiles [cm] and itsderivatives, the Sudanese cotton corporations, andBritish-American Tobacco Limited), which recoup theirextension costs by controlling marketing and by levyinga tax on output.

As farmers' research and extension groups becomeintegrated with public sector extension, as seems likelyin African T&V, such groups may wish to exercise thetype of control over their extension agent that a finan-cial relationship impliesparticularly if the group isthereby able to purchase a more intensive or a moresophisticated service than it would otherwise have. Theadvantage for governments of such a developmentseems clear: fee-paying associations could help relieveextension's burden on the public treasury. Of equal in-terest is the prospect of introducing a true consumerevaluation of extension. If farmers were free to pur-chase extension or to do without it, the result could bea system that is more responsive to the demands of themarketplace. The type, quantity, and sophistication ofextension services offered would be dictated by farmerdemand and not, as now, by extension designers andadministrators. Evaluation would be taken out of thehands of external funding agencies and governmentmonitoring and evaluation units and given over tothose best placed to judge the quality of the service pro-vided. This attractive prospect should claim some ofour attention in the years ahead.

This paper is based on an address given to a conference on"The International Role of Extension: Future Directions,"March 31April 1, 1985, Michigan State Iiii.versity, Lansing,Michigan.

A Few Questions on the Trainingand Visit Method

Dominique Gentil

The training and visit (To) system has spread rapidly:about ninety World Bankfinanced projects are using orare influenced by this method. Is it, however, an origi-nal system or simply a systematization of known prac-tices?' Is it really as efficient as people claim? Is it appli-cable to all situations? To what extent can and shouldit be adapted?2 Despite its claims to the contrary, is itnot in fact a very expensive system, since it multipliesthe number of extension agents and also makes it nec-essary to create new posts for functions such as inputdistribution and the collection of statistics that wereformerly fulfilled by multipurpose agents? Before tack-ling these questions, however, we should place exten-sion in a more general context.

The Context

Successful extension is only one of several factors thatexplain production increases. The importance of exten-sion in increasing production is not so universally ac-cepted as is the importance of climate, the expansionof cultivated areas (rainfed and irrigated), the technicalpackage, the pricing of products and inputs, and infra-structure (marketing, supply, credit, and so on). Forexample, The Economist (August 18, 1984) drew atten-tion to India's record crop of 1983-84 (about 156 mil-lion tons, compared with the stagnation at about 130million tons annually in the previous five years) andenumerated the factors responsible. According to theauthor, they included a good monsoon, the impact ofGreen Revolution technology (seed, fertilizer, and pes-ticides in combination with irrigation) on wheat andrice in certain regions, considerable fertilizer subsidies,

and an increase in the guaranteed price. Extension wasnot mentioned.

Although extensionists may all agree in principlethat many factors contribute to production increases,not all of them adhei .; to this frame of analysis whendrawing conclusions about a particular extension sys-tem. When considering the efficiency of an extensionsystem, it is essential to take into account the effect ofother factors, such as prices and credit policies, and toexamine whether they have changed over the period inquestion. Unfortunately, this is not always done.

When evaluating extension systems, one shouldspecify the methods used to analyze the portion of im-pact ascribed to extensionnot an easy task in meth-odological terms. In India the comprehensive study byFeder and Slade (1983) focused on "the extent and qual-ity of agents' contact with farmers and the degree towhich impact points are adopted. These activities werecomplemented by yield measurements ... This simpleapproach ... reflects the difficult methodological prob-lems that must be overcome in any attempt to attributeproductivity effects to extension." With regard to theeconomic analysis of the impact of extension, one must

o ,:t

specifyand justifythe percentage of production in-crease being ascribed to the extension system and takefull account of the incremental costs (for example, theadded costs of input distribution and data gathering ifthe extension agent is not now fulfilling those tasks).This does not generally appear to have been done, asDrivel shows: "In evaluation studies of World Bankprojects ir..his field, the rates of return are very highdue in part to the fact that increases in yields are as-cribed entirely to the project, although the latter hasmerely reinforced a pre-existing extension system that

25

0,s

26 Dominique Gentil

was not itself without cost" (Perraton and others 1983).An extension system cannot be analyzed in and of

itself, but must be examined in the context of the inno-vation being transmitted. In other words, to quote Cer-nea (1985), one must study the "medium and the mes-sage" together. It is regrettable that most reports onextension discuss dissemination methods at length, butonly rarely mention the innovations that are the objectof dissemination. The type of extension system that isappropriate, however, will depend greatly on what mes-sages need to be conveyed.

Innovations can be classified in various ways. Amongthe most important is the extent of the changes to bebrought about by the innovation. A simple innovation,such as the introduction of a new seed variety, usuallyleads to little change in the production system (unlessit requires fertilizer and irrigation). An innovation suchas animal traction, however, has consequences that fanout into the whole production systemone can use themetaphor of a stone thrown into water. Animal tractionis introduced to improve soil preparation and to permitmore frequent weeding, but it has numerous repercus-sions on sowing dates, the organization of work withinthe family, the care and feeding of animals, manureproduction, the financial equilibrium of the farm, theincrease of cultivated area, the land tenure system, andsocial relationships in the community hierarchy. Themost comiax form of innovation is one that impliesa profound change in the production system. To fightdeclining soil fertility in the Sahel, for instance, it isnecessary to coordinate agricultural, sylvan, and pasto-ral activities and thereby to promote such initiatives assoil conservation, reforestation, the use of manure, newcrop rotations, and cereal-legume associations. Thistype of land management requires a reorganization offarms and also of villages, given the implications forcollective action.

In addition, innovations may be classified accordingto their cost-effectiveness in relation to cash invest-ment and work time; according to the risks involved intheir adoption (most proposed innovations are efficientin an average year but are often less productive thanthe traditional techniques in the event of drought, highwinds, or pest attacks); and according to the length oftime that will elapse before results can be seenforcertain innovations (fertilizer, for example) the resultscan be spectacular right from the start, whereas inother cases (the fight against declining soil fertility)they may not be visible for three to five years.

It follows that innovations are most easily acceptedwhen they do not entail any major change in the pro-duction system, when the ratio of additional cash in-come to the monetary cost of introducing the innova-

tion is sufficiently high (many farmers will not bemotivated to make a change unless they can earn twoor three times what they put in), and when results areimmediately visible. Acceptability is likewise increasedwhen the additional amount of work required is not toogreat. Contrary to the calculations of those economistswho consider the marginal cost of a day of farm laborto be nil in many situations, farmers themselves attacha great deal of importance to extra work, as all studieshave shown. Experience suggests that prospects for theadoption of an innovation are slight if the increase inwork required is greater than 25 percent. And finally,an innovation should not entail excessive risk. The de-gree of risk that is acceptable varies considerably, de-pending on the ecology of the region and on the typeof farm. In sum, farmers are usually interested in maxi-mizing their monetary income in relation to a givenamount of work (that is, in increasing the return perunit of time) with a minimum of risk; this often createsmisunderstandings with those agronomists whose biasis toward maximizing production (that is, toward in-creasing the yield per unit of land).

Innovations are also more acceptable when they arecompatible with the socioeconomic realities of the farmsystem. For example, farmers may prefer extensive ag-riculture if they are trying to stake a claim, to a desiredpiece of land; work groups may be preferred to animaltraction if a key objective is to maintain a network ofclients; and farmers may stop at a certain productionlevel because they have reached their satisfactionthreshold or simply because there is nothing to buywith any added income.

To repeat, the methods and the approach espousedby extension need to be in accord with the type of inno-vation required. In the case of a simple innovation withexcellent benefit-to-cost prospects, diffusion often takesplace without difficulty. The main problem is one of lo-gistics (inputs need to be available at the right time andin sufficient quantities), and the use of mass mediaalong with demonstrations conducted by a small teamof government staff should be sufficient for extensionpurposes. But when a significant reorganization of aproduction system is necessary and involves a degreeof collective effortin pursuit, for example, of refores-tation or erosion controlthen a cadre of technicallycompetent staff who are able to establish a sophisti-cated dialogue with farmers will be needed.

For centuries farmers have been the innovators ofmost technical progress in agriculture. The process ofexperimentation and adaptation continues at the indi-vidual and collective level, although as problems havegrown in complexity in recent times farmers have oftenbeen unable to find solutions. Nonetheless, an innova-

3 5

tion is accepted much more easily when farmers them-selves have participated in its development; it is alsomore easily adapted under these conditions. In addi-tion, an innovation is more readily disseminated whenit responds to problems felt by a society in crisis andwhen the socioeconomic transformations that it engen-ders appear compatible with the social equilibrium ofthat society' And let us not forget that many recent in-novations (such as flood-recession sorghum in north-ern Cameroon) have been disseminated without thehelp of extension (see Stavis 1979).

Two further points are worth making. First, exten-sion approaches must be adapted to the diverse agricul-tural environments they are addressingto varyingeco-logical conditions and farming systems and, withinindividual farms, to differences between members ofthe farm family. Second, extension theories and meth-ods are usually based on an excessively simplified com-munication mcdel that bears a limited relation to real-ity. The model is often borrowed from communicationtheory and posits a system in which ideas flow fromoriginators (researchers) through disseminators (ex-tensionists) to receivers (farmers)with feedbackreturning along the same channel. If one thinks of ex-tension in terms of innovations, howevertheir pro-duction, acceptance, and diffusionthen this type ofmodel describes only one element in a much morecomplex communication process.

The Applicability of the TeeV Method

Although the data available from various monitoringand evaluation exercises are still inadequate, it is none-theless possible to draw some conclusions about the ef-fectiveness of the T&V system. It is clear that T&V'S rigor-ous organization can make r:ofitable use of a cadre ofexisting but underutilized extension agents (a commonsituation when the system is introduced). T&V also up-grades the caliber of the extension agents by means ofcontinual on-the-job training and increases contact be-tween extension agents and farmers. It is often able toensure that available research data are actually used;this can reorient research to focus properly on prob-lems of importance to farmers. In place of a top-downextension method, more emphasis is placed on feed-back and on the two-way flow of information. It mayoften be wise, however, to determine whether farmersare really being listened to, or whether only a few ofthe more "acceptable" opinions are being filtered up.'Sometimes the upward flow of information does nottake placeor takes place sporadicallybecause theextension system is set up to permit information to flow

A Few Questions on the Training and Visit Method 27

downward from those who know to those who, suppos-edly, do not know.

Although in most cases the T&V system does representa real improvement over the preexisting extension sys-tem, some questions remain. The first is whether thesystem can function only when a number of specificconditions are resentsuch as the existence of effec-tive recommendations from research, a relatively sim-ple technical package (innovations of the simple typedescribed above), an agriculture characterized by regu-larity and continuity, the availability of relatively largenumbers of subject matter specialists and extensionagents, and reasonably effective facilities for marketing,credit, and input supply, whether private or para-statal.

It is surely no coincidence that the T&V system func-tions particularly well in Asia, where the technicalpackage (seed, fertilizer, pesticides) is relatively simplefor crops such as rice, wheat, and corn, and where irri-gated areas allow uniform sowing dates and control ofagricultural tasks (a situation approximating that of acontrolled milieu in research). But these conditions areoften not present in the Sahel and elsewhere. Farmersin many countries in which my research institute, IRAM,5has been involved (Bolivia, Burundi, Comoros, Haiti,and Rwanda) have complex cropning systems andhighly varied ecological conditionsand their tech-niques differ by year, altitude, and soil microcondi-tions. In these countries research structures are remotefrom the realities of farm conditions, manned by a lim-ited number of competent technicians, and hamperedby unreliable supervisory structures. What is to be donein such countries?

Another question is whether the T&V system will con-tinue to deliver good results after a number of years ofoperation. A new systcm will always tend to functionwell for the first few years, since everyone is mobilizedto make it work. But then the work becomes routine,and lassitude can set in among both supervisors andfarmers. This is especially true if, after the first rela-tively simple technical package has been delivered byresearch, no new and easily acceptable innovations areforthcoming (research results are often obtained onlyfive to ten years after work begins on a subject).

Other questions concern the costs implicit in sucha system and the possibility of bureaucratic growth thatwill later be difficult to reverse. In Thailand, for exam-ple, there were 2,384 agents in the extension depart-ment in 1975, 6,673 agents in 1977 when T&V extensionwas launched, and 10,865 agents in 1982 (Cernea,Coulter, and Russell 1985).

If the technical package to be disseminated is fairlysimple, would it not be possible to achieve the same re-

2 6'

28 Dominique Gentil

sults with a much smaller organization? And whenthere are many extension agents, is there not a ten-dency for the system to become oriented toward theagent and his needs rather than toward the farmers?Would it not be preferable to use the resources spenttraining agents, monitoring their work, writing re-ports, and managing their work on analyzing farmers'problems and training leaders from among them? Andfinally, if the problems and technical solutions are com-plex, can young extension agents with a low level oftechnical expertise really be effective in dealing withthem?

Compatibility between Farmers' Problems,Technical Innovations, and Channel'of Dissemination

A "universally applicable" extension system is likely tobe oversized or undersized for a particular situation andto neglect farmers' real problems. As I have mentioned,depending on the type of innovation, the methods andstructures of extension need to be very different.

Although certain basic T&V principles (the organiza-tion of extension agents' work, the regular training ofstaff, close liaison with research, promotion of a two-way flow of information) are of importance, the proce-dures used in certain research and development (re-cherche-developpement) projects appear to offer rathermore of value to extension. Under these procedures,one would start with diagnosisby determining the lo-cation and modus operandi of the various types of farmsin an area and by assessing their main constraints andpotential. This initial diagnostic exercise can be carriedout relatively quickly with more precise work to followin support of specific interventions. Next, one would ex-periment in this rural context with different innova-tions designed to respond to the problems that havebeen identified. Finally would come the disseminationof innovations through the channels best suited to thespecific innovation (visits to and exchanges of experi-ence among farmers, training sessions for farmers, reg-ular contacts between extension agents and farmers,use of mass media, and so on).

Cost-benefit criteria should ideally feature in the se-lection of the dissemination channels. But there are fewstudies in this area to give guidance. Perraton and oth-ers (1983) discuss the difficulties inherent in extensionevaluationthe absence of a true control group; thelack of a typology of extension; the inadequacy of moststatistics and the difficulty of correlating them; and theabsence of a standard definition of costs, which makescomparison difficult. Even when data are available, theyare often not very useful because they do not all relate

to the same type of innovation. For example, figurescan be produced to show that it costs less to deliver anextension message by radio than by using traditionalface-to-face contact by extension agentsbut asser-tions to this effect do not make much sense because thetwo media do not carry the same message and are in-herently suited to doing different things. It is also im-portant to know what criteria are used to evaluate thesystemdoes success depend on whether the informa-tion was received, on whether it was applied, or on thesize of the yield obtained? Results will be very differentdepending on the criterion chosen. In addition, face-to-face extension and mass media usually are most effec-tive when osed together, and in these situations it isdifficult to separate their contributions. It would un-doubtedly be more productive to compare the impactof various combinations of approaches on a given pro-duction problem.

Conclusion

The most important point to underline is the need tobuild a sound relationship between farmers, extensionworkers, and researchers. The most successful exten-sion experiences in Europe and the United States havebeen those in which extension workers are employed bya farmer organization capable of exerting pressure onthe research establishment. Although this situation isprobably impossible right now in much of the develop-ing world, one can still invoke the rule that farmersmust necessarily be an integral part of the process ofdiagnosis, experimentation, and dissemination. Theknowledge derived from researchers must be systemati-cally confronted with the knowledge accumulated byfarmers, and extension work must be managed by thestate and the farmers in cooperation with each other.In France, for example, extension is managed jointly bythe state and by organizations that represent farmers;the funds used for extension come both from produc-ers' sales taxes and from public funds. In an interestingexperiment in English-speaking Cameroon, the statepaid the salaries of extension agents who were secondedto the Cooperative Union, while the union paid thembonuses based on the quality of their work. Producers'associations can become partners in the research andextension process not only by assisting in the dis-semination of techniques but also by helping to defineproblems and develop solutions that can be masteredby farmers of varying abilities on different types offarms.

The T&V system represents an improvement overmost existing systems, but it works only in some con-texts and is relatively costly. Other approachesin

3 7

which diagnosis, experimentation, and disseminationare managed jointly by researchers, developers, and or-ganized farmers and in which dissemination methodsare geared to the type of innovation to be extendedwould often appear to be less costly and better suitedto specific environments.

Notes

1. In French-speaking Africa, for example, similar exten-sion methods are employed in the co; act of traditional crop-intensification and production operations prornied by theSociete d'Assistance Technique (sArec), Bureau pour le Deve-loppement de la Production Agricole (Ber.), and CompagnieFrancaise pour le Developpement des Textiles (cm).

2. According to Benor and Baxter (1984), "it must be clearthat the basic principles of the system must be well under-stood, and that there is no room lc,: :ignificant variations inits basic features."

3. Braudel (1980) shows that "an innovation is only as ef-fective as the social pressure thtt upholds and imposes it ...Real discoveries will remain unexploited (sometimes for oneor two centuries) if nobody needs them or envisages needingthem . . . As long as daily life goes along without difficulty

A Few Questions on the Training and Visit Method 29

in the context of inherited structures, as long as society iscontent and at ease with its customs, there will be no eco-nomic motivation for change. Inventors' projects will remainin their wrappings. It is when everything is going wrong,when a society has come up against the limits of the possible,that the recourse to technology imposes itself naturally, thatinterest is awakened for the thousand and one latent inven-tions, the best ,,, which will overcome the obstacles and openup a different future. For hundreds of possible innovations arealways present, hibernating, so to speak, until one fine dayit becomes imperative to awaken them." See also remarks ofBoserup (1965) on the dissemination of innovations in thepresence of demographic pressure. I have also been told thatin a village in Mali, water will be hauled manually if it is doneby former slaves, whereas the pulley and animal traction willbe used otherwise.

4. In Dosso, Niger, for example, extension agents merelygathered farmers' opinions on agricultural techniques, al-though the farmers themselves were preoccupied above allwith the availability of inputs.

5. Institut de Recherches et d'Applications des Methodesde Deve!oppement.

Adapted from a paper presental at the seminar on Agricul-tural Extension and Its Link with Research in Rural Develop-ment, Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire, February 17-23, 1985.

6

The Design of T&V Extension Programsfor Small Farmers in Ethiopia

Alernneh Dejene

This chapter is based on a field evaluation of the train-ing and visit (TO pilot extension projects and the im-pact of extension activities under the first integratedrural development program in the Arssi region of Ethi-opia (Dejene 1986). The extension strategy and pro-gram activity of the Arssi Regional Development Unit(ARDU) was found to be well designed and implemented.After more than a decade of Swedish funding, Arssi hada larger number of more experienced extension agentsand much better transportation and adaptive researchfacilities than any other region in Ethiopia.

When smallholders were asked to evaluate the ARDU

extension services, however, 79 percent of the respon-dents indicated that the agents were not assisting themwith their farming. There was no fixed schedule of visitsfrom the agents, and information was not given system-atically nor did it reflect the changing agriculturalcycle. The productivity of the ARDU extension serviceswas clearly low, and the national extension programsrun by the Ministry of Agriculture faced even more seri-ous problems.

The factors contributing to this low productivity areexamined in some detail here. The most important onesare that the extension organization does not reachfarmers directly; information is not given regularly tofarmers; efforts are not concentrated on agriculturalproduction; there is no clear chain of command for ex-tension staff and only limited in-service training; andthere are no links between farmers, extension agents,and researchers. In the pilot project areas I examined,however, the T&V system has shown a remarkable abilityto address these problems of management and supervi-sion. It is primarily for this reason that I propose theadoption of T&V extension in the relatively fertile regionswith adequate rainfall in Ethiopia.

31

The Origin and Organization of ARDU

The ChilaloAgricultural Development Unit (cAnti, 196774) was one of the earliest examples of an integratedrural development project (Nekby 1971). Under CAD%

the dominant activity of the extension system was thedistribution of inputs (fertilizer and improved seed) andthe dissemination of improved practices for raisingcrops and animals. To disseminate and adapt these in-novations, CADU used demonstration plots (usually lo-cated near a major road, church, or marketplace) andthe "model farmer" approach (Bergman 1970; Tecle1975; Cebregziabher 1975). Extension activities werefocused on a few selected farmers who would then dem-onstrate to neighboring farmers the advantages of im-proved agricultural techniques and products. Thisstrategy led to an increase in the average yield of wheatin the project area from 9.6 quintals per hectare in1968 to 15.8 in 1972, and an increase in total produc-tion from 26,000 tons to 74,000 tons over the same pe-riod (Hunter and others 1974).

After the Ethiopian revolution and the agrarian re-form of 1975, the CADU approach was extended to coverthe whole Arssi region, and the Arssi Regional Develop-ment Unit (ARDU) was created. The 1975 Rural LandProclamation nationalized all rural land, abolished ten-ancy, and allowed farm families to cultivate up to tenhectares of land. Partly to implement the land reformand partly to promote and administer the future devel-opment of peasant farmers, peasant associations werecreated. There are now more than 25,000 peasantasso-ciations in Ethiopia, 1,085 of them in Arssi.

Under ARDU, the model farmer approach was aban-doned and CADU'S "excessive" emphasis on improved

3 9

32 Alemneh Dejene

technology was criticized. A distinction was made be-tween social and economic objectives. The social objec-tives became collective action and the creation of a self-reliant cooperative community, rather than an increasein the productivity or certain individuals. The economicobjectives were the continuation of the agricultural"package" approach of CADU and the promotion of in-dustrial cooperatives and of resettlement (ARDU 1976).

To attain these objectives, ARDU was reorganized intosix departments. The Extension Department remainedthe principal unit, but its name was changed to the Ex-4..ension, Education, and Cooperative Promotion De-partment to emphasize its orientation toward coopera-tive development and nonformal education.

There are now approximately 145 extension agents(known as rural development agents, RDAS) working inthe district development offices and rural developmentcenters. Three RDAS are assigned to each rural develop-ment center, the lowest administrative unit in the sys-tem. RDAS are multipurpose agents who distribute im-proved inputs, disseminate advice on the technicalcomponents of the project, and work with selected"production groups" of farmers from each peasant asso-ciation in connection with the development and pro-motion of cooperatives. The RDA also works with thewomen's and youth associations of the peasant associa-tions, particularly on the improvement of literacy andpolitical awareness. At the district level the RDA collabo-rates with the District Revolutionary and DevelopmentCommittee to integrate local plans into the district andregional development plans (ARDU 1984).

Because of the wide variety of responsibilities of theRDA, the dissemination of agricultural innovationsamong small farmers has been very limited since 1975,except for fertilizer use. The diversity of tasks drasti-cally reduces the amount of time an extension agentcan allocate to technical problems. In addition, ARDU

spends most of its extension time and resources inhelping farmers who belong to producer cooperativesin which land i- cultivated communally. There is nolaw, de jure or de facto, that keeps extension agentsfrom extending their services to small private farmers.That they do not, however, is partly the result of thepoor supervision of field staff and the ineffective organi-zation of extension delivery.

Since there is no fixed schedule of visits by extensionagents to farmers, supervisors cannot verify whetheragents are carrying out their tasks properly. Since the1975 agrarian reform, ARDU extension has abandoned in-dividual farm visits. Farmers receive messages by ob-serving the farm of a peasant association, service coop-erative, or producer cooperative. Demonstrations offertilizer and crop varieties are conducted at the ruraldevelopment centers. Even so, 21 percent of the farm-

ers interviewed indicated that they had never seen anextension agent on a group visit, and 33 percent re-ported that they had last teen an extension agent be-tween two and ten years pre:iiously.

To the above-mentioned problems should be addedthe lack of any system of regular meetings in which theRDAS can discuss emerging field-level problems; the ab-sence of regular in-service training for RDAS; the lack ofprocedures for relaying information on problems facedby farmers to the research department and the generallack of coordination with research; and the absence ofan adequate number of well-trained and experiencedsubject matter specialists to serve as a referral and sup-port system.

The extension services in other regions of Ethiopiahave considerably fewer resources. Each of the special-ized department: of the Ministry of Agriculture (Waterand Soil Conservation, Livestock, Plant Husbandry,Agronomy, and Cooperative Development) runs its ownextension service that reaches down to the subdistrictlevel. Contact between extension agents and farmers inother regions is even more limited than in Arssi, wherethe ratio of extension agents to rural households isroughly 1:1,900. In some areas which are fairly similarin potential to Arssi, for example, the ratio is 1:6,000.

The TM System in Ethiopia

The T&V system was introduced in June 1983 in a pilotproject in the Tiyo and Hetosa subdistricts of Arssi re-gion and the Ada and Lume subdistricts of Shoa region.It has now expanded into a third pilot project in theShashemene and Arssi-Negelle subdistricts in thesouthern part of Shoa. Some eighty front-line exten-sion staff are involved in this experiment.

The TO system is characterized by a systematic time-bound program of staff training and farm visits. Disci-pline, a concentration of efforts on agricultural prob-lems, a single line of command, and deliberate linkageswith researchers, all assist in improving the effective-ness of extension services. The T&V pilot project is basedon the assumption that the effective communication ofrelevant messages is crucial to the adoption of a newtechnology. It has three key features in its design(Benor, Harrison, and Baxter 1984; Benor and Baxter1984).

The first one is a regular schedule of visits by the ex-tension agent, involving person-to-person contact withfarmers, so that production recommendations can becommunicated effectively. UnJer the pi' ot design, a de-velopment agent spends eight days of each fortnightvisiting farmers of eight different, groups within his cir-cle, giving advice on crops, livestock, and soil conserva-

INV=SliZavolaGMa.

40

The Design of T&V Extension Programs for Small Farmers in Ethiopia 33

tion. On average, an agent has to visit about 800 farmfamilies, but the number depends on settlement pat-terns, population density, the agent's mobility, and theintensity of cultivation in the area. The agent coversthree or four peasant associations, in each of which aretwo or three farmers' groups. An agricultural extensionofficer (AEO) visits the agents within his range at leastonce a fortnight. The subject matter specialist (sMs)

makes frequent field visits to provide technical supportto agents and mos. The awraja (or district) extensionofficer (AAEakisaAponsible for the effective working ofthe system and exercises administrative, financial, andtechnical control over the entire extension staff in hisdistrict. He also gives guidance and supervision toagents, mos, and SMSS by making at least three days offield visits each week. A single line of technical and ad-ministrative command in the pilot project provides thenecessary backup and supervision to agents by mos,SMSS, and AAEos.

The second key component of the T&V pilot is the reg-ular training of extension agents to upgrade their skills.The pilot features two training days for developmentagents and mos each month. In the first session the smssteach the specific production recommendations to bedisseminated over the next four weeks. Farmers' reac-tions to previous recommendations are also discussedand then passed on to research staff. Two weeks laterthe development agents have a review session with theAEO.

The third key feature of the T&V pilot is its attemptto link extension and research. Researchers work to up-grade the skills of the smss in a monthly workshop atwhich both parties discuss the production recommen-dations that will be disseminated to farmers by develop-ment agents and mos during the next month. Extensionneeds up-to-date research findings in order to demon-strate relevant technologies to farmers, while researchrequires extension guidance it order to focus on thefarm-level problems facing farmers. This two-way infor-mation flow between extension and research has beendifficult to attain in Ethiopia since the two functionsare administered by two separate agencies, the Ministryof Agriculture and the Institute of Agricultural Re-searchwith the institute resisting any effort towardformal integration or cooperation with the Ministry ofAgriculture. The T&V system in both pilot project dis-tricts has tried to bridge this gap by creating the posi-tion of research-extension coordinator in each of thethree pilot areas to work on SMS training, joint on-farmtrials, field visits, and other activities related to both re-search and extension. In addition, a Research-Exten-sion Liaison Committee has been formed in each pilotarea to approve action plans for extension before themain cropping season and again before the dry season,

as well as to approve the program of joint on-farmverification trials.

The organizational structure of the T&V system inEthiopia is similar to that in other countries, except forthe chain of command above the district level. The Amosends reports on extension in his district directly to thehead of the T&V pilot project unit in Addis Ababa, whohas the overall responsibility for the T&V system. Hemakes most of the decisions required at headquartersand brings issues of major concern to the T&V Pilot Proj-ect Committee, which is chaired by the head of the De-partment of Peasant Organization and Agricultural De-velopment. In this way, the normal regional structurefor agriculture is bypassed and the extension chain ofcommand is clarified.

A Comparison of T&V and ARDU Extension

The T&V extension system was evaluated on the basis ofin-depth interviews with randomly selected contactfarmers. This is not a large sample survey, and thefindings should be taken with caution. The results ofthis evaluation are compared below with the responsesof farmers who were served by ARDU extension.

All theT&V contact farmers knew the name of theiragent and the day of his visit. They indicated thathe always came every two weeks. Under ARDU ex-tension there was no fixed schedule of visits tofarmers in a peasant association or service cooper-ative. As a result, one-fifth of the sampled farmershad never seen an extension agent. Among thesampled ARDU farmers in Arssi, the only one whohad seen an agent every two weeks was a contactfarmer under the T&V system.Selected farmers under the T&V system and ARDU

extension were asked if they remembered themessage taught by the extension agent on his lastvisit. Most of the farmers who remembered themessages delivered by ARDU extension had seen anextension agent in the previous six months. Themajority of those who had forgotten the messagehad not seen an extension agent for five to tenyears.

Almost all the T&V contact farmers interviewedsaid that the recommendations they learned fromtheir agent were relevant. They had made somechanges in farming practices and were also unani-mous in placing high confidence in their agents.UnderARDU extension, however, only 52 percent ofthe sampled farmers had confidence in their ex-tension agents.

Since the agents are the key to the effective func-

4

34 Alemneh Dejene

Honing of the UV system, they were asked abouttheir activities and their experience. Almost allstated that under the TO system they extendedmore specific scientific information to farmers,worked more closely with farmers, and under-stood farmers' problems better. They also saidthat constant interaction with mos, smss, and AAEOShad improved their technical competence in vari-ous fields.

The proposed linkage between extension and re-search under the UN system was not fully imple-mented in the pilot project areas. This was due tothe internal politics of Ethiopia and does not re-flect any weakness in the UN system itself. Noresearch-extension coordinator was appointed ineither of the first two pilot project areas duringthe time of the evaluation, so contact betweensmss and research staff was limited. The third pilotproject area did have a coordinator, however, anathis linkage was reported to be working wellmainly because the concept had the strong sup-port of the director of the Awasa Research Station.In all areas smss undertook trials and held infor-mal discussions with researchers, and individualresearchers proved highly supportive. Research-Extension Liaison Committee meetings at thelocal level were reported to be useful, althoughthey took place less frequently than envisionedunder the pilot project. If these initial contacts aresolidified, a two-way flow of information fromfarmers to researchers by way of developmentagents should occur, as envisioned in the TO sys-tem. Under ARou,extension, however, there is verylimited coordinated linkage between extensionand research. There is only a one-way flow of in-formation: from research department to extensionagents and then to farmers. This is likely to be amajor reason why farmers reported that ARDU ex-tension does not relate to the most serious prob-lems they face in farming.

The average yield of wheat among the contactfarmers under the UN pilot in Arssi was 26 quin-tals per hectare on plots where they had followedthe full package of extension recommendations(Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture 1984b). Benefit-cost ratios for fertilizer use at the recommendedrates, in combination with other recommendedpractices, were between 2.5:1 and 4:1, even at lowgovernment procurement pricesa considerableimprovement in efficiency and financial attractive-ness. Among fanners covered by ARDU extensionyields of wheat averaged 15 quintals per hectare,

with benefit-cost ratios for similar levels of fert-ilizer use accordingly less attractive.

Adapting T &V Extension toEthiopian Conditions

The UN system can be adapted to fit the particular eco-logical, socioeconomic, and administrative conditionsof Ethiopia, but, as the designers of the system haveemphasized, some of its essential elements should notbe altered (Benor and Baxter 1984). These include aunified chain of technical and administrative com-mand, a focus by extension staff on agricultural exten-sion, regular staff training and farmer visits, and theestablishment of effective linkages with research. Con-sequently, for the wider adaptation of UN in Ethiopia,two fundamental changes in the extension systems ofARDU and the Ministry of Agriculture are essential. First,agricultural extension must be separated from the pro-motion of cooperatives and political education. Thesetasks require different skills and manpower, and theyshould be administered by different departments. Thepresent system of using agents for diverse purposes notonly disrupts the integrity of the line of extension com-mand, but also burdens extension agents with so manynonagricultural activities that the linkage between ex-tension and research is undermined. The secondchange needed is the coordination of extension and re-search activities in Ethiopia. The problems faced byfarmers need to be passed on to researchers for furtherinvestigation, and an extension service cannot be effec-tive without the technical content that comes from re-search. At present, both extension agents and research-ers have limited experience in the field.

If these important organizational issues are ad-dressed, the classic UV system can be adapted to themanpower and resource requirements of many regionsin Ethiopia. Some specific features of a UN system thatcan be widely replicated are outlined below.

!n order to ensure that the UN system reaches farm-ers at the village level, the lowest organizational linkshould be the service cooperative, a relatively new phe-nomenon in Eth.,:lan rural areas. Three to five peasantassociations join to form a service cooperative, whichsupplies members with consumer goods and credit andundertakes self-help activities such as building roadsand clinics. In Arssi most service cooperatives are in-volved in the distribution of agricultural inputs and inmarketing output to the Agricultural Marketing Corpo-ration.

At present, an extension agent in Arssi is expected tocover up to ten peasant associations and does not have

The Design of T&V Extension Programs for Small Farmers in Ethiopia 35

time to serve individual farmers. At least one extensionagent should therefore be assigned to each service co-operative so that the agents can provide proper serviceto the peasant associations under each cooperative. Thecooperative should also pay part of the salary of theextension agent. This would make him more a repre-sentative of the community than of the governmentand would also make him more accountable to thefarmers.

For contact farmers to be effective in spreading agri-cultural innovations to other farmers, it will be neces-sary to upgrade their skills through short-term train-ing. The preliminary evaluation of the T&V system inEthiopia revealed that contact farmers can spread sim-ple messages, but are not so capable of rememberingand teaching complex lessons, especially those requir-ing demonstration. This problem was also found in anevaluation of the T&V extension in India (Feder andSlade 1986). The Agarfa Multipurpose Peasant TrainingCenter could be an ideal place to teach contact farmersagricultural skills. This center operates in the Bale re-gion and offers six-month vocational courses, includingagriculture. A large number of the participants arefrom producer cooperatives, however, and changeswould have to be made to accommodate more smallfarmers, who hold 94 percent of the country's culti-vable land.

For the time being researchers should be involved intraining development agents directly whenever possi-ble. In the classic T&V approach researchers provide thenecessary information on production recommenda-tions to the smss in a monthly workshop; smss thentransfer this information to agents in fortnightly train-ing sessions. This would be difficult to implement inEthiopia, where most suss are inexperienced younggraduates of junior agricultural colleges. Moreover,there are no specialists (in the true sense) working atthe subdistrict level. In the Shashemene and Arssi-Negelle mv pilot project area adjustments were madeto account for this deficiency: researchers directly trainagents at the first fortnightly session in the month, andsmss reinforce and consolidate the agents' training atthe second fortnightly session. Efforts should be madeto give most of the young smss short-term training lo-cally, and overseas training in specific areas of theirspecialization, to upgrade their competence in as shorta time as possible.

Other problems in implementing the T&V system inEthiopia can arise from the politics of a particular re-gion. For example, in Arssi the Committee Organizingthe Workers' Party of Ethiopia (cowPE) made a concertedeffort to block the implementation of T&V extension. Thereason given by COWPE was that by providing services to

individual farmers, T&V extension would be neglectingthe producer cooperatives. An investigating committeewas established but soon disbanded when it was seenthat T&V extension did not reduce the services to pro-ducer cooperatives, but indeed improved them. In theShashemene and Arssi-Negelle area, however, the prob-lem was the exact opposite: the farmers' groups formedunder T&V were suspected of being a ruse to organizefarmers into producer cooperatives. Hence farmersavoided meeting extension agents or contact farmers intheir villages until cow intervened to assure them thatthis was not a government plot to force them to collec-tivize! These experiences suggest that, for the mostpart, extension agents should concentrate on their pro-fessional duties and avoid being caught up in local po-litical debate. One way of minimizing the involvementof extension staff in such situations is by separating`thetasks of agricultural extension and the promotion ofco-operatives. Asian experience, particularly that of India,suggests that this separation would serve both objec-tives well by minimizing the conflict of interest thatinvariably arises if both tasks are under the same de-partment.

Recommendations

The majority of the smallholders in Ethiopia are sub-sistence farmers and totally dependent on rain. Out ofa total of 10,: districts, 31 have large areas of relativelyfertile land and reasonably stable weather conditions.These high-potential districts also contain the majorityof the country's peasant associations, service coopera-tives, and producer cooperatives. They account for 94percent of the grain procured by the Agricultural Mar-keting Corporation, and they consume 95 percent ofthe fertilizer delivered to small farmers. The researchnetwork is also at its most developed in these 31 dis-tricts, and it is here that the T&V approach can proveto be cost-effective.

Farmers in these districts have all-weather ruralroads that make it much easier for extension agents tomake regular farm visits. Most of the farmers are self-supporting and either have used fertilizer or are awareof its usefulness in improving their output. The effec-tive transfer of agricultural innovations to these farm-ers through T&V extension has the potential for engi-neering a dramatic increase in yields. The decline inagricultural production in Ethiopia can be reversed byappropriate policies to stimulate growth and to providefarmer incentives in these regions, and a key policy vari-able is the extension approach used.

Experience with the Tav pilot project in the regions

4

36 Alemneh Dejene

endowed with relatively better resources shows the su-perior performance of the system in comparison withthe other extension approaches used in Ethiopia. Thisopinion is shared by high-level officials who supervisethe T&V system, by field agents, and by participatingfarmers. It is important, however, to avoid making un-fair claims for the training and visit system. It will notbe a viable system in resource-poor and drought-proneregions, nor could it be a panacea for declining foodproduction. It is, rather, a system that has the potentialto improve the productivity, efficiency, and effective-

44

ness of the country's extension services, provided theother components of an agricultural development pack-agesuch as adequate marketing arrangements, secu-rity of tenure, and access to creditare made avail-able.

Abbreviated version of Development Discussion Paper 199,Harvard Institute for International Development, HarvardUniversity, June 1985. Partial funding for this research wasprovided by the International Deve'"Arnent Research Centre,Ottawa.

Proposals for a New Approachto Extension Services in Africa

Guy Belloncle

It is widely acknowledged today that African agricultureis in crisis. Export crop production is at a standstill orcontracting nearly everywhere, and food crop produc-tion is insufficient to feed the rural population properly,much less to supply the swelling cities. But who is tobe blamed for this situation? Is it that rural people areincapable of change and resistant to any innovation? Orshould we rather point to the rural development proj-ects themselves, the objectives they set and the meth-ods they follow?

I have no doubt that the fundamental causes of thepresent stagnation of African agriculture lie in the proj-ects, as I will try to show. After twenty years of contactwith African farmers, I am convince' that they wouldbe quite willing and technically able to carry out the!evolution that is required in agriculture, provided theyare seen in a different light and finally taken for whatthey are: not children who must be constantly pres-sured to change their ways, but responsible adults witha wealth of their own experience, who ask only that thenew cultivation methods suggested to them be demon-strably appropriate.

A Critique of Present Approaches

I believe that agricultural extension as practiced todaynearly everywhere in black Africa is totally misguidedand is a major reason for the crisis in agriculture. Ex-tension services are predicated entirely on an implicitphilosophy that leads to a series oferroneous assump-tions; as a result, these services rub traditional Africansocieties the wrong way. That they are rejected is in-comprehensible to those who judge by external criteria,but is fully understandable to those who are aware of the

37

underlying social logic of this rejection. I shall there-fore describe some of these erroneous assumptionsand examine their effect on the populations involved.

First Erroneous Assumption:The Need for Close Supervision

"Close supervision" is a basic postulate of all rural de-velopment projects in Africa. A substantial share of thefunds requested from external sources of financing goesto pay for this. Moreover, when there is a failure, "defi-cient supervision" is often blamed and a higher ratioof field staff to farmers is commonly called for. Butwhat do we find when we look at the situation objec-tively? First of all, the technical competence of fieldstaff, who are supposed to be advisers, is often lim-itedand in the great majority of cases is inferior tothat of the technologically more advanced farmers. Infact, these specialists are generally recruited from thegroup known as "school failures" and are given only asuperficial type of technical traininga set of preceptsor a "catechism" rather than a scientific understandingof agriculture. As soon as the first farmers have ac-cepted the basic technical recommendations, the exten-sionist shifts into neutral and goes no further. Thefarmers soon know his speech by heart even if they donot respond to it for the reasons analyzed below, andhe is often held up to ridicule. Very soon, this individ-ual is used less and less to provide extension servicesand more and more to manage the supply of factors ofproduction, credit, and marketing services. Again, thishas disastrous consequences.

On the one hand, the presence of an extensionist whodoes all the management work aggravates the problemof making farmers responsible for tasks that they are

45

38 Guy Belloncle

fully capable of assuming. On the other hand, when theextensionist is required to recover loans, he is almostalways seen as an "agent of repression," and this fatallycompromises the educational role that he should play.(As the Hausa proverb warns, "You shouldn't have astick in your hand when you call your dog.") Most im-portant, these agents are young (farmers often callthem "the children"), and management tasksespe-cially the handling of money, whether in grantingcredit or in marketingoffer temptations to whichthey regrettably often succumb. Furthermore, as repre-sentatives of development projects in the field they areresponsible for implementing all decisions, includingthe most unpopular ones, without being able to explainthem. In view of all these factors, one can readily un-derstand the sometimes brutal rejection of extensionagents in many countries.

In any case, the employment of such tints is bothineffective and expensive: ineffective because all thetasks that extension agents are now given could be donebetter by organized farmers; expensive because al-though their unit cost may be low, their number is sogreat that their total cost often represents a large shareof a project's budget. One may ask whether these fundswould not have a greater impact on agricultural pro-duction if they were used to reduce, directly or indi-rectly, the cost of inputs.

Above alland this is the key factorclose supervi-sion implies that the farmer is incapable of adopting theproposed changes on his own and that constant pres-sure must be kept on him by these young agents, whoare very quickly regarded more as watchmen than asadvisers. This constant inspection betrays a lack of con-fidence in farmers' ability to adopt, by themselves,innovations that would be beneficial for them. Thiscontinuing absence of a true dialogue between adultsis a condition that farmers are finding less and lessacceptable.

Thus, unlike many other people, I do not see theneed for strengthening supervision in extensionbutrather for decreasing it to permit farmers to take ontheir responsibilities as they should. The assumptionthat close supervision is essential has so far kept farm-ers from doing this. What is needed is a smaller numberof agents of higher calibernot only in technical mat-ters, but also in human relationswho can engage ina totally different relationship with farmers, as I shallpropose below.

Second Erroneous Assumption:The Need for Pilot F ;mers

The use of pilot farmers is common among extensionservices in various projects, and it is the characteristic

that most profoundly contradicts the values of tradi-tional African society. As the anthropologist Rene Bu-reau (1978) writes, traditional society operates as a"machine for beheading unscrupulous climbers"; its"ultimate purpose is to guard against inequalities andto tirelessly strengthen harmony, which is under con-stant threat." The identification of pilot farmers and thespecific support they are given can therefore be per-ceived by villagers only as a profound injustice, as awish to benefit certain individuals to the detriment ofthe community as a whole. Communities expect collec-tive progress, because it corresponds to deeply held val-ues. This does not mean starting with everyone at thesame time; there will always be those who start first.But, as I shall show, this can be done with the consen-sus of the group and not, as often happens now, withconflicts that may have serious consequences. (Fre-quently, for example, individual innovators leave theirvillage and resettle some distance away to avoid thepressures to which they are subjected.) I consider it es-sential to do away entirely with the individualistic viewthat lies behind the theory of pilot farmers. Instead, acommunity teaching program would be more consis-tent with the way traditional African societies view theirworld.

Third Erroneous Assumption:The Need to Compartmentalize orFragment Technical Recommendations

Agricultural development projects everywhere catego-rize the practices recommended by agronomic researchas either simple or complex; and the latter are not con-sidered in extension work until the former have beenadopted. Again, this approach has disastrous effects andcan lead to terrible misunderstandings between farmersand extension agents. The "simple" practices are inmany cases too simple to offer even the beginning ofa solution to the acute problems facing agriculture inAfrica.

To illustrate this point, I cite a personal experiencein 1968 near Magaria in eastern Niger. I heard the ex-tension agent recite over and over again his catechismabout the treatment of seeds with fungicide, row plant-ing, economic applications of fertilizer, and so on. Fi-nally a farmer interrupted, saying something like this:"Everything you are saying here we know by heart andhave tried. But when the land is dead your poison [fun-gicide] and even your powder [fertilizer] do nothing. Awhite man came to our village three years ago andasked for a field. We gave him the most worn-out offields, behind the village. The white man surrounded itwith his barbed-wire fence, and a young helper camewith oxen and equipment and cultivated the field as he

46

was told to do. Today, where we harvest not more than20 sheaves of millet, that field produces 100. If youknow the secret of that field, tell us. If you don't, stopbothering us."

That field was, of course, a research plot where fertil-ity was being restored by applying natural phosphates,plowing under crop residues, and fertilizing with ma-nure. And that is what the farmers of Magaria wantedto learn. Unfortunately, when a project was preparedtwo years later, it was devoted to simple practicestaught with close supervision, but with no provisionwhatever made for restoring fertility by applying natu-ral phosphates, even though these were available in thecountry.

It may seem paradoxical, but if African farmers as awhole have not yet adopted the practices recommendedto them, the reason is not that they are too compli-cated; on the contrary, they are too simple to solvefarmers' problems, particularly the continuous declinein soil fertility resulting from the disappearance oflong-term fallowing, the traditional method of soil re-generation. This situation leads to a tragic misunder-standing: on the one hand, the farmers reject even thesimplest recommendations after years of unproductivetests; on the other hand, the agents do not propose anymore complicated practices to them, on the groundsthat they have not yet adopted the more simple ones.Here again, a new approach is needed. Extension agentsshould discuss a complete modernization strategy withthe farmers and should show how different techniquesreinforce one another and can ultimately provide a so-lution to their problems.

Once again, are not the pedagogical arguments usedto justify the compartmentalization and fragmentationof recommended practices based on a lack of confi-dence in farmers' ability to understand the strategyas a whole? In any case, a fragmented approachmeans treating farmers as children, and as I havesaid, they soon react by deriding the extension agent'scatechism. What is needed, to repeat, is a change ofattitude and an appreciation of the farmers for whatthey are: responsible adults who want to knowwhere they are being taken before setting out on thejourney.

Fourth Erroneous Assumption:The Existence of the Model Farm

Most project documents contain the concept of the"model," or average, farmone with, let us say, threeworkers, a pair of oxen, and six hectares. But one neednot spend much time in the villages to realize that thisnotion is by no means realistic. In fact, agrarian struc-tures in Africa are infinitely complex. Almost nowhere

Proposals for a New Approach to Extension Services 39

does the farm consist of a plot worked continuously bya single tenant, as suggested by the European idea ofa farm.

Fields in Africa are instead dispersed and worked bydifferent people who put them to different uses. Someregions still have fields owned by the extended familywhich are worked in common and devoted primarily tofood crops, as well as the fields of nuclear families de-voted mainly to commercial crops, and women's andyoung people's fields cultivated on certain days of theweek. This is a far cry from having a single head of thefarm making all the production decisions. And whatcan be said about the number of workers (which canbe anywhere from one to fifty), the extent of mechani-zation, and the areas worked? Obviously, it is impossi-ble to consider uniform strategies of modernization forall these cases. Here again, only through patient dia-logue with those concerned can strategies be adaptedfor each case.

Fifth Erroneous Assumption:The Representativeness of Adult Males

Projects are commonly targeted solely at the adult malepopulation, yet no one can deny the importance ofwomen and young people in agricultural production. Innearly all African societies women take an active partin agricultural work, and what anthropologists call a"sexual division of labor" cannot be ignored. In manysocieties women spend a certain number of days eachweek working fields that are directly assigned to them,the produce of which belongs to them. In some regions,certain crops are grown entirely by women; this is par-ticularly true of traditional rice growing in WestAfrica.Projects have come to nothing because they failed totake this basic fact into consideration. Moreover, youngpeople make up the bulk of the labor force and z::::therefore also directly concerned with the technical in-novations that are proposed.

Instead of benefiting from agricultural gains, thesetwo groups are victims because they most often bearthe added work load while the incremental income re-mains under the sole control of the family head. Inmany projects, having failed to perceive this process,planners are confronted with an impasse that they can-not explain. The new model of extension servicesshould therefore take heed of social groups as awhole.

These, then, are some of the erroneous assumptionsthat underlie the current philosophy of agricultural ex-tension services in Africa and that go a long way towardexplaining the meager results achieved. It is time tolook at another possible model of extension servicesone that pays greater respect to African farmers and to

4?

40 Guy Belloncle

the fundamental values of the societies in which theylive.

A New Approach to Extension Services

The principal assumption underlying this new model ofextension services is that African farmers, far frombeing locked into the use of out-of-date techniques andresistant to any innovation, are indeed aware that theymust alter their traditional farming practices. They aretherefore prepared to learn new ones provided that theyunderstand what is involved. There is no shortage of ex-amples showing that when innovations are technicallyfeasible, sociologically acceptable, and economicallyprofitable African farmers will quickly adopt them.Farmers cannot continue to be blamed for things thatare not their fault. Extension approaches must bechanged and a true dialogue heldnot with individualsselected by outsiders, but with existing communitiesto propose a type of rural development that will en-sure the survival of the group without leaving anyonebehind.

The group instruction should take place in threestages, which I will call self-analysis, self-program-ming, and self-evaluation. Each of these stages willbe discussed in turn.

Self-Analysis

These days, nearly all rural development projects areprepared from outside without any consultation withthose who are assumed to be the beneficiariesthefarmers. Consideration is given to the role of the localcommunity, but none to how the farmers themselvesanalyze their agricultural situation or to their ideas onhow to improve it. This situation can be remedied bylistening to the people concerned and allowing them tostate how they see things. The simplest way to do thisis through open discussion of the traditional kind.Everyone who has taken part in such meetings has beenstruck by the extraordinary ability of farmers as a groupto analyze their situation, by the remarkable clarity oftheir thought, and by their expectations compared withthose of outside specialists.

As an example, I will briefly recount an experiencein Mali, in the village of Suransan-Tumunto north ofKita. During the advanced training of literate youngfarmers, we wanted to help the villagers make a system-atic analysis of some of their farming problems and findpossible solutions. There followed seven evenings ofself-analysis, which revealed some fundamental lessons(see Belloncle 1979).

The farmers zaw with extraordinary clarity the main

problem facing the village: the constant decline in soilfertility because of the continuing reduction of the fal-low period. They were able to express not only the rea-sons for it (population pressure, the place given togroundnuts, the transition to animal traction) but alsotheir feeling of powerlessness in the face r1r a processthat seemed to be irreversible. One possible solutionthey mentioned was to make livestock more sedentary;this had been done to some extent, but the problem ofwatering the stock (not of grazing) remained.they asked, could penned animals be watered duringthe dry season, when people themselves lacked easy ac-cess to water? Another major concern was that theirfields were overrun by striga, considered by the farmersof Suransan to be the main cause of the fall in milletand sorghum yields. What could their extension agentpropose to meet these two critical and entirely justifiedconcerns? The catechism, I fear, was still fungicide, rowplanting, and the economic application of fertilizer.How then could the farmer: be interested in extension?

Undoubtedly it will be objected that an exercise inself-analysis so carefully ccoducted in one village can-not be generalized to all villages involved in a project.However, when a project is being prepared (or a rproject is being negotiated), .; is not necessary to carryout this process in every village. At this stage it is suffi-cient to conduct self-analyses in a representative sam-ple of the villages, in order to obtain a reasonably accu-rate idea of what problems villagers are concerned with,how the communities perceive their situation, andwhat their expectations are concerning the project.Whatever the number of villages that may be targetedin this phase, one thing is certain: the villagers'views should have at least as much weight in the prep-aration of the project as the opinions of any outsideexperts. Thereafter, as project implementation pro-ceeds, self-analysis can be extended gradually to allvillages involved. This is an "assisted" self-analysisand not a "spontaneous" one, since it requires an out-side facilitator.

The bottleneck here is not the time required, but theability of extension workers to perform this complextask. Indeed, only competent specialists (happily, theirnumber is growing every day) with appropriate trainingin sociology and pedagogy (which, sad to say, is stillacutely lacking) can do the job well. It is notand thismust be cleara process that can be started by thepresent cadre of specialists or agents.

Self-Programming

When the farmers have completed their self-analysisthe ball is, as it were, in the court of the technicians.Their task is to point out solutions to the problems

4 8

raisedto offer a consistent overall strategy and not,as is usually the case now, a few suggestions of transi-tory relevance. Although village-by-village discussionsand negotiations should be conducted, it is obviousthat the whole village cannot adopt the entire pro-posed strategy at the same time. Self-programmingshould therefore respond to the following questions:Who is to make the first tests of the new tech-niques recommended? What will be the consistentsequence of complementary techniques with whichthey start?

To begin with the first questionwho? Under pres-ent extension approaches, pilot farmers play the role ofexperimenters in the hope that their example will havea ripple effect. But because pilot farmers introduce newpractices without the prior concurrence of the wholegroup, they are "odd men out." Therefore, under a newapproach I would propose that the village as a wholepublicly designate the "agents of innovation." Sincethis designation (or delegation) would take place afterthe self-analysis phase described above, the status ofthese innovators will be totally different from that ofpilot farmers. Instead of appearing as odd men out (ortraitors) they will be admired because they agree, bydelegation of the group, to run a risk that the groupas a whole cannot take.

On the second questionwhat?I have deliberatelyspoken of a "consistent sequence of complementarytechniques." In point of fact, seldom does an isolatedpractice have any significant impact on agriculture.Most frequently it is a combination of several tech-niques that permits noteworthy gains in productivity.The role of the technicians, then, is to ascertain, ineach situation, how the overall strategy that has beendiscussed in full with the farmers can be broken downinto meaningful components for testing by the agentsof innovation.

One last point of utmost importance: wherever thereare literate farmers, the agents of innovation should bechosen from among them (the villagers usually do soon their own in any case). The ability of an agent ofinnovation to communicate in writing greatly facili-tates the technician's work. It enables him to preparerealistic experimentation programs and to ensure thatthe recommended practices have been applied rigor-ously. Moreover, areas and yields can be measured andthe cost of inputs and production increments calcu-lated precisely, so that the necessary economic calcula-tions can be made and the exact rate of return on theinvestment determined. With literate and numerateagents of innovation it becomes possible, in the phaseof self-evaluation, to obtain quantitative data and tohold discussions based on concrete information verifi-able by all.

Proposals for a New Approach to Extension Services 41

Self-Evaluation

Self-evaluation might be defined as the point at whichthe agents of innovation report on the mission givento them. "Here," they explain, "is what you have askedus to verify; here are the results we have obtained." Itis obvious, however, that the other farmers will nothave waited until that point to get an initial idea of thevalue of the new practices recommended. The preced-ing phases (self-analysis and self-programming) will al-ready have kindled their interest in the demonstrationplots. By virtue of the group discussions, they know ex-actly what those fields were intended to demonstrate(which is not the case when the demonstration plotsare worked by extension staff). Thus, they already knowfrom observation whether the proposed innovations areof any value.

What self-evaluation can contribute is precisely thepossibility of the measurement or quantification justmentioned. The agent can lay his cards on the table,saying, "Here are the recommended techniques and theresults obtained from them; what do you think?" To fa-cilitate the discussion at this point, it is very useful tohave a scale model or some other device to show theresults visuallyso that even illiterate persons can un-derstand. If, as expected, the new techniques provemore effective than the old ones, self-evaluation willallow another question to be asked: what is keepingeveryone from adopting these techniques? This willmake it possible to go beyond the subjective obstacles("I didn't adopt the recommended practices because Iwasn't convinced of their effectiveness") to reveal theobjective obstacles ("I really wanted to adopt thesepractices but such and such a thing prevented it"). Theextension service must be very attentive to such obsta-cles if it wants to speed up the rate at which innovationsare adopted.

This self-evaluation can also apply to the results ofpractices already adopted by some farmers in the village(one never actually starts from zero). Thus, in a cotton-growing village where some farmers produce morethan three tons while others cannot obtain even oneton, the discussion can focus on the reasons for the dif-ference (which as a rule they have thoroughly ana-lyzed), and on what is keeping all the villagers fromachieving the same yields. Again, this would highlightobstacles that are more objective than subjective. More-over, such self-evaluation will lead in turn to new self-programming.

Another example: after a rise in the price of insecti-cides, the extension service observes a tendency amongfarmers to reduce the quantity applied and the numberof treatments. In a self-evaluation of what has hap-pened, the farmers cite the rise in insecticide prices.

49

42 Guy Belloncle

How, then, can they be convinced that despite thehigher price, the recommended treatment is still profit-able and that they should cortinue to use four applica-tions of four liters per hectare? Preaching by the exten-sion adviser will obviously be fruitless in such a case.The only course of action is to offer experimental evi-dence that treatment will remain profitable. The villag-ers can be advised to designate a number of farmerswho will compare results obtained on the same fieldwith one plot being treated four times with four liters,and another plot of the same size treated three timeswith three liters. Here again, literacy is important topermit all the economic calculations.

This, then, is the new methodology proposed, withits three phases of self-analysis, self-programming, andself-evaluation. (The first and third can be combinedwhen, as is frequently the case, the village is alreadyinvolved in a project.) The methodology is based on theconviction that African farmers are responsible adults,are aware that their cultivation practices need tochange, and ask only to be convinced that the new tech-niques recommended to them offer a lasting solutionto their problems. The only way of convincing them isto discuss the entire modernization strategy proposedand to give farmers a concrete means of verifying itsvalidity through experimentation. Farmersin Africaas elsewhereare, in point of fact, experimenters bynature. For them, seeing is believing, especially seeingthings on their own fields. Hence the importance of thefarmer-experimenters designated by the group, who acton the group's behalf to test the techniques that allmembers will later be asked to adopt. Hence also theimportance of there being at least some farmers in eachvillage literate and numerate enough to enter the worldof measurement and to speak a common language withthe outside specialists--a situation that is all too rare(for a rapid method of making a core of farmers literatein each village, see Belloncle 1983). This point will bediscussed below in connection with the training ofyoung farmers who, as stated earlie', can play a decisivepart in the agricultural revolution that African agricul-ture must undergo and who have been almost com-pletely neglected until now.

Scientific Agricultural Trainingfor Young People

Although most countries have systems for trainingfarmers, they reach a very small number of young peo-ple and have had but little impact in the home villagesof the trainees. It is not hard to understand why. Whenyoung people are trained away from their own milieu,they are cut off from their villages, and when they re-

turn at the end of their training they may appear to bedangerous troublemakers. Often unable to apply theblanket recommendations they have learned at thetraining centers, the young people become discour-aged, sell their equipment, and leave. Once again theneed is to change procedures and to train young peoplein the village and for the village.

One result of the self-analysis phase is that the olderpeople are made aware of the extent of the changes rec-ommended and the time needed to carry them out.Some are bound to feel unable or unwilling to join therevolution to which they are being invited; they mayfeel it is up to young people and will ask the outsideexperts to train them. The chances for success in suchcircumstances are optimal. But how can the trainingactually be organized?

The first step is for the family heads to agree that allyoung people of the village (often grouped further bythe traditional age strata) will work an experimentaltract of land, make .consistent tests of all new tech-niques recommended, and report regularly on the re-sults. The new practices would include the most recentfindings of agricultural research, whict. is increasinglyconcerned with developing appropriate systems of pro-duction and optimal combinations of factors, ratherthan individual techniques for use in isolation. The ul-timate aim would be to make.this group of young peo-ple responsible for testing the new production systemsrecommended for each village. They would do so byworking a "prototype farm," a forerunner of what thevillage farms could look like in ten or twenty years.

These prototype, experimental undertakings shouldalso serve an educational purpose. They should providenot only instruction in how to apply the new practices,but also the scientific background that young peopleneed in order to understand the reasons for what theyare being asked to do. This scientific training should ofcourse be given in the national language, which mayrequire an extensive prior language program: an experi-ment conducted in two villages in Mali has shown thatit was entirely possible to teach the basic concepts ofsoil and plant science in local African languages. Hav-ing learned these concepts, the young people will beable to understand the scientific reasons for adoptingone technique rather than another.

Let me underscore the importance of an intensiveprogram to make young people literate in their nativelanguage. Although it is not impossible to provide agri-cultural training orally (and experience shows that allyoung people, literate or not, are eager to take part),the ability to use the written word is of great value, Thetrainees can take notes on the courses that are givenand can read written instructions for the tasks they willbe carrying out. Furthermore, a core of literate youths

50

in the village can greatly facilitate the work and canmediate between other young people and the externaltrainers. Numeracy plays an important role, as we haveseen, in measurementespecially of areas, prices offactors of production, quantities harvested, yields, andso on, all of which are essential for accurate economiccalculations. Literacy and numeracy must therefore beintegrated in the training as quickly as possible, and ex-perience shows that this can be done when young peo-ple are strongly motivated.

Apart from this long-term task of preparation for thefuture, the village youths, especially if they include acore of literate people, can serve as the agents of inno-vation with respect to the practices recommended forimmediate adoption by all villagers. If the extensionservice has something new to propose, it should there-fore address itself to the youths of each village, askingthem to compare traditional methods with the recom-mended innovations in simple trials. Needless to say,all of this should be done after everyone has been con-sulted and informed, so that each villager is clearlyaware of what is happening. Experiments of this typehave been conducted in several villages in Mali, eachtime with great success. To promote such activitiesmore widely, a number of projects would have to beadapted so that they provide young people with scien-tific training, at least on an experimental basis.

The problem with this approach to extension lies lesswith the farmers than with the need for specialists whocan initiate a process that is both participatory and rig-orously experimental. Such a process will be infinitelymore effective and will allow a much faster spread ofinnovation than will the present procedure of providingsimple recommendations and close supervision.

Ensuring the Participation of Women

African women play a key role in agricultural produc-tion. The changes that have occurred in agriculture,however, have often added to their already burdensometasks of carrying water and wood, processing crops, andpreparing food. This is particularly true in cotton-growing areas, where women do most of the harvest-ing. Furthermore, in regions where cash income is rel-atively high, the proportion received by women isgenerally decreasing. The additional time that womenmust devote to cash crops (the income from which usu-ally goes entirely to men) is no longer available for tra-ditional activities (crafts, small-scale stockraising,gathering and processing of secondary products) thathave in the past provided them with their own income.Sometimes--especially when hydro-agricultural devel-opment makes it possible to shift from traditional rice

Proposals for a New Approach to Extension Services 43

growing to more productive methodswomen are infact dispossessed of their fields. In addition, the deterio-ration of the environment (deforestation and the de-crease in rainfall) makes some of their traditional tasks(gathering wood and pumping water) much more oner-ous. In sum, it cannot be said that women have alwaysbenefited from "modernization" or "development."

For these reasons, it is imperative that they be madepartners in solving agricultural problems and that theirparticular interests be taken into account. The proce-dure described above, with its three phases of self-analysis, self-programming, and self-evaluation, can beintroduced with this in mind. Nonetheless, because ofsociological factors it will usually be necessary to obtainthe prior agreement of the men before the women canbe included. And the women may first have to meetseparately to express their own thoughts about theirproblems before a general meeting is held. Female spe-cialists will be needed to enable true "bargaining"among all social groups (men, women, young people)within the villages, so that the necessary modernizationwill be everyone's concern and will benefit all. To takeonly one example, the integration of farming and stock-raising, which is essential to the future of the Sahel-Sudanian regions, cannot occur without the active par-ticipation of all groups and without a new sharing oftasks and incomes.

To advance the status of women, agricultural devel-opment projects must take account of the role ofwomen, not only as wives and mothers, but also as pro-ducers (see Belloncle 1980 on the problems of the ad-vancement of women). There is no question that thisis a long-term undertaking, all the more urgent be-cause very little has been done. But it is imperative tobegin it if the profound transformation that African ag-riculture requires is to take place successfully.

Conclusions

African agriculture is undergoing a crisis that threat-ens the very future of the continent. A critical problemin most areas is the continuing degeneration of the soil,as the supply of fallow fields dwindles without the emer-gence of any compensating new techniques for main-taining fertility. An agricultural revolution is thereforeurgently needed, and new systems of production mustbe adopted. Agronomic research is now in a position torecommend many new farming systems that have al-ready been tested at research stations and support facil-ities. The question is 'aow to thing about their adoptionbefore the damage becomes irreversible (as has alreadyhappened in some regions). The answer lies in adoptingpackages of techniques which are far more complex

51

44 Guy Be Muncie

than the recommendations now being disseminated byextension servicespackages such as the systematiccorrection of nutrient deficiencies in soils by the utili-zation of crop residues, the plowing under of green veg-etation, and the use of manure. There are no simple so-lutions to the problems that African agriculture isfacing today, because these problems are inherentlycomplex.

Since the situation is worsening everywhere and ata very rapid rate, I have tried to show how farmers canbe motivated to adopt new techniques within a veryshort time. It is no longer a matter of going from doorto door trying to convince a few individual farmers toadopt a few simple techniques. It is necessary to addressentire village communities in order to save village landsas a whole while there is still time. Community partici-pation in self-analysis of their situation is required, notto make villagers aware of drastic implications (they areoften much more aware than the "experts"), but to helpthem to act and to accept profound but imperativechanges. I have proposed that new practices be testedsystematically in the village by agents of innovation. Ihave tried to point out the essential role of the tradi-tional associations of young people, who should bemade responsible for a prototype farm that would alsoallow the practical application of a truly scientific pro-gram of agricultural training.

All of this will often require the introduction of acommon language to allow a permanent dialogue be-tween the villagers and the outside specialists. This inturn means that at least a core of farmers (usually theyoungest ones) must be literate in the national lan-guage. Functional literacy and numeracywhich canbe taught in less than three monthswill enable the

villagers to make the measurements commonly used bytechnicians and will give them common points of refer-ence for discussions in a language known to all. Fur-thermore, all groups in society (men, women, youngpeople) must take part in the discussion of how theirpresent conflicts can be overcomeconflicts that areovershadowed by the question of the survival of the vil-lage itself.

The strategy proposed here should not be separatedfrom the establishment of farmers' associations to takeover responsibility for the management tasks (inputsupply, the provision of credit, marketing) now handledby specialists. The existence of such associations willallow some community costs (financial, educational,and social) to be borne by the villagers. As has beendemonstrated by the village associations established bythe Compagnie Malienne de Developpement des Textiles(see chapter 8), it is in this context that a new extensionstrategy has its best chance of success.

If all these conditions are met, African villagers canmove decisively toward the agricultural revolutionwhich alone can safeguard their future. I am convincedthat they are ready to start upon that path, providedthey are approached by specialists who acknowledgethem as partners in a continuing dialogue betweenequals, in which each contributes his own experience.Perhaps the foregoing reflections will convince somespecialists to follow this course and will give them thedesire to test the procedures proposed.

PeNr presented at the seminar on Agricultural Extension andIts Link with Resew ch in Rural Development, Yamoussoukro,Cote d'Ivoire, February 17-23, 1985.

52

8

Village Associations and Agricultural Extensionin the Republic of Mali

.Boubacar Sada Sy and Mamadou Yero Bah

In February 1964 the government of Mali signed its firstagreement with the Compagnie Francaise pour leDeveloppement des Textiles (cFDT) to develop cotton inthe administrative districts of Segou and Sikasso. Tenyears later the CFDT was replaced by a mixed company,the Malian Textile Development Company (CompagnieMalienne de Developpement des Textiles, CMDT). Thischapter traces twenty years (1964-84) of experiencewith agricultural extension and, since 1974, the inno-vative promotion of producer organizations, which inMali are called village associations.

CFDT/CMDT Experience with Extension

Two methods of extension have been debated in Malifor nearly twenty years. In the first approach pilot farm-ers are the focal point of extension activities, and theirexample is expected to have a ripple effect. Because thisapproach was not tailored to local socioeconomic con-ditions and underestimated the importance of tradi-tion, it failed wherever it was used in Mali.

In the second approach it is assumed that pilot farm-ers can and should emerge from extension activities,but they are not recruited in advance. The extensionmethod is based on group dynamics, and technicalmessages are transmitted through traditional struc-tures (villages) and directed to all farms. This approachseeks to promote the overall development of the com-munity concerned and to tailor agricultural extensionactivities perfectly at all times to the land and people.This philosophy was adapted by the CMDT and shaped itsmethods of operation.

Since 1964, the initial year of "Operation Coton,"

45

there have been two phases h. the development of ex-tension activities.

Phase 1 (1964-74)

The initial steps were taken in an area of 96,000 squarekilometers, where there was a very low level of agricul-tural technology and barely 4 percent of the farmerswere equipped with animal traction. In such a situa-tion, an increase in productivity could come only by in-troducing new farming techniques such as animal trac-tion, the use of chemical or organic fertilizers andimproved seed, adherence to a production timetable,and crop protectionor by improving existing tech-niques such as rotation management. To ch this, 'inten-sive and competent extension was needed. This posedserious problems because the available extension work-ers needed training just as much as did the farmers.

Extension began with a study of the local setting; itwas thought vital to have a thorough understanding ofthe milieu in which extension was to be carried out.The study provided knowledge about physical condi-tions (different types of soil and trace elements), cus-toms (working days and holidays), social and religiousorganizations, farni., and farm structures, economicactivities, and the like. From this information, threesituations which an extension agent could face whendisseminating production information were identified:first, when a new technique was totally unknown to thefarmers; second, when a technique was known but notused; and third, when a technique was known but im-properly used. A methodology for each of these situa-tions was devised and used as the basis for extensionactivities.

46 Boubacar Sada Sy and Mamadou Yero Bah

Case 1. New technique. An entirely new techniqueintroduced into a rural setting should be described asan innovationfor example, the use of ultra-low vol-ume (um?) sprays in an area where t',e, technique, theequipment, and its operation are totally unknown.Farmers will accept an innovation only if they feel theyneed it. Thus the first task of the extension agent is tomake them aware of that need. At this stage extensionshould be tailored to the particular situation of the vil-lage or the farmers involved.

In the example of ULV treatment, the extension agentwould inform farmers of the new insecticide treatmentand describe the technique, propose a demonstration atthe farm of a volunteer, and then train one or morefarmers in the use of the new equipment znd leavethem to think about it and discuss it with their fami-lies.

Each new technique brings with it a series ofconstraintssocial, economic, or technical. A newtechnique can upset the entire. traditional organizationof the farmer's work, for example, or strain the familybudget. It may also require the farmer to seek training,which can be a more serious constraint than would ap-pear. It is therefore up to the head of the household todecide whether the change is beneficial.

Case 2. Technique known but not used. The mostdramatic experience with an unused technology in-volved weeding with tiller combines, or multiculteurs.The extension agents had sold a number of tiller com-bines to farmers in 1968, but the following year weresurprised to find little weeding being done by machine.During village meetings the farmers revealed that theyknew the machines could do weeding but did net knowhow to use them. The extension agents had been work-ing in the area for some time, had gained the confi-dence of the farmers, and had managed to sell severaltiller combinesbut their efforts had stopped there.

Und r such conditions the obvious solution is to stopmerely encouraging the farmers and begin to teachthem. The message that the extension agent needs tocommunicate is simply the detailed sequence of stepsrequired to maintain and use the equipment and toevaluate its impact.

Case 3. Technique known but improperly used. Theplow is a striking example of a technology that is oftenimproperly used. Frequently the runner is completelyworn out because the regulator is not adjusted cor-rectly or the chain is too short. There may not even bea regulator, or the control to adjust for depth may bemissing. If a plow is kept in service beyond its usefullife, it does not do the job properly, and there is abnor-mal wear on the equipment and the team.

In such a case, the extension agent might find him-self in an awkward position because this problem ismost often the result of demonstrations that werepoorly done or not done at all. An agent who is an ex-pert in plowing should organize demonstrations witha properly adjusted plow in good repair. This can beguided with only one hand, to demonstrate that a plowin good working condition is less tiring for both thefarmer and the team, that wear on the working partsof the plow is even, and that the plowing can be donewell and uniformly.

In this first phase of extension activities, the frame-work for an efficient system was put in place and it waspossible to show the benefits that could be reaped. Atthe end of this period about 32 percent of the farmershad machinery, as against 4 percent in 1964, and pro-ductivity had risen considerably, especially for cotton,because of the effective utilization of the techniquesdisseminated. At the same time, other activities wereinitiated that made the operation a truly integratedrural ' °velopment project from 1974 on. These in-cluded the training of traditional blacksmiths in re-sponse to the increased use of animal traction, thetraining of young farmers at seasonal centers, the de-lineation of fields, and the improvement of stockraisingmethods, especially by the introduction of forage crops.It was shown that the widespread use of animal tractionand of simple techniques within the reach of everyonecould speed up the modernization proms in the coun-trycide.

Phase 2 (1974-84)

During the second phase the CMDT was established,but extension objectives remained the same: more in-tensive use of technology and the promotion of villageassociations. The strategy was to strengthen basic ex-tension activities for farmers at a low technical level,while tapering off extension services to the more tech-nically advanced and better equipped farmers, and tohelp village groups find solutions to managerial and or-ganizational problems. This involved raising the levelof technical and managerial expertise in the extensionservices to cope with the complexity of emerging needs.

More intensive use of technology. Technical achieve-malts eloquently reflect the efforts made from 1974 to1984: the number of villages served rose from 2,370 to3,288, while the number of far.Is monitored rose from68,600 to 104,000. (The number of extension agents,however, increased only modestly-474 in 1974 and554 in 1984.) By 1984 cotton was grown on 113,000hectares, up from 69,500 hectares, and average cottonyields increased from 720 kilograms to 1,112 kilograms

per hectare. The area planted with millet and sorghumserved by agricultural extension rose from 20,700 hec-tares to 135,000. The area under maize, a mere 4,000hectares in 1974, totaled 38,000 hectares in 1984 withyields often of more than 3 tons per hectare.

Promotion of village associations. During the sameperiod, the CMDT was promoting the growth of villageassociations to take over responsibility for a number ofservices previously provided by the technical extensionservice. The goal was to interest farmers in managerialduties by giving them access to a supply of inputs, agri-cultural credit, and marketing services. Transferringcertain tasks to the farmers then freed the extension ap-paratus to concentrate on giving advice on livestock,water supply, literacy, human health, and so on.

Farmers organize into associations for psychological,economic, and social reasons. Associations promoteprogress and foster greater awareness of the problemsthat can be overcome collectively but not individually.When farmers take over the management of credit andmarketing, relations between them and the extensionagent are generally strengthened in consequencetheagent no longer finds himself in an adversarial relation-ship with certain individuals. As the sole entity autho-rized to grant credit, the association makes its own deci-sion about loans to its members. Economic benefitsinclude joint income from marketing surpluses, remu-neration for the work of the village purchasing team,the production from communal fields worked by theyoung on a voluntary basis, any dues voted by thegroup, and interest from the loans made to membersof the association. This income is used to make invest-ments (in scales, wells, mills, storehouses, maternityclinics, and literacy centers) of general interest to thegroup. The farmers also set up a mutual aid and creditsystem for the poorest among them.

In addition to these benefits, there are obligations ofwhich the farmers are fully aware. First, it is necessaryto comply with the rules adopted by the group, to shareresponsibility, and to try to enlist the hesitant minori-ties so as to obtain unanimity. Farmers also have to or-ganize and attend literacy programs so that everyonewill have the skills needed to participate in the organi-zation and management of the association. The chiefexternal constraint is the need for a well-structured andcompetent extension service to act as a link betweenthe villages and the outside world.

Controlled growth. Throughout the various stages inthe establishment of village associations, extreme carewas taken to increase their number gradually and toprovide monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. In1975-76, 38 village associations were established. At

Village Associations and Agricultural Extension in Mali 47

the time, management records were kept in French byprimary school graduates or by people who had re-ceived army training. In April 1977 members of the vil-lage associations were allowed to attend a seminar or-ganized in Sikasso for administrative officials and thevarious state bodies. In 1976-77, 76 new associationshad been established. In the following year almost 120new associations were formed, but end-of-season evalu-ations revealed an acute problem: the associations werenot able to prepare proper accounting documents inFrench.

The CMDT then decided to concentrate on functionalliteracy in the Bambara language, and it recruited lit-eracy specialists who had been working at the Na-tional Department of Literacy and Applied Linguistics(DNAFLA). In March 1979 the CMDT (with the support ofa DNAFIA teaching team) finalized an accounting plan inBambara and a method for preparing the accounts ofthe village associations. Accounting in Bambara waswidely used after June 1979. Since that time, generalvillage meetings have been held in October to closethe books, render accounts, and draw up provisionalbudgets.

In April 1980 a seminar held in Segou for extensionagents and trainers defined the village association as adevelopment enterprise with multiple functions: com-mercial, social, and educational. That same year, thetraining of village health teams was proposed to the as-sociations. The first village pharmacies were opened,and refresher training for midwives began in conjunc-tion with the construction of the first delivery rooms.The village associations were becoming the ideal vehi-cle for all activities planned within the framework of in-tegrated rural development. Tick control crews and thefirst small veterinary pharmacies were set up for live-stock, and forage crops were introduced. A maize proj-ect introduced new means of grain processing thatincluded threshers and mills.

In 1980 the rate at which new associations were es-tablished began to slow down. Demand from the vil-lages was still very high, but attention turned to illiter-ate communities. The formation of a core of literatesbecame the prerequisite for the establishment of allnew associations. Concurrently, the older associationshad to be strengthened. Some had lost their most ableand literate members, and their record keeping was lessthan satisfactory. Evening literacy classes given overseveral months had done as much as they could, butthe results were poor. A person usually had to attendtwo literacy campaigns to become literate, and drop-outs were frequent.

The CMDT therefore began to develop an intensive lit-eracy training method. Classes were held during theday for several days at a time; participants made sub-

48 Boubacar Sada Sy and Mamadou Yero Bah

stantial progress. An evaluation seminar in April 1982studied the possibility of short-term intensive literacytraining in 45-day cycles for total illiterates. The newstrategy proved highly efficient, and 70 percent of thestudents became competent enough to keep the man-agement records of an association. Once back in theirvillages the new literates started learning centers,which rapidly increased literacyespecially amongtwenty- to thirty-year-olds. It thus became possible tostart establishing village associations again. During the1984-85 crop year alone, 142 were formed, bringing thetotal number of associations to 674.

Continuous evaluation. Ten years of progress andadjustment show that it should never be assumed thata village association can function by itself. Support andtraining for the villages should be an ongoing processthat adapts to the real situation of each association. Inthis regard, an evaluation grid was developed to showat all times exactly what the associations are doing andto identify where they have gone astray. The grid isused to evaluate technical functions such as the supplyof inputs and credit and marketing activities, as well asthe degree of literacy, managerial expertise, the extentof investments, office efficiency, and grass-roots partici-pation. Used annually, the grid can pinpoint weak-nesses requiring outside assistance before it is toolate.

Village Associations

In addition to the economic and social benefits, the es-tablishment of associations had extremely importantconsequences for the organization of extension activi-ties. First was the transfer to the village associations ofbasic technical duties previously performed by the ex-tension agents. Thanks to the intensive literacy train-ing, many villages produced far more new literates thanthey needed for day-to-day management. Other uses forthe new skills therefore had to be found. One of theCMDT'S solutions was to form technical teams composedof the more advanced members of the village, who weremade responsible for some of the extension tasks. Theyhelped with data-related tasks, for example, by stakingout fields; figuring the percentage of the area plowed,sown, and treated; counting cotton bolls to estimateharvests; and so on. They also organized multilocationtests with agricultural researchers, in accordance withdirections written in Bambara, and set up demonstra-tion plots, the results of which were circulated to allmembers of the association.

The second change that accompanied the growth of

village associations was a shift toward a more individu-alized extension service. The CFDT and CMDT had been de-livering relatively undifferentiated messages that weredirected to all farmers. It became clear, however, thatnotice had to be taken of the significant differences inthe size, number of workers, equipment, and technicallevel of farms. To implement a more sophisticatedapproach two major obstacles had to be overcome:a lack of detailed knowledge about farm conditions,and the low level of technical skills among the village-level extension workers. The new literates in the vil-lage associations have helped to change the situationradically. In several pilot villages, they have been askedto keep farm records and collect data for diagnosticstudies. Eventually it is hoped to form managingcommittees composed of different categories offarmers.

After several years of work in pilot villages, the Divi-sion for Research on Rural Production Systems at theInstitute of Rural Economics in Mali has developed afarm classification system, a diagnostic methodology,and related technical proposals. After the factors of pro-duction are analyzed for each of a number of types offarm, a production system can be devised so that grainand monetary needs are met; labor, draft animals, andfarm equipment are put to optimal use; and soil fertilityis protected. A novel feature of this experiment is thatconcrete cooperation is established between a team ofresearchers who are specialists in agrarian systems andfield extension staff who tackle the daily challenges ofa rapidly changing rural scene.

The third change is that the village associations pro-vide an ideal framework for a continuous dialogue be-tween farmers and technicians. Even before the associ-ations were established, the CMDT had started a dialoguewith farmers on the problems raised by the transmis-sion of new techniques. Its great concern was to stan-dardize yields of both cotton and food crops. In a givenvillage, farmers may have seemingly inexplicable differ-ences in their yields. The approach now taken by theextension service is to have all members of an associa-tion analyze the reasons (objective or subjective) forsuch differences, so that ways can be found to standard-ize production techniques. It is also hoped that bymaking loans to farmers for purchasing equipment, theassociations will facilitate the shift from manual farm-ing to animal traction.

Conclusion

The emergence f.' village associations in southern Maliwas made possiole by the ongoing dialogue with villag-

ers and by the constant concern of the CMDT to respectthe wishes of farmers. The next stage will be to estab-lish rural development zones that will group several vil-lage associations under the general supervision of oneextension agent. The ultimate goal is to move graduallytoward federated groups that will themselves organize

Village Associations and Agricultural Extension in Mall 9

the rural development process and handle all the func-tions previously carried out by the CMDT.

Adapted from a paper presented at the seminar on Agricul-tural Extension and Its Link with Research in Rural Develop-ment, Yamoussoukro, Cole d'Ivoire, February 17-23, 1985.

57

9

On-Farm Research with a Farming SystemsPerspective

Michael Collinson

The technical perspective from which agricultural re-search is generally viewed in developing countries oftenresults in research recommendations that are "unfin-ished" with respect to the needs of small-farm manag-ers in three closely related ways. First, farmers them-selves never use a purely technical perspective inmanaging their farms, and consequently never use onein evaluating new technologies introduced to them bythe extension services. Second, recommendations inev-itably are presented in the form of "final solutions" orthe "best" way to produce. They seek full exploitationof biological potential under the present state of the art.But farmers may be willing and able to handle only in-termediate or partial solutions because of the manage-rial perspective they use and their limited resources.Third, blanket recommendations given, at best, for aspecific agroecological zone fail to recognize that eco-nomic circumstances dictate farmers' decisions andmodify, often dramatically, these agroecological influ-ences.

Agricultural research is tied to a technical perspec-tive and to technical criteria by the essential featuresof experimental methodology. In the course of the re-search and extension sequence to develop and dissemi-nate new technology appropriate for farmers, the per-spective and criteria have to change from the technicalones inherent in experimentation, to the managerialones used by farmers.

On-farm research uses a managerial, or systems, per-spective to review the results of technical research andto identifyand where necessary modifythose mostrelevant to the current needs of specific groups of farm-ers. As used here, the managerial perspective is exactlythe same as the systems perspective, but the latter hasmore validity in the small-farm sectors of developing

51

countries. To be cost-effective, it must be brought tobear on a number of farmers operating the same sys-tem. A managerial perspective is appropriate in devel-oped countries where professional farm managementadvisers interact with individual farmers, but this indi-vidual treatment is not operationally viable in develop-ing countries where there are very small farms and adearth of professionals.

One objective of on-farm research that uses a sys-tems perspective is to develop techniques and productsthat fully meet the demands of differentiated farmergroups. Another objective is to identify technical con-straints to the rapid development of farming systemsand to feed them back as agenda items to commodityand disciplinary research specialists. This feedback isthe other side of the technical-managerial loop and fo-cuses technical research efforts onto farmers' most im-portant management problems.

The failure of institutional linkages between exten-sion and research is a relatively superficial problem,though one often cited; more fundamental in theresearch-extension sequence commonly followed in Af-rica is the failure to use a managerial or systems per-spective in the diagnosis of farmers' problems and inthe development of recommendations. Neither the re-search nor extension establishments are truly farmer-oriented because of the dominance of the technical per-spective.

In many countries research and extension staff re-main skeptical that small farmers are managers in anyaccepted sense of the word. Such skepticism leads tothe belief that "we know what is best ft, you," an atti-tude that prevents the extension services from under-standing &grail farmers and feeding back key problemsto research. Furthermore, technical compromises,

58

52 Michael Co lawn

often the essence of good management, are inevitablyseen as farmers' shortcomings. Such attitudes reducethe credibility of the extension staff in the eyes of thelocal community. In disseminating recommendations,similar anomalies occur. The contact extension officerwho Itv ..t.s in the community is often charged with pr .1-moting new technologies that he sees as inappropriatefor his neighbors. He is thus caught in a squeeze be-tween his bosses and his neighbors. Since the bossesare holding the purse strings, their view prevails, butat high cost to the agent's credibility in the communityand his own morale.

This fundamental problem of perspective is certainlyreinforced by the characteristic institutional and opera-tional gaps between research and extension servicesand by the remoteness of station-based researchersfrom their farmer-clients. The integrated planning andoperation of research and extension is clearly desirable.But only the introduction of a managerial perspectiveto the generation and dissemination of technologieswill solve the problem of technology transfer. Farmers'management priorities must be given full weightfirst, in modifying technical research findings to meetthe needs of differentiated groups of farmers operatingthe same system; and second, in the planning of re-search agendas for commodity and disciplinary special-ists at research stations.

On-farm research has practical, cost-effective proce-dures to bring together the technical and managerialperspectives. At the same time, by bringing farmers, ex-tension staff, and researchers together on local farms,it counters the secondary problem of poor institutionallinkage.

The Farming Systems Perspectivein Technology Development

The use of a farming systems perspective (FsP) in on-farm research (oFR) should follow the five stages out-lined below.

I. Identification of Target Groups

Groups of farmers operating roughly the same farmingsystem are identified as targets for research and exten-sion efforts on the basis of policy criteria. Groups iden-tified within a major administrative region form aframework for agricultural planning for that region.The OFFVFSP sequence is then carried out in the targetgroups by on-farm research teams. These teams aremade up of a general agronomist and a farm economist,with an animal production researcher where animalsare important in the farming system.

2. Diagnosis of the Target Farming System

The team then takes up to two months to diagnoseproblems among the target farmers. During this timethe technical on-farm researchers (the agronomist andanimal production researcher) identify current prac-tices that appear technically weak and fail to exploitfully the biological potential of the locality; they alsoidentify the more obvious pests and diseases. Mean-while the farm economist gains an understanding ofthe farming system, of how the farmer allocates hisland, labor, and cash to different crop, livestock, andoff -farm activities, and of the priorities that the farmerseeks to satisfy through his management of the localecological and economic environment.

3. Identification of Leverage Pointsand Technological Interventions

The technical and economic perspectives of on-farm re-search team members are brought together in a screen-ing process which has five steps:

Technicians on the team specify technical prob-lems and technically poor practices being used bylocal farmers and estimate the resulting loss ofproduction.

Team members specify the technical and eco-nomic causes of these poor practices to help iden-tify new technologies. Poor practices can be ex-plained by three sets of factors: (1) the localnatural environment; (2) deliberate managementof the local environment by farmers to satisfy fam-ily priorities (for example, the late planting ofmaize may allow farmers to exploit a high pricefor green maize in the local market, or a late sec-ond planting may ensure a food supply in placeswhere a mid-season drought is liable to catch thefirst planting at the vulnerable flowering stage);and (3) the resource constraints which force farm-ers to make technical compromises. To use thesame example, late maize planting may be causedby a scarcity of labor and draft power; farmerscontinue to plant a late crop even though yieldsper hectare are poor, because the practice addsmore to total production than using the labor tointensify management of the earlier plantings. Inthese examples the poor technical practice is thesame: the late planting of maize. Although thisstrategy prevents the full exploitation of biologicalpotential and is therefore technically imperfect, inall three cases it is managerially sound. But onlywhen a managerial perspective is used in specify-ing the cause of late planting can the interven-

s9

tions be identified, for they will differ for eachcause.

In the light of these evaluations, team membersspecify as wide a range as possible of improvedtechnical practices that can help farmers realizetheir goals more efficiently. These improved prac-tices are drawn from the results of past researchthat appears to be relevant to local farmers'needs.

The resulting inventory of improved materials andpractices is screened on both technical and eco-nomic grounds. The technicians on the team as-sess whether the relationships established by pre-vious technical research can be realized underlocal environmental conditions and farmers' man-agerial practices; the economist on the team as-sesses whether the resources required to carry outthe proposed technical interventions are withinthe reach of the local farmers.

Improved materials and practices which pass thisscreening stage are then considered for inclusionin the team's on-farm experimental program.

4. On-Farm Experimentation

In collaboration with local extension staff, who partici-pate in all phases, the OFR team designs, implements,and evaluates an on-farm experimental program. Thetype of experiment is dictated by how much confidencethe technical researchers have that relationships identi-fied by previous research are replicable on local farms.Climate, soil, and farmers' managerial practices maymodify these relationships. If there is a great deal ofconfidence that relationships found elsewhere will holdloc.& improved technology can be immediately com-pared with farmers' current technology in verificationexperiments, with heavy involvement of farmers andextension workers. If there is little confidence that rela-tionships will hold, or if modifications are needed tomeet farmers' needs, new measurements must be takenand will require more formal experimentsdirectly man-aged by researchers, with limited involvement of farm-ers and extension staff.

The scope of the on-farm experimentation is deter-mined by the resources available to the team. Improvedmaterials and practices that have passed through thescreening process are assessed on the basis of their po-tential contribution to the system, the ease with whichfarmers cart assimilate them, and the amount of re-search effort needed.

The highest-ranked interventions will have priorityin the on-farm experimental program. One or more in-terventions that can be moved straight into the verifica-

On-Farm Research with a Farming Systems Perspective 53

tion stage should be included, however, to offer localfarmers something as soon as possible.

Evaluation of the experiments during the season isdone jointly by farmers, extension staff, and the team.The final interpretation of results is made on the basisof a balance of statistical and economic analysis andfarmer assessments.

5. Dissemination

The continual interaction between farmers, research-ers, and extension staff allows a ready consensus onwhen improved technology is ready for dissemination.The most obvious sign is when host farmers begin touse the experimental techniques on their own cropsand animals. Extension staff who have been involvedwith the on-farm research program will have an inti-mate knowledge of the managerial implications of thenew techniques and will be able to lay out demonstra-tions on farmers' fields and expose other farmers in thecommunity to the interventions. When relatively seniorextension staff (for example, subject matter specialistsin a T&V system) are involved in the OFR program, theywill be the ideal trainers for the contact extension staffthroughout the target area.

Two points should be emphasized about the ap-proach described. First, extension statf lavea great dealof confidence in recommendations developed in thisparticipatory way on local farms. Second, the approachdiffers from the current top-down system in that what-ever technology is diagnosed as appropriate is pulleddown into local farm situations, not pushed at farmers,regardless of the specifics of their locality.

A Link between Research, Extension, and Farmers

As indicated earlier, this sequence of on-farm researchwith a farming systems perspective has three objec-tives. The first is to identify technical knowledge which,when pulled down into local situations, will enablefarmers either to solve key managerial problems or toexploit important managerial opportunities better. Thesecond is to identify technical problems vital to im-proved management in local farm situations and bringthem to the attention of commodity and disciplinaryre-search specialists. And the third is to bring researchers,extensionists, and farmers into contact in specific localfarm situations and, by drawing extension staff into theprocess of developing acceptable technology, to removethe problem of research-farmer and research-extensionlinkages.

To meet the first objective the OFR/FSP sequence essen-tially mobilizes the existing stock of research findings

60

54 Michael Cainson

from stations in the immediate vicinity of the targetgroups or in similar agroecological niches both insideand outside the country, including the relevant inter-national agricultural research centers. If channels ofinformation are effective, the OFR/FSP sequence offers thepossibility of bringing all relevant research results tobear on specific local situations. It also provides amethod of evaluating these results before experimentaland extension resources are committed to their adapta-tion and dissemination.

To meet the second objective the farming systemsperspective is used to identify the unsolved technicalproblems most important for local farm development.Solutions to their key problems will help improve farm-ers' ability to manage their local ecological and eco-nomic environment. By passing these problems back tothe appropriate commodity and disciplinary specialistresearchers, OFR/FSP focuses research agendas on thetechnical problems of most importance to farmers. Thisguidance to technical research, emerging from the di-agnosis of farmers' situations, helps to set researchpriorities. The relative importance of the various is-sues fed back to the technical research establishmentis assessed from estimates of the expected benefits tothe farming systems from a solution to a given prob-lem, the number of farmers likely to benefit if thesolution is adopted, and the intensity and durationof the research effort that will be necessary to finda solution.

At the same time, the diagnosis of local farming sys-tems reveals the bounds for practical solutions to theproblemthat is, the availability of resources and themanagerial practices of local farmers. If technical re-search programs work within these bounds, they aremore likely to identify solutions that are appropriate tothe circumstances of client farmers, thus less time willbe needed to adapt the research results to specific localconditions.

The third ,aboctive is met as a natural outcome ofthe operating procedures for OFR/FSP. They bring to-gether in local farming situations the three sets ofactorsfarmers, extension staff, arm' esearchersinthe development and dissemination of technology. Thestrong linkages that are forged among those actors areanother major contribution of this aoproach.

In summary, on-farm research allows the researaiproduct to be finished under the same conditions farm-ers will face when they adopt the recommendallonscomb.. out of the OFR program. The farming systemsperspective allows identification of farmers' most im-portant problems, the best opportunities for expansion,and the appropriate technology to solve those problemsand exploit those opportunities better. By this process,extension efforts are concentrated on the recommenda-

tions most likely to be rapidly absorbed by local farm-ers, and both research and extension are made morecost-effective.

Operational Linkages for OFR/FSP

In the past, when OFR/FSP has been introduced, nationalministries of agriculture have emphasized the restruc-turing of agricultural research to utilize the new re-search tool. There has been a move in Zambia and Ma-lawi, for example, toward a two-tier structure foragricultural research organizations. Station-basedtechnical component researchers, increasingly organ-ized into multidisciplinary commodity teams, are seek-ing new materials and methods, balancing their pro-grams between items identified by on-farm researchand exploratory and maintenance research. On -lain re-search teams guide the agenda of the specialists andadapt their results to farmers' circumstances. The ra-tionale of the two-tier structure is that the OFR teamsare wholly area-oriented and can link the single-function orientation of commodity researchers withthe area orientation of farming patterns and extensionservices.

The institutionalization of OFR/FSP within agriculturalresearch organizations is not imperative, however; infact, its orientation has more in common with that ofthe extension services. Malawi, for example, is movingtoward dual management of its OFR/FSP teams: maintain-ing the professional quality of work is the responsibilityof research managers, and determining priority areasfor work is the prerogative of the agricultural develop-ment district managers. But whenever OFR/FSP is locatedoutside the research organization, the linkages fordrawing commodity specialists into the OFR process andthe procedures for basing a significant part of commod-ity programs on OFR findings must be specifically pro-vided for. There is otherwise the danger that technicalresearch will be isolated from both farmers and exten-sion, much as it is at present.

Strong operational linkages are vital not only be-tween OFR and commodity researchers, but also withlocal planning bodies (such as the district planningteams in Kenya) and with the extension services. Majorresponsibilities and working linkages are spelled outbelow.

Linkages with Commodity Specialists

The linkages described here are those commonly foundin anglophone African countries. They are groupedunder the two functions of OFR which relate to technicalcomponent research: the identification of problems for

61

the research agenda and the mobilization of researchefforts.

Identification of commodity research agenda. In thecourse of its diagnostic work, the OFR team focuses ontechnical problems (related to a wheat disease, maizeweeding, or animal feeding, for example) important tothe development of the local farming systems. Al-though the team agronomist or animal production re-searcher will be able to identify the problem, he maywish to call in the appropriate specialist from a com-modity team to evaluate both local conditionsand farmmanagement practices that relate to the problem. OFRteams, perhaps with the help of specialists, can spellout the anticipated benefits of finding a solution to theproblem and the number of farmers likely to be affectedand can refer the problems back to the appropriatecommodity coordinator. Siinilar information will cometo this coordinator from other regions in which techni-cal research on the same commodity is of importanceto farmers.

The commodity coordinator then assesses prioritiesand determines which problems will be addressed bynew technical research programs. Commodity propo-sals are reviewed by all OFR teams that have referredproblems to that coordinator, and annual researchplanning meetings provide an opportunity forOFR teamsto argue the case for research on concerns they havehighlighted. Research directors need to lay down poli-cies on what proportion of commodity specialists' pro-grams will be based on the technical problems fed backby the OFR teams.

Mobilization of commodity research. Provision mustbe made in the budget and work plans must be devel-oped so that commodity specialists are drawn into theOFR/FSP sequence at four points:

During the identification of priority problems inthe diagnostic survey work, as described above.During the specification of possible interventionsin the screening stage of the OFR/FSP sequence. TheOFR technical researchers identify interventions tobe developed threngh on-farm experiments. Theymay call in commodity specialists to help makeadjustments to local farming circumstances anddetermine the transferability of specialized stationfindings to the local situation.

During the design of the on-farm experiments.Commodity specialists may help the OFR team todesign more formal experiments that may beneeded to measure technical relationships underlocal conditions.

During the monitoring of on-farm experiments.

On-Farm Research with a Farming Systems Perspective 55

The OFR team may call in a commodity specialistto evaluate unexpected factors that showup in ex-perimental treatments on farmers' fields.

Some specialist experiments by commodity teamswill always be carried out under local conditions whenthey are known to differ from station conditions in away that will clearly influence results. In such situa-tions, specialists should liaise with the OFR team on thequestion of representative sites and farm managementpractices that should be included in the experiment asvariables. OFR teams, by contributing their knowledgeof the local situation, will make the technical resultsmore relevant to farmers. In the early years of OFR, thereis a danger that the "establishment" figure, the moretraditional and experienced commodity researcher, willdominate the on-farm researchers in planning sessionsand will use the teams to conduct work primarily of in-terest to him. This is something to be avoided.

Linkages with Local Planning Bodies

The importance of linkages between OFR/FSP and localplanning bodies hangs on the fact that "choice of tech-nology" is at the heart of the agricultural planningprocess. Implementation of an OFR/FSP approach helpslocal planning bodies to reconcile national prioritieswith the needs of their own local people. First, the tar-get groups of farmers in the local planning region pro-vide a framework for decisionmaking on priorities foroFR/FsP---and therefore on initiatives of the local plan-ning body with respect to agricultural development.Second, the target groups of OFR/FSP provide a "bottom-up" channel for information on their developmentneeds. Local planners can reconcile identified local op-portunities with national policies by choosing which in-terventions to include in the on-farm experimental pro-gram in the light of national priorities.

After an intervention has proven to be successful inon-farm experimentation, it is possible to specify therequirements for its dissemination: inputs, lines ofcredit, extension, processing facilities, and infrastruc-ture. All the supplies and services for a local agricul-tural development program will fall into place, to be co-ordinated by the local planning body.

Linkages with Extension

The senior agricultural professional in a region willnormally be a member of the local planning body. Assuch, he will probably have a significant influence on,and certainly be a party to, decisions on target groupsfor OFR/FSP initiatives. As a result, he can modify workplans and budgets for his extension staff in the areas

56 Michael Collinson

of the selected target groups to coordinate their activi-ties with those of the OFR/FSP teams.

Two levels of local extension staff should be involvedin the designated areas. First, the senior agriculturalextension officer in the immediate area, normally a uni-versity graduate, would coordinate with the on-farm re-search team. Where T&V is in operation, he would asksubject matter specialists to monitor on-farm researchor would monitor it himself. Monitoring of the researchgives the senior extension officer a voice in decisionsrelating to the evolution of the experimental programand in recommendations to the local planning body onthe content of extension messages. it also enables ex-tension workers to be familiar with the managerial re-quirements of emerging recommendations and theirimplications for input supply, credit, and training pro-grams.

Second, lower-level supervisors of contact staff haveseveral roles. Where the structure of the extension ser-vice permits, they can organize meetings aith farmersto discuss the OFR/FSP program; organize the farm visitprogram of the OFR/FSP team during the diagnostic sur-vey; interpret for the OFR/FSP team during interviewswith farmers, where necessary; help in identifying hostfarmers for on-farm experiments; help in laying out ex-periments, in routine recording, and in supervising ex-perimental treatments in the field; and organize meet-ings between farmer groups, researchers, and seniorextension staff on experimental sites to assess the treat-ment being tested.

The lower-level extension supervisors are thus ableto be closely involved with farmers and researchersthroughout the development of recommendations.They will then emerge with an inside knowledge of thetechnology, of farmers' attitudes to it, and of any mana-gerial snags it involves. From their experience with ver-ification experiments they are fully versed in laying outcomparisons of improved and current technologies.This knowledge and experience enable them to teach

Table 9-1. Years Required for Full Coverageof Target Groups by On-Farm Research (OFR) Teams(number of years)

Numberof

Number of target groups in country

OFR teams 50 75 100 125 150

12 5.2 7.818 3.4 5.2 6.9 8.724 2.6 3.9 5.2 6.5 7.830 2.1 3.1 4.2 5.2 6.340 2.4 3.1 3.9 4.7

contact extension staff the requirements of the technol-ogy and how to lay out demonstrations as an initial dis-semination strategy. In cases where extension organi-zation is less complex, contact staff themselves cansupport the OFR activities.

As this description of linkages shows, OFR/FSP proce-dures are vehicles for improving the participation offarmers in development decisionmaking, for makingnew technology more relevant to farmers' needs, andfor effectively decentralizing planning. It moves awayfrom a top-down imposition of projects based on na-tional priorities, which are often so far removed fromlocal needs and capacities that they are ignored byfarmers.

Country Coverage and the Costs of OFR/FSP

In any discussion of the cost of implementing a coun-trywide OFR/FSP approach, it should be recognized thatthe transport and travel requirements of the profession-als involved in OFR/FSP will be at least equal to those ofextension professionals, and certainly greater thanthose of commodity researchers. But the maintenanceof research stations absorbs a significant proportion ofcommodity research budgets, and no such outlays areneeded for on-farm research.

The most important question, however, is the num-ber of professionals required to conduct all the func-tions of OFR/FSP on a national basis. The answer, ofcourse, depends on the ecological and economic vari-ability of the country and on the number of targetgroups of farmers this variability gives rise to. Table 9-1shows the years that would be required to achieve fullcoverage of various numbers of target groups by differ-ent numbers of professional OFR teams under the fol-lowing assumptions:

Staff are fully trained and operational proceduresare established and budgeted for.

On average, 2.5 professionals are assumed tomake up an OFR/FSP team.

On average, the OFR/FSP team takes 2.5 years tocomplete the OFR cycle among any one targetgroup of farmers.

An OFR/FSP team can work with two target groupsat any one time.

In the case of an ecologically complex country such asKenya, for example, if there are 150 target groups offarmers to address, then 40 OFR teams would allow fullcoverage every five years. Forty OFR teams representsome 100 professionals. That is less than 20 percent ofthe professional agricultural research establishment,

which leaves over 80 percent to work as commodityspecialists. Ecologically more homogeneous countries,with perhaps 50 target groups of farmers, could accom-plish an OFR cycle countrywide with as few as 30 profes-sionals and still achieve coverage every five years or so.In view of the present size of professional agricultural

On-Farm Research with a Farming Systems Perspective 57

establishments in Eastern and Southern Africa, thesefigures are not frightening.

Paper presented at the African Workshop on Extension andResearch at Eidoret, Kenya, June 10-16, 1984.

10

The Farming Systems Approach and Linksbetween Research and Extension

Bede N. Okigbo

A farming system has been defined as "a complicated,interwoven mesh of soils, plants, animals, implements,workers, other inputs and environmental influenceswith the strands held and manipulated by a personcalled the farmer who, given his preferences and aspira-tions, attempts to produce output from the inputs andtechnology available to him . . . It is the farmer'sunique understanding of his immediate environment,both natural and socio-econornic, that results in hisfarming system" (CGIAR/TAC 1978). I would add that wecan regard a farming system as a set of bioeconomicactivities constituting an agricultural business enter-prise in which a farmer or farm family orchestrates ormanages resources (land, water, and climate) and in-puts (labor, capital, fertilizers, seed, tools, and farm an-imals) purposefully to produce a range of products thatsatisfy human needs for food, feed, fiber, raw materialsfor industry, and various other products (Okigbo1982).

In other words, a farming system is an agriculturalproduction enterprise in which resources and inputsare manipulated to varying degrees. Systems a,bo varyin the extent of integration of crop production and ani-mal production and in their complexity (the number ofcommodities may range from one to several crops oranimals on the same farm). As the number of commod-ities and subsystems at different sites increases, thecomplexity of their management also increases in rela-tion to the competition among these components andthe ways they interact with the nonfarm activities. Thusa farming system may consist of a specialized enterprisein which a farmer or farm family produces only onekind of animal (for example, chickens) or one crop (forexample, maize). It may alternatively be a diversifiedproduction system producing only crops, but of more

59

than one kind, such as maize, rice, sorghum, coffee,cocoa, oil palm, coconut, fruits, cotton, or vegetables;or only animals, such as poultry, cattle, sheep, or goats;or both crops and animals.

The farming system may involve the use of tradi-tional, simple, complex, or sophisticated technology,and often traditional and modern elements will be com-bined. Farming systems are location specific, andwhether they are producing crops, animals, or both,they differ from each other in many ways: physiochem-ical (soils, climate, water, nutrients), biological (crops,animals, weeds, pests), technological (tools, machines,practices), socioeconomic (labor, markets, religion,customs, farmers' and communities' preferences), andmanagerial (experience, knowledge and decisionmak-ing). These factors of the production process interactto satisfy one or more objectives (Okigbo 982).

Farming systems research (FsR), including training,is conducted with a recognition of and emphasis on theinterdependencies and relations that exist among theseelements in the farm system. FSR attempts to makefarming systems more effective by focusing agriculturalresearch on facilitating the generation and testing ofimproved technology (CGIAR/TAC 1978). Research is anorganized quest for new knowledge; on the basis of sci-entific method it seeks to confirm or refine what isknown, to improve methods and techniques, and to de-velop .ew materials, varieties, technologies, equip-ment, and practices. The FSR approach is a holistic wayof conducting research. It takes into account the vari-ous components of the existing farming systems, andthe ways they are managed and interact with each otherand the overall environment, in order to make themmore efficient and productive on a continuing basis.The FSR approach is of use because it permits an identifi-

65

60 Bede N. Okigbo

cation of the various physical, chemical, biological,technological, and socioeconomic factors and of theways they function and interact in a given environmen-tal system. According to Spedding (1975), it is onlywhen we understand a system that we are able to repairit, model it, and design, test, and develop new ones. TheFSR approach facilitates not only better understandingof the existing farming systems as a basis for their im-provement, but also the development of technologiesrelevant to the farmers' needs and circumstances.

Agricultural extension, according to Leagans (1961),is an educational process that utilizes the findings ofthe physical and biological sciences and combines themwith the principles of the social sciences to bring aboutchanges in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and practices inan out-of-school setting. Agricultural extension is aservice or system that educates farm people and helpsthem improve farming methods and techniques, in-crease efficiency and income, and better the economic,social, and educational standards of rural life (Maunder1973).

Extension is an informal approach to education anddiffers from the formal in that it involves no coercionof any sort and is concerned not with learning for itsown sake but with the application of knowledge toeveryday life. According to Esminger and Sanders(1954), the emphasis in extension is on working withpeople not for them, and thus the focus is on what thepeople recognize as important. Extension educationteaches people what to want and how to work out waysof satisfying these wants. It also teaches them to recog-nize as problems for solution conditions which theyhad accepted as inevitable or about which they had feltlittle concern.

Agricultural extension can be defined as consisting ofall activities that help rural families improve agricul-tural production, find solutions to daily problems ofhomemaking, and deal with various other aspects ofrural living by the application of science and technol-ogy to daily needs. Extension workers acquaint farmersand rural people with the results of research and experi-ence in relevant areas of human endeavor; they assistrural people in finding solutions to their day-to-dayproblems, and assist policymakers in finding ways toimprove agricultural productivity and rural welfareand thus contribute to general economic and socialprogress.

In most countries, extension is considered essentialfor increasing agricultural production and efficiencyand for achieving rural development. It is usually pro-videi by a specialized institution, which may be a pub-lic enterprise or government agency, a private or com-mercial firm such as a seed company, a credit or

66

settlement project, or various nongovernmental orga-nizations such as religious bodies. The different meth-ods of extension and the organization used are relatedto prevailing socioeconomic factors, such as land ten-ure, credit facilities, cultural and historical back-ground, and the nature of educational and other insti-tutions. Various methods are employed in extensionincluding individual and group methods, the massmedia, and visual aids.

This chapter reviews the opportunities for and effec-tiveness of linkages between research and extensionwith the adoption of an FSR approach.

Farming Systems Research

FSR involves three sequential activities or stages: first,the collection of baseline data and analysis of the farm-ers' overall environment and prevailing farming sys-tems; second, experiment station work to develop, test,and evaluate technologies to be used in improving theexisting farming systems or in designing new ones; andthird, the testing, evaluation, and monitoring of tech-nology adoption on farmers' fields and the provision offeedback for research station scientists.

Baseline Data Collection, Analysis, and Study

The first stage involves the collection, collation, andevaluation of data on physiochemical factors, naturalresources, and biological, technical, and socioeconomicenvironments so as to understand better the overall en-vironment or circumstances of the farmers. Includedhere are data on climate (the pattern and amountof rainfall, temperature, radiation, wind, and so on),vegetation, various types of soil, the potential of theland under different uses, population data, existingfarming systems, production and income levels, andthe general infrastructure required for agriculturaldevelopment.

A considerable proportion of the data required comesfrom secondary sourcesgeographic literature, agro-climatological data, and relevant studies by sociolo-gists, anthropologists, economists, and agriculturists.Special diagnostic surveys may be used to supplementdata from secondary sources. In these surveys, exten-sion workers and farmers are sources of vital and oftenindispensable information. The surveys are conductedon farmers' fields and often encompass studies of thewhole farming system.

By studying the existing farming systems, vesc,urceuse, input output relations, major agricultural zones(for both crops and livestock), and production and in-

The Farming Systems Approach and Links between Research and Extension 61

come data, it is possible to delineate target or bench-mark areas and "recommendation domains." Withinthese areas there is considerable homogeneity thatfacilitates the identification of locations for furtherstudies and on-farm experimentation (Byer lee and Col-linson 1980). This constitutes the diagnostic phase ofFSR in which constraints, priorities, and strategies forresearch station studies are determined.

Development, Testing, and Evaluation

The studies in the first phase enable research to focuson relevant technologies that need to be improved; con-straints to be removed or minimized; aspects of tradi-tional farming systems that might be integrated withmodern, conventional, or emerging technologies tomodify existing systems; and alternative design compo-nents that have a high potential for being adopted andare relevant to the needs and conditions in the targetor benchmark areas. Research at experimental stationsusually does not involve the design and testing of thewhole farming system. In the African situation, re-search is usually concentrated on technologies or com-ponents related to selected field systems or sub-systemscomponents that have been identified in thediagnostic phase as having a high potential for beingadopted.

On-Farm Testing, Modification,and Monitoring of Technology

In the third phase, studies of various kinds are under-taken at the village level on farmers' fields: they includeexperiments designed, managed, and executed by re-searchers; those designed and managed by researchersbut executed by farmers; and those designed, managed,and executed by farmers. The researcher-designed,-managed, and -executed experiments may be compo-nents of ongoing studies at a research station, in whichthe farmer has very little role other than that of an ex-ternal observer. In the second category, farmers exe-cute the research under the supervision or direction ofthe researcher. The last category represents a situationin which the farmer is more or less in full control ofthe design, management, and execution. In the firstcase, the researchers evaluate the performance of thetechnologies being tested under their control; in thesecond, they evaluate the adoption of the technologywhen the research is executed by the farmer. Technol-ogy adoption studies focus on the ease and problemsof adoption, on the extent, impact, and benefits of adop-tion, and on changes in farming systems; they includeresearch to identify and quantify the factors contribut-

ing to the gap often existing between the yields on aresearch station and those on farmers' fields.

On-farm research of this kind provides considerableopportunities for feedback to research station scien-tists. This feedback is most valuable in designing newtechnologies, modifying existing ones, and determiningcomponent technologies that can be integrated withnew or emerging ones to improve their performance.The financial viability of new research is also most reli-ably or realistically assessed on farmers' fields, sinceplots can be larger than on the experiment station andcan offer greater opportunities for sampling differentmicro-environmental variations (for example, in soil).The testing of technology and system components en-ables researchers to determine the extent to which tech-nologies are relevant to farmers' needs and circum-stances, and often also the extent to which they areecologically sound, economically viable, and culturallyor socially acceptable. The results are more useful whentechnology adoption is monitored simultaneouslyfrom the perspectives of the research worker, farmfamilies, and society as a whole (Gilbert and others1980).

Certain agricultural development projects also offeran opportunity for testing, evaluating, and monitoringtechnology adoption. The current On-Farm AdaptiveResearch (am) network of the International Institutefor Tropical Agriculture (um) in Nigeria was started bytesting some of the institute's technologies in the agri-cultural development projects financed by the WorldBank in the north of the country.

Upstream and Downstream Components

The upstream component of FSR is found both on re-search stations and on farmers' fields. It consists ofstudies to determine constraints on increased produc-tion and to identify various issues for subsequent analy-sis in order to determine priorities, strategies, and keyproblems for research at the experiment station. In ad-dition, the studies attempt to identify problems facedby producers directly or in relation to deficiencies inpolicies, infrastructure, and services. The downstreamcomponent involves the on-farm testing and evaluationof technologies and system components developed byresearchers on research stations. The full benefits ofthese complementary components of FSR can be derivedwhen FSR programs are effectively linked with othertechnology development programssuch as commod-ity improvement, pest management, mechanization,and commodity (crops and animals) production sub-systemsso that the various components can he as-

67

62 Bede N. Okigbo

sessed in the integrated context in which they will needto perform (CC:AltiTAC 1978).

Gilbert and others (1980) noted four stages of down-stream farming systems research: descriptive and diagnostic, design, testing, and extension. These stages areusually sequential and closely linked. At the descriptiveor diagnostic stage a specific farming system is studiedin relation to the total environment and its co: stituentproJuction systems (for example, field systems in theAfrican context). This facilitates identification of farm-ers' constraints, of competition among the various sub-systems, and of the extent of flexibility in managementin relation to farmers' objectives. At the design stage,a range of alternative strategies or technologies mustbe considered in order to identify and select thoseconstraints that have the best chance of being re-solved. The testing stage involves the study andevaluation of promising alternative strategies, technol-ogies, system :omponents, or subsystems in farmers'fields. This is done initially through joint activitiesof the researcher and the farmer, and finally 'cakesplace under the overall control of the farmer. Theextension stage is reached when the proven strategies,..:chniques, or input mix are ready for wider use orimplementation.

These stages are by no means markedly differentfrom those of upstream farming systems research. TheCCIARiTAC (1978) review noted that FSR consists of the col-lection and analysis of baseline data, research stationstudies, and on-farm studies. The baseline data collec-tion and analysis constitutes the descriptive and diag-nostic stage, which results in the design fir selectionof the strategies and technology or input mix to betested and evaluated at the research station. The mostpromising practice or practices are then selected foron-farm or downstream studies. It is only in the base-line data collection and analysis stage, and to a limitedextent sometimes in the downstream phase, that thewhole farm system is considered or studied.

Need for Interdisciplinary Interaction

Because of the multidisciplinary nature of farming sys-tems and hence their complexity, specialists in manydisciplines are needed to tackle simultaneously all theproblems that have to be addressed if existing systemsare to be improved. Farming systems research requireseffective planning, management, and cooperationamong disciplines, rather than the classical narrow or"elernentalist" disciplinary appluai..11 to research thataddressee the problems piecerri,..1. The crucial manage-ment problem in FSR is that scientists on multidisci-plinary teams must work with disciplines in which they

are usually not trained. Economists, sociologists/anthropologists, agroclimatologists, soil scientists, ag-ricultural engineers, plant breeders, weed scientists,and others interact to study various aspects of the prob-lem and integrate the results into a management pack-age to improve the farming system.

According to Gilbert and others (1980), unlike theusual top-down approach in which social scientists arecalled in mostly for ex post evaluation after a projecthas been implemented, in the FSR approach they arebrought in for ex ante evaluation to help in the plan-ning and design. This makes farming systems researchboth an analytical and an integrative process. It is alsoan iterative process whereby the various stages are con-tinuously repeated in varying degrees, since at anygiven time only certain elements may be identified andpm,: to be the most acceptable ecologically, econom-ically, and culturally.

Institutionalization and Popularization of FSR

According to the CGIAR/TAC (1980) review, the develop-ment and use of FSR was pioneered by the internationalagricultural research centers (such as IRRI, IITA, cimmrr,and cur), by a few national institutions such as the In-stitut Senegalais de la Recherche Agricole (isi) inDakar and the Institute of Agricultural Research OAR)at Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria, and by regionalprograms such as the Centro Agrondmico Trc: :cal deInvestigacion/Ensefianza (cATIE) in Turialba, CostaRica. The approach has recently been widely adopted,since its main objective is the improvement ofsmallholder agricultural production systems. But it isworth stressing the need for continuous effective col-laboration between international, regional, and na-tional research programs to ensure effective linkagewith and relevance to the farmer.

The international research centers give priority tothe development of principles, methodologies, basicknowledge in FSR, and training. National programs,which may be viewed as clients of the international cen-ters, play important roles in ensuring contact withfarmers in on-farm research, testing, evaluation, andmonitoring of adoption. They are usually also moreconcerned with adapting technologies to specific envi-ronments or conditions in their own countries. Areasof cooperation between interactional and national pro-grams identified by colrttrAc (1980) include data collec-tion, interpretation, and information exchange; settingpriorities for and ;p.dun.n. :SR; adapkiiun and intro-duction of new technology within existing farming sys-tems; development and introduction of new farmingsystems; and training.

The Farming Systems Approach and Links between Research and Extension 63

Linkages between FSRand Agricultural Extension

Alto and Schwass (1982) have observed:

The extension worker should be the link between re-search and the farmer and should be able to evaluatethe results of research under his own local condi-tions. Most research is conducted at central institu-tions, often located considerable distances from thearea where the extension officer is working. Conse-quently, the results of a particular piece of researchconducted in one area may not be valid for another,because of differences in soil type, climatic condi-tions, etc. The extension worker must thereforestudy results of all research into the types of produc-tion systems found in his district, to see whetherthey are applicable in his own areathis will usuallymean that he has to implement his own field experi-ments to test the research results. Such experimentshave a two-fold benefit, in that they enable the valid-ity of the research to be tested under local condi-tions and, at the same time, demonstrate the tech-niques and results to local farmers.

The extension worker should also be a link be-tween the farmer and the specialist. There will betimes when the extension officer encounters prob-lems which he cannot solve. Under these circum-stances, he should solicit the assistance of an appro-priate specialist rather than guess at a solution.

Mosher (1976) has observed that "research and advis-ory services in many developing countries are not suchas to win the confidence of farmers. Research workers,few of whom have a farm, spend a large part of theirtime in laboratories or central research stations and lit-tle time in the field: They have little first-hand knowl-edge of production and related economic problems con-fronting farmers and contribute little toward theirsolution."

These observations are true of what happens underconventional disciplinary research with a top-down ap-proach from research to extension. The FSR approach,however, provides opportunities for constant interac-tion and linkage among researchers in several disci-plines, and between researchers and extension workerswho are usually in more direct touch with farmersthemselves. It also ensures that both researchers andextension workers understand the farmers' productionsystems, needs, and resource availability, and the inter-action of farming systems with the environment, on-farm and off-farm.

At various stages of FSR, research is effectively linkedto extension and the farmers who are both targets and

clients of researchers and extension workers. Baselinedata collection and analysis, for example, include diag-nostic survey and study of the farmer's environmentand farming system, and on-farm adaptive researchcalls for the farmer's participation in technology de-sign, testing, and evaluation. By study and considera-tion of the whole farming system during the on-farmdiagnostic upstream component of FSR, definite effortsare made to define the target area and the pr.:ailingfarming systems, to set priorities in research, to iden-tify constraints and the farmers' resource base, and todetermine strategies that will ensure that the technolo-gies developed are relevant to farmers' needs and cir-cumstances. This approach also facilitates adoption andmakes extension work easier. Moreover, the feedbackprocess engendered by testing and evaluating technolo-gies on farmers' fields links the researcher to the ,.xten-sion worker and the farmer, all of whom are partici-pants in the same endeavor.

Collinson (see chapter 9) observed that on-farm re-search with a farming systems perspective links farm-ers, technical research, and extension. He noted thatthe more serious failures in institutional linkage in theresearch-extension-farmer continuum do not lie (as isusually assumed) between researchers and extensionworkers; they occur when both the researcher andextensionist are unable to perceive farmers' problemsfrom the farmers' point of view.

The FSR approach eliminates these failures by ensur-ing that the farmers' decisionmaking process and man-agerial point of view receive the same emphasis as tech-nical perspectives and criteria in the development oftechnologies. In on-farm research a special effort ismade to identify the needs of the relevant group offarmers, to inform the various disciplinary researchersof the most pressing problems in the farming systemthat need research, to bring researchers, extensionworkers, and farmers together on the farm so that link-ages between them are strengthenedand to give pri-ority to local situations and to screen results of re-search before experimental and extension resources arecommitted to their adaptation and dissemination. Thuswith on-farm research the technology is finely tuned totarget areas, farmers, and farming systems. The diag-nostic process in FSR focuses the attention of research-ers and extension workers on farmers' priority prob-lems, and consequently the results of the research arelikely to be more cost-effective.

Collinson further described a two-tier research net-work in which area-based on-farm research teamsglide the research agenda of multidisciplinary station-baled commodity tez:nis and adapt their output to theneeds of iocal farmers. In other situations, on-farm re-search teams are jointly managed by researchers and

69

64 Bede N. Oktgbo

extension workers and their area-specific orientationgives them more in common with the extension organi-zation than with research.

FSR not only provides opportunities for linkages be-tween research and extension but it also closely paral-lels and is more or less interwoven with extension. Thisview is confirmed by various authorities. Mosher (1978)emphasized that "the extension worker needs severaldifferent kinds of understanding: an understanding ofcrop and livestock production, an understanding offarming as a business, an understanding of agriculturaldevelopment, an understanding of farmers and howthey learn, and an understanding of rural society." FSR,especially with respect to the diagnostic phase and on-farm adaptive research, gives priority to understandingthe farmers' overall environment, farming system, re-sources, decisionmaking processes, constraints andneeds, problems and process of technology adoption,and the interaction of the farming system componentsamong themselves and wF.th the nonfarm rural andurban environments. Thus both the extension workerand the research worker have to understand not onlythe farmers' environment but also the different factorslisted by Mosher.

Mosher (1978) also listed some useful guiding princi-ples for agricultural extension:

Extension activities should be conducted wherethe rural beneficiaries live.Extension should treat all farmers and their wivesas rational beings.Each new or changed practice must be both tech-nically sound and financially profitable; it shouldalso be socially acceptable.Each changed practice should be demonstrated orotherwise discussed with farmers before they useit.

The unit of instruction in extension teachingshould, in most cases, be a single new method orchanged practice.Extension activities can markedly affect farm pro-duction only in localities where production can beincreased by extending the use of technologies al-ready available, and where outlets for farm inputsand markets for farm products are already presentand efficient.

The impact of extension on farm production willnormally be greatest in farming localities wherethere are also production credit facilities, localverification trials, and farm-to-market roads.

The intensity of extension service activities shouldbe varied in different parts of a country, depend-

70

ing on where the need to increase farm produc-tion is currently most pressing.

The holistic approach in FSR emphasizes the farmer'soverall environment; farming system objectives, con-straints, and needs; farm-level trials in which farmersparticipate; identification of infrastructure] and policydeficiencies; and feedback to research station scientists.FSR thus has built-in provisions that make an extensionprogram effective. Moreover, the farming systems ap-proach can ensure that women receive attention com-mensurate with their strategic importance in agricul-tural production and related nonfarm activities. Toooften the problems and needs of women are neglectedin both research and extension, especially by male func-tionaries.

Supporting activities for extension education includelocal verification trials, use of subject matter special-ists, and the analysis of, experimentation on, and evalu-ation of extension techniques (Mosher 1978). These ac-tivities are built into various phases of FSR. Mosher(1976) and Ruttan (1982) emphasize the importance ofsocioeconomic research in both ex ante and ex postevaluations of agricultural technologies, and this is alsoa vital component of FSR.

IITA Experience with FSR

The international agricultural research centers conducttheir research and training activities in accordancewith well-defined mandates for specific commodities,ecological zones, and regions. The International Insti-tute for Tropical Agriculture (IrrA) has a world mandatefor cowpeas and yams, a mandate for fanning systemsresearch in the humid and subhumid tropics, and amandate for rice, maize, and cassava in Africa. Sincethe early 1970s the IrrA has conducted research in cropimprovement and farming systems, has generated tech-nologies, and has undertaken numerous training activi-ties. The technologies developed have been adopted tovarying degrees through the following linkages be-tween resear.1., extension, and farmers:

Multilocational trials conducted in crop improve-ment programsUse of demonstrations, visits, conferences, work-shops, and the media to inform the public aboutthe results of research station and on-farm adap-tive researchUpstream farming systems research (descriptiveand diagnostic) to determine priorities and strate-gies in research, especially with respect to the

The Fanning Systems Approach and Links between Research and Extension 65

specification of technology characteristics of rele-vance to the farmers

Downstream on-farm adaptive research on farm-ers' fields or in agricultural development projectsTraining programs.

The Upstream Phase of FSR

IITA'S studies in different parts of Nigeria have helpedcharacterize the existing farming systems and identifysubsystems for improvement. Through these studies ithas been found, for example, that

Although there is a division of labor among thesexes in farming, the women in western Nigeriaengage more in trading than in farming, unliketheir counterparts in southeastern Nigeria.

I ivestock is variously integrated with crop pro-duction in traditional farming systems, and thenumber of livestock per farm family increaseswith human population density.

The different field systems managed by the samefarmer or farm family compete with each other forlabor and other resources.

Trees are grown in farm compounds and are usedto outline fields; thus agroforestry is of obviousrelevance.

Trees on the farmers' fields sometimes shadethe crops and limit yields, but new crop vari-eties are tested only on open fields at researchstations.

Soil fertility is maintained primarily by allowingfields to lie fallow; sometimes crop residues andhousehold refuse are used.As farmers cultivate their fields with increasingfrequency, they find it more and more difficult tomaintain fertility and productivity.

Observations such as these help determine the rele-vance of technologies to given environmental and so-cioeconomic conditions and thereby improve thechances of their' adoption.

Downstream On-Farm Adaptive Research

The on-farm adaptive research of IITA not only hasprovided opportunities for the adoption of mally varie-ties, but also has increased knowledge about farmers'preferences and the technology characteristics desired.For example, it has been learned that:

Farmers in the more humid areas grow and usecowpeas as a vegetable, although those in the sa-

vanna areas prefer them for their seed; IITA there-fore began to work on vegetable cowpeas in addi-tion to the seed.

Farmers like early-maturing maize varieties as acatch crop, especially when the maize is not chaffyand is thus suitable for consumption on thecob.

Large-seeded cowpeas with wrinkled testa are pre-ferred in food preparation because of their shortercooking time.

Farmers are interested in shorter maize varietiesfor intercropping.

There is a need for both yellow- and white-seededmaize varieties for poultry and human consump-titin, respectively.

Soybeans are being used more and more as a con-diment and a substitute for traditional locustbeans and are thus in greater demand as a cashcrop and for local consumption.

The maize streak virus and striga infestation areespecially serious in the savanna areas; as a result,a high priority is being given to breeding for re-sistance to these diseases.

There is a high incidence of maize borer insecond-season maize at Umudike in southeaster..Nigeria; IITA was therefore able to use the area toscreen for borer resistance without developing ex-pensive rearing facilities.

Through the years IITA has been .evolved in technol-ogy testing and evaluation in various rural and agri-cultural development projects in cooperation withnational institutions. T1 ... include the National Ac-celerated Food Production Program in Nigeria, WorldBankfinanced agricultural development projects, andseveral bilateral or multilateral foreign assistance pro-grams. IITA'S International Cooperation and TrainingProgram, with the support of USAID, on, IDRC, the Euro-pean Economic Community, and the Ford Foundation,has coordinated projects in Burkina Faso, Cameroon,Liberia, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome, Sierra Leone, Tan-zania, and Zaire. Lessons learned from these experi-ences include the following:

In Anam?:::a, Nigeria, improved high-yieldingcassava did not have as high a percentage ofstarch or dry matter as did local varieties; thebreeding program was therefore modified to pro-duce new varieties that contain more dry matterand are -lore suitable for local food preparation.

In trials on farmers' fields, none of the upland ricevarieties developed at IITA and elsewhere were pref-

7

66 Bede N. Okigbo

erable to the recommended widely grown OS-6variety. (Several new nu varieties that meet localpreferences are now available).

Improved maize varieties used in southern Ni-geria were found to be inferior to local varietiesfor eating, either boiled or roasted on the cob.In Burkina Faso it was shown that prepiantingcultivation and tied ridges were more effective inincreasing maize yields than zero tillage, whichhad been round to be effective in Nigeria.

In Zaire it was found that cassava leaves are as valu-able as the roots as a source of carbohydrates orenergy. Consequently, priority was given to devel-oping varieties with high yields of good leaves andto methods of harvesting them.

These few examples demonstrate how linkages be-tween farming systems research and extension can pro-mote the adoption of new methods and varieties.

Problems in Adopting the FSR Approach in Africa

Although considerable progress has been made in insti-tutionalizing FSR in several countries in Africa, and al-though some national programs (isRA and IAR) helped pi-oneer the development of this relatively new area ofagricultural research, effective implementation of FSR isfar from widespread in many African countries. Reasonsinclude:

The shortage of experienced and qualified staff atappropriate levels and in relevant disciplines, es-pecially in the socioeconomic fields (the most ser-

ious shortage is that of women researchers andextensionists)

Weak national research and extension servicesThe lack of experience in managing conventionaldisciplinary research, let alone FSR

Problems in the management of multidisciplinaryresearch teams by scientists trained and experi-enced in a single discipline

Ineffective linkage between national programsand international research centers, in part be-cause of staffing deficiencies and the lack of bilat-eral, national, and other projects that would facili-tate linkage

Institutional deficiencies in developing countries,especially in relation to education, research, andextension and to the linkages between them

Constant changes in personnel, governments, andpolicies

Difficulties in communicating with farmers be-cause of their high illiteracy rate and because ex-patriate scientists are often unable to speak thelocal language.

This list is by no means exhaustive, but it calls forthe international and national research institutions andthe cooperative programs in which they are involved tomake a concerted effort to develop the capacity for con-ventional and farming systems research in Africa. Italso calls for cooperation among African countries, inaddition to cooperation among regional and interna-tional institutions.

Adapted from a paper presented at the seminar on Agricul-tural Extension and Its Link with Research in Rural Develop-ment, Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire, February 17-23, 1985.

72

11

The Firming Systems Approach in SenegalJacques Faye

What is the farming systems approach, which seems tobe somewhat theoretical, really attempting to do? Andwhy are most external lending agencies beginning toprovide financial support for this type of research?

Since 1979 teams have been formed in most coun-tries in Africa to conduct research on production sys-tems. Furthermore, the list of colloquiums and work-shops held in Africa on production systems is a lengthyone: at least three or four a year since 1979. Most re-vealing, however, is the number of workshops thatbring together agricultural research workers and ruraldevelopment specialists for training in research on pro-duction systems. The cimmYr team based in Nairobi,the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture inIbadan, and the Farming Systems Support Projectat the University of Florida have been leaders in thisprocess, organizing workshops at full tiii. =l distri-buting an ever growing body of literat':re on thesubject.

None of this would be possible without financialassistance from external agencies and technical supportfrom the international agricultural research institu-tions and universities in the United States. Since inde-pendence in Africa this is arguably the most importantinvolvement by lenders in national agricultural re-search agencies. Clearly, there is a call for a new ap-proach to agricultural development issue.

One explanation for this seemingly profound changein the research agencies and in their objectives lies inthe failure of most of the development undertakingslaunched since independence. Furthermore, the transi-tion from relatively simple operations involving a singlecrop (usually for export) to integrated rural develop-ment projects has not improved the situation.

67

Many new technical practices tested at research sta-tions and recommended to farmers have not beenadopted or have had only limited acceptance by a mi-nority. It is often the researchers and policymakeks whohave determined what was useful and of highest prior-ity for farmers, without being aware of farmers' ownconstraints and concerns. Practices have often beenrecommended for dissemination without any prior test-ing or evaluation in the farmers' fields. Most frequently,technical aspects have been emphasized and the prob-lems of adaptation to the social mores and customs ofrural societies have been neglected. This is true withregard to the training and organization of farmers, aswell as the creation of public and private agenciescharged with providing services to farmers efficientlyand at an acceptable cost.

The farming systems approach addresses the follow-ing questions. What problems do farmers face andwhich are the most critical among them? What solu-tions are available already, and what needs to be re-searched to obtain other solutions? How can potentialsolutionswith all their technical, economic, social,and institutional implicationsbe tested, adapted, andevaluated in cooperation with farmers before an at-tempt is made to extend them to large numbers of pro-ducers?

The methodologies of the farming systems approachmake it possible to identify real problems, offer possiblesolutions, and verify their validity before disseminat-ing them. It must be poin'A out that the internationalresearch institutions tend to emphasize problems andsolutions that are primarily technical and economic,undoubtedly because of the political sensitivities associ-ated with a social and institutional perspective. In Sen-

7

68 Jacques Faye

egal, however, farmers' associations ^nd organizations,their problems, and the services provided to them arealso considered to be the target of research; as a result,social and institutional concerns are addressed by sys-tems research.

Systems research does not eliminate or downgradethe value of analytical research performed in the fieldor the laboratory. Research on varietal improvement,fertilization, mechanization, animal feeding andhealth, and the like must be not only continued but re-inforced. In Senegal there is no systems research with-out analytical research; the two are complementary andmust be developed at the same time. This point shouldbe underscored: those engaged in systems researchneed analytical research personnel at virtually everystage of their workto examine in detail the problemsidentified, to develop and refine solutions to those prob-lems, and to test the solutions and tailor them to theactual conditions faced by farmers.

Accordingly, researchers need to continue workingin the field and in the laboratory. And because thehuman and financial resources of developing countriesare limited, close cooperation is needed between thenational agricultural research agencies and the interna-tional research institutions.

The Senegalese Agricultural Research Institute

In 1975 several former French research institutes weremerged to form the Senegalese Agricultural ResearchInstitute (Institut Senegalais de la Recherche Agricole,or 1SRA). 1SRA has a very wide range of activities, fromresearch on agriculture, animal husbandry, and for-estry to oceanography and rural social and economic af-fairs. Reorganized in 1982, it now consists of regionalmultidisciplinary agricultural centers. It has researchdepartments concerned with plant production, animalproduction and health, forest products, oceanographyand fishing, andin particularrural production sys-tems and technology transfer.

The latter department is responsible not only for sys-tems research but also for analytical or topical researchon plant production (agroclimatology, mineral and or-ganic fertilization, soil studies, weed control, ruralmechanization, postharvest technology, water re-sources fo- agriculture). The department's mandate isto carry ort research programs in five agricultural re-gions of Senegal:

Basse Casamance, in the southwestern part of thecountry, has traditionally been a region of ricecultivation in the floodplain, but because of re-

peated droughts upland crops are being intro-duced. Groundnuts are now the leading crop.Haute Casamance, in the southern part, isSenegal's most important cotton-growing region,but stockraising is also important, as are cerealsand groundnuts.

The Sine-Saloum region is foremost among thegroundnut-producing areas, but the local Wolofand Serer ethnic groups also engage in milletfarming and stockraising.

In the Senegal River valley the construction oftwo dams is expected to bring several hundredthousand hectares under irrigation, mainly forrice growing.

The Ferlo region, south of the Senegal River, isknown as the forest-pasture region but is nowcriss-crossed by boreholes. The deterioration ofpasture land is increasingly forcing the Peulherdsmen to move their cattle toward the rivr-valley in the dry season, particularly toward thesouth where water is more abundant.

Three research teams have already been put in place:the first in Basse Casamance in 1982, the second in theSenegal River valley in 1984, and the third in the Sine-Saloum region also in 1984. In each area is a team con-sisting of an economist, a sociologist, an agronomist,and an animal husbandry specialist; in the forest-pasture region a specialist in pasture management re-placs the agronomist. These teams are based at ISRA'Sregional centers and work with 1SRA research staff onspecific topics.

Each team follows the same basic procedure andmethodology. First, it studies farmers' production sus-terns in the context of the area's environment and agri-cultural systems; it then identifies constraints andranks them; together with the farmers it formulates,tests, and evaluates measures to overcome the con-straints identified; and finally, it assists in publicizingthese measures through the regional developmentcompanies.

Two complementary methodological tools are used:surveys of farmers and tests of practices and social in-novations. The comparative importance of each instru-ment is determined by the research objectives, whichin turn depend largely on the agricultural region andon the results already obtained. It is in essence a trialand error method. The surveys allow tests to be devised,and analysis of the tests permits the knowledge gainedto be verified and refined. But because each region hasits own characterist:^s and agricultural potential, theproblems and objectives a research will be specific toeach program.

74

The Research Program of Basse Casamance

Although experience in Senegal is somewhat limited,the Basse Casamance program offers the most usefullessons thus far. The research team based at the Djibe-lor regional station began the program in early 1982with a review of scientific and development litera-ture. It then conducted exploratory surveys in somethirty villages with the help of an expert and an in-terview guide prepared by the team. Villages were se-lected for survey on the recommendation of field agentsof the development company. The surveys wereconducted in the dry season and lasted three months,but the ideal time would have been at the end of thewinter season, when the crops could be seen in thefield.

After visiting and interviewing local authorities, theresearchers made an extensive inspection of a particu-lar area, accompanied by farmers, and discussed whatwas observed in the fields. Upon their return to the vil-lage, the researchers held community and individualdiscussions in public and on farms so that some mat-ters could be addressed in greater detail and otherquestions raised. After each trip a member of theteam prepared a report on the visit. All reports werediscussed, to ensure that they reflected everyone'sconcerns.

After all the information gathered in the field, foundin the literature, and obtained from the various agen-cies had been analyzed, Basse Casamance was dividedinto five agricultural categories, or zones, on the basisof three criteria: first, the division of labor by sex(among the Diola of the south and west, men andwomen work together in the rice fields, but perform dif-ferent tasks; among the Diola who have come underMandingo influence the men work only upland crops,leaving floodplain rice cultivation to the women); sec-ond, the proportions of land devoted to rainfed agricul-ture and to flooded rice fields, since different cultivationsystems are required; and third, the use of animal trac-tion. Two villages were selected in each zone, one inwhich only surveys would be taken, and a second thatwas targeted for both surveys and tests. A census of allagricultural operations in ten villages then made it pos-sible to form a sample of 125 family enterprises, com-prising 230 farms, for the surveys and tests. This wasa random sample, but it will be reformulated as a strati-fied sample so that valid recommendations can be madefor each zone and target group. Simultaneously, prior-ity research problems renuiring detailed analysis ortesting were identified.

A second phase began with the 1982 winter seasonand consisted of two closely related aspects, formal sur-

The Farming Systems Approach in Senegal 69

veys and tests. The formal surveys were designed to ver-ify, regrie, and quantify the information obtained in thefirst phase. They were conducted in Basse Casamanceby the investigator assigned to each village, usingquestionnaires. Owing to the staggered arrival of theteam of researchers (one agronomist and two econo-mists in 1982, one sociologist and one animal husban-dry specialist in mid-1983), the surveys and testswere also staggered and their timing does not neces-sarily correspond to the ranking of the constraintsidentified.

The first survey compiled basic data on farm opera-tions: number of people, layout of the land, and inven-tory of resources. The second survey sought data oncultivation, from soil preparation to harvest. It followedthe timetable of the various tasks involved. Periods ofwork were recorded by activity, crop, and type of equip-ment. These records gave the economist an initial ideaof the resources available on farms and the periods ofpeak utilization of labor for each zone. The agronomistgained a better knowledge of the agricultural timetable,cultivation practices, the distribution of crops, and lev-els of output.

An agronomic survey related to cultivation methodscovered the entire sample in the target villages and wasexpected to last at least four seasons. In the winter of1984 an economic survey and a study of farm opera-tions were added to the surveys already mentioned.They are being conducted on a subsample of thirtyfarms selected for their representativeness.

In the area of sociology, three lines of research wereidentified: the social organization of agricultural opera-tions, problems of landownership, and the impact ofmigration on production systems and agricultural or-ganization. The sociologist began these studies in early1984 and is combining direct observation, question-naires, and genealogical surveys to supplement the dataavailable elsewhere.

The arrival of specialists in animal husbandry andrural equipment made it possible to undertake analyti-cal surveys on stockraising and animal traction sys-tems. These surveys were to be continued in 1985 andtests begun on farming with oxen, animal health, andthe use of animal waste on cereal crops.

Tests made in the agronomic area in 1982, 1983, and1984 covered four main themes:

The intensification of cultivation systems (tests offertilizers, herbicides, and maize and rice vari-eties)

Diversificatior %tests of varieties of sorghum, mil-let, cowpeas, sweet potatoes, and cassava)

The recovery of abandoned areas (tests on the rec-lamation of saline soils)

70 Jacques Faye

The use of residual moisture (tests of sweet pota-toes following rice in low-lying weth.nds).

The purpose of these tests was to help prepare andevaluate new technical guidelines and compare the newmethods with those now in use; data on which werecompiled through the agronomic survey describedabove. In general, the tests address two phenomena:the technical value of the newly recommended practice(yield, work time, upgrading of marginal areas) and theadaptability of the new recommendation to the presentsystem (planting and harvesting dates, weeds, fertilitylevels, and the resources available to fume's). The testsare made in two different but complementary settings:at the test station and directly on farms. The stationtests are concerned mainly with the technical value ofthe newly recommended practice. Farming systemstests differ from other station tests not in their proce-dure, but rather in their underlying logic and their ob-jectives. For instance, in a test to compare upland riceyields under four different weeding regimes, the treat-ments were designed to simulate cultivation practicesactually used by farmers, and productivity was mea-sured in terms of yield per day worked. Each year theagronomic unit begins ten to twelve tests at the station,devoting nearly 25 percent of its time to this activity.In the farm villages themselves, the agronomic compo-nent assesses the technical advantages of the newly rec-ommended practices, as well as their adaptability to thepresent system. All such tests are made by the farmers,assisted by the team representative. Frequent visits tothe site (every two weeks by researchers, every two orthree days by an observer) ensure the technical validityof the test. During these visits soil samples are takenand agronomic and plant health observations are made.In general this procedure involves no repetition, butthe tracts of land are quite large (500-1,000 square me-ters) except in the cases of groundwater rice and low-land rice, where the plots are small (30 square meters).Tests of fertilizers and varieties are repeated twice be-cause of inexperience thus far with testing on thefarms.

The new practices are evaluated through discussionin the fielci with farmers and statistical analysis of testswhen circumstances permit. The agronomists take ac-count of a number of factors (soil analysis, timeworked, past crop history, rainfall distribution, col-leagues' opinions) when interpreting the results. Uponthe completion of the tests, the farmer is able to adoptthe new practice directly; if he rejects it the agronomistcan identify the stumbling blocks and make a furtherassessment of the proposed practice.

When the farmers' reaction is favorable the tests aresimplified, taken over by the farmers, and made on

larger areas. This has been the case, for example, withearly rice varieties such as IRAT 112 and 133, early vari-eties of sorghum, sweet potatoes after rice in thegroundwater zone, and the use of herbicide on rice.After three years of experimentation, truly large-scaledemonstration tests are now possible.

Other recommer. nations have been rejected by thefarmers. Sometimes the practice is not accepted be-cause it requires too much labor for too small an in-crease in yield (as with flat tilling and thinning of maizeand flat tilling of rice) or because the method does notalways work (fertilization of groundwater rice, fertiliza-tion of groundnuts). In either case, the tests must beconducted both on the village farm and at Zhe stationin order to understand the reasons for failure.

The team's activities are not limited to this fieldwork.In line with the farming systems approach, the teammembers must maintain close liaison with other re-search programs so that researchers will be made awareof the technical problems faced by the farmers andtherefore of their priorities. In addition, the team in-volves other research programs in its own analyses, andtests are formulated and analyzed jointly. After eachseason, specific recommendations are forwarded to theresearch programs to assist researchers in focusingtheir work.

Farming systems research must also establish per-manent links with the regional development company,not only to take its requirements into account, but alsoto ensure that the limitations imposed by agriculturalpolicy (with regard to farm prices, marketing, farmcredit, distribution of factors of production, organiza-tion of farmers, technical snrvices, and so on) are re-moved where possible to permit the adoption of innova-tive techniques by farmers. In fact, farming systemsprograms are implemented only in regions where a de-velopment company is active, in order to dis-semination of the results. In the Basse Ca ._:nice re-gion the agreement with the regional 'ley,- dmentcompany sets forth in detail the commitments made byeach party and the way in which relationships are tobe conducted. A research-dew lopment liaison unit es-tablished for this purpose meets regularly to discuss ac-tivities in the area, assess results, and decide upon theirdissemination. Within this unit, technical committeesof researchers and extension agents from the sameareas have been formed for site visits, tests, and jointsurveys. In 1984, on the basis of work done by the teamand other tsar research personnel, demonstration testswere initiated throughout the region, conducted byextension agents but with the participation of re-searchers.

With regard to agricultural policy, in 1982 ISRA set upan Office of Macro-Economic Analysis, reporting to the

7 6

director general. This office conducts technical andeconomic studies, as well as studies of specific topicsand agricultural policy, to obtain a better comprehen-sion of the socioeconomic environment facing farmersand to prepare recommendations to agricultural policy-makers within the government. The research staff ofthis office (especially the economists) work in close co-operation with the research teams studying productionsystems.

Conclusion

Although the Senegalese experience is still too recentto yield meaningful conclusions, a few comments arein order.

The first is that the literature on the farming systeinsapproach focuses excessively (not to say entirely) on thefarm and its production system. In the countries of theSahel, 'iowever, desertification and population growthcompel us to take account of external influences on thefarming system: for example, the agricultural land usedin common by a village or rural community and thegrazing land used by herdsmen.

The second comment is that most theoreticians ofthe systems approach implicitly exclude any study ofsocial change, whereas such research would be of greatvalue to African governments. How can farmers be as-sisted in organizing and taking over publicly providedservices? How can farmers' savings be mobilized to setup an agricultural credit system? These are issues thatcannot be ignored.

Third, there is a need for a great deal of pragmatismin the implementation of a systems approach. Theworking conuitions, financial resources, personnelqualifications, and institutional setting of the infProa-tional agricultural research agencies are totally unre-lated to those of our local research institutes.

Our teams are often very young and inexperiencedand so must "make haste slowly." The management ofour research agencies is not always very effective. Oftenthe necessary equipment is not in place: a vehicle thatis broken down when tests are to be started can meanas much as a year lost. Furthermore, within our re-search agencies and at the national or regional 'evelamong the various development and research institu-

The Farming Systems Approach in Senegal 71

tionseven between ourselves and external sources offinancingwe waste too much time in quarreling, indiscussing prerogatives, and in arguing over the alloca-tion of the meager resources available. Unlike the inter-national research institutions, we cannot afford thosewho disagree or who do not wish to change; we musttherefore be prepared to explain, persuade, convince,and accept compromiseall solely in the interest ofour farmers.

The fourth comment concerns the links between sys-tems research and subject research and between re-search and development. The inclusion of research onproduction systems in the work programs of the na-tional agricultural research agencies gives rise to anumber of problems. Socioeconomists have joinedthese agencies on a massive scale. Work in the country-side using new methods differs greatly from the con-trolled, rigorous practice!. at stations and in labora-tories. Often, if not always, this new arrangementrequires profound changes in the organization of theagencies and in the Oistribution of functions and pow-ers. As a result traditional researchers sometimes per-ceive these changes as a power grab from another quar-ter. How can a seed selector, for example, be convincedthat his work on high-yield sorghum varieties does nothave priority and that he should direct his efforts to-ward developing medium-yield varieties more resistantto drought and disease and requiring less fertilizer?

The effectiveness of the farming systems approachpresupposes that researchers and developers will gradu-ally become involved in the same problems of develop-ment in a given agricultural region and that togetherthey will try to involve the policymakers. Long andsometimes arduous discussions are required before re-searchers acknowledge that they are not the only onesqualified to talk about research and what it should do,and before developers also accept this fact as it relatesto agricultural development. The Senegalese experi-ence shows what will be needed: a great deal of pa-tience, time, and persuasionbuilt upon success in thefield.

Paper presented at the Seminar on Agricultural Extensionand Its Link with Research in Rural Development, Yamous-soukro, Cite d'Ivoire, February 17-23, 1985.

12

Extension under East African Field Conditions

Jon R. Moris

Unlike other public servicessuch as primary school-ing, police protection, and health careagriculturalservices depend greatly on specific features of the localeconomy: the crops that are grown and how each ishandled within the economic system. Most Africancountries have several forms of agricultural extension,some differentiated by crop and others by ownership(public or private) or by ecological zone. The root diffi-culty faced by most of these extension systems is thatfarms are very small, mainly as a result of reliance onhand cultivation where labor is in short supply. In themore densely settled parts of Africa, average holdingstend to be less than two hectares, so that any serviceagency (whether public or private) must deal with hun-dreds of smallholders scattered over the landscape.

Because of transportation costs, farmers with lessthan a hectare planted to a given crop do not constitutean attractive market for inputs and commercial advice.This situation explains why African countries with well-established commercial services for farmers tend to bethose such as Botswana, Kenya, or Zimbabwe wherelarge farms were established in an earlier period. Else-where, governments have been forced to set up surro-gate organizationscooperatives, development proj-ects, parastatals, or general extension serviceswhicharticulate farmers' combined interests and managetheir purchasing power.

This chapter will focus on agricultural extension of-fered by means of an administratively organized exten-sion service, usually linked to a ministry of agriculture.Such services are common in East and Southern Africa,but are typically not developed to the same degree inparts of francophone Africa where commodity-orientedorganizations are more comti...m. The constraints on

73

effective interaction between field agents and farmersare, however, the same in much of rural Africa.

Under any form of agricultural extension, the meth-ods for actual contact with farmers are broadly similar:either group meetings with farmers or individual visitsby farmers to an office or by extension staff to farmers.Even under favorable conditions, offering agriculturaladvice to smallholders is a demanding task not easilysubject to routinization. The intrinsic difficulties in-clude the highly seasonal character of agricultural pro-duction, the crop-specific nature of much extension ad-vice, the variety of crops grown in diverse ecologicalsettings, the scattered clientele, the need for a highlevel of diagnostic skill among those dealing directlywith farmers, the multitask and multifunctional natureof the extension process, the indirect link between ex-tension services and actual output, and the extreme re-source constraints of individual farmers.

As a consequence, there are always tradeoffs to bemade in arriving at an effective mode of field organiza-tion for agricultural services. Communities with a sin-gle cash crop (such as tea or tobacco) are likely to needextension advice in a different form from those wherea variety of traditi3nal food crops provides farmers'main income. Th _.e is, in effect, no single model foragricultural extension which will suit all circum-stances. Most African countries display a range of orga-nizational options: export crop-based parastatals, a gen-eral extension service that emphasizes crops such asmaize, project-linked irrigation or livestock services,and perhaps fanners' cooperatives and committees. Incertain areas commercialization may be sufficient tosupport extension by private firms (generally linked tothe supply of inputs and machinery).

78

74 Jon R. Mods

Under any of these five structural options, the peopleactually dealing with farmers may face formidable diffi-culties. Staff are thinly spread, transport and communi-cations may be poor, and funds are often late inarrivingsometimes by months rather than weeks. Insuch settings, typical of rural Africa, managerial tech-nologies derived from commercial experience in theUnited States and United Kingdom are often inappro-priate. It is obviously counterproductive to berate con-tact staff for poor management of their finances andtime if none of a station's vehicles is operational andif the staff have not received a salary for three months.A basic aim of the discussion here, therefore, is to ex-plore how personnel management must be adjustedunder the harsh economic and administrative con-straints often encountered in rural Africa. In particular,the analysis will focus on the interface between agencyprograms and farmers' needs for agricultural services.Under publicly funded systems for agricultural exten-sion, the "bicycle man"the agent who deals withfarmers directlyis often undertrained, underpaid,and undermotivated. Yet extension workers at this level(the contact cadre) are sometimes termed the "accessbureaucracy," since their performance determines thequality of service which farmers ... accessand, inturn, determines farmers' opinions of the extensionservice as a whole.

It is now widely recognized that the contact cadreconstitutes the weakest link in many of Africa's formalsystems of agricultural extension. Contact workers aresometimes accused of not paying attention to farmers,of being corrupt, giving erroneous advice, or not evenbothering to report for duty. Frequently ministries ofagriculture have resorted to mechanistic "reforms" de-signed to make field staff more accountable (and thus,it is hoped, more effective in carrying out assigned du-ties); these reforms are discussed below. There are,however, intractable and deep-rooted conditions under-lying the poor performance of contact workers in thefield. Three job-related constraints typical of rural Af-rica will be examined in some detail: the inadequacy ofmany technical packages, the high degree of bureaucra-tization of extension, and the plain unworkability ofmany field assignments. I would argue that the unsatis-factory behavior so often manifested by field agents canoften be explained as a rational response to remarkablydifficult working conditions.

Weak Technical Packages

Probably the first requirement for the effective transferof technology is that the innovations proposed shouldaddress farmers' perceived problems and needs. When

this precondition is met, technologies will diffuse spon-taneously. When it is ignored, apparently sound scien-tific practices may be resisted despite a great deal ofpromotion. This obvious point requires frequent it-eration in Africa because, by and large, smallholdersexercise little influence over the technological contentof extension recommendations (or technical packages,as they will be termed here). Research scientists andministries of agriculture determine which technologieswill be offered to African farmers; it is a bureaucraticdecision.

When salaried experts who are not themselves farm-ers have chosen technical recommendations, they havetended to reflect little on the screening criteria they areusing. Until recently, most agronomists employedyields and returns per hectare as the chief criteria forevaluating research success, and the varieties and prac-tices with the highest yields per hectare were almostalways the ones incorporated into official recommenda-tions. It has taken nearly a decade of lobbying by theproponents of farming systems research (FsR) to makescientists aware that farmers may have other prefer-ences: they may want to minimize risk, to reduce thelabor required at peak periods of labor demand, to avoidpurchased inputs at the start of the season when moneyand food may be scarce, and to obtain complementaryoutputs (such as crop residues) required elsewhere inthe farming system. None of these quite sensible andrational considerations will be taken into account whenrecommendations are based only on yields and returnsper hectare.

A good example of the difference between research-ers' and farmers' perspectives in the past is the issueof planting dates. It seemed clear in East Africa by theearly 1960s that, for a range of annual crops, yieldswould be significantly higher if farmers planted early ineach season rather than following their own plantingdates. For two decades miniseries of agriculture havetherefore admonished farmers to plant early, irrespec-tive of whether the field crop was maize, cotton, beans,or tobz -,..... Field surveys (Morin 1970; Hankins 1974)have revealed two sets of problems, however. First, howcan a farmer judge in any given season when the rainshave indeed commencedsince an early false start ofthe rains is a danger farmers recognize; and, second,how much of each crop should a farmer plant, and inwhich order, when the farmers' various enterprises arein strong competition for his available resources (seed,fertilizer, labor for planting and weeding, and so on)?In reality the advice to plant early, if not qualified andspelled out in detail, is at best a trivial recommenda-tion, at worst a dangerous one.

Those who are not farming systems specialists stillmay find it difficult to understand how recommending

79

the option with the highest return per hectare can con-stitute bad technical advice. Research undertaken byGathee (1982) under Kenya's Katumani Dry land Re-search Program, however, provides a further illustra-tion. Kenya's Ministry of Agriculture has been relativelyflexible in giving interplanted crop mixtures a placein official recommendations. The ministry's recom-mended package, based on intercropped maize andbeans, gave the highest yield value per hectare amongfive options tested, at 6,132 shillings (Gathee 1982). Incontrast, farmers' preferred practices yielded only 3,959shillings per hectarethe lowest per hectare valueamong the five options tested. When Gathee measuredthe mean labor input required per hectare, however,the ministry's recommended option was found to need325 person-days per hectare, compared with 142 for thefarmers' preferred option. The ministry option also re-quired 5,800 shillings' worth of seed (as against 3,870shillings for the farmers' option), and returned only 5shillings per unit of planting labor, as compared withnearly 19 shillings per unit under farmers' practices.Many Kenyan smallholders are short of both cash andlabor at planting time; for them, traditional practicesfar outperform the ministry's recommended package.Research by Alverson (1984) on peasant farming inBotswana gives a similar result: the traditional prac-tices provide a return per hour of labor input morethan three times the ministry's "improved" recom-mendations.

The difficulty is that when research scientists formu-lated official recommendations they apparently tried tomaximize the returns from the enterprises in questionwithout paying attention to labor inputs, cash availabil-ity, or how the enterprises fitted into the larger farmingsystem. In many instances this narrowness of percep-tion explains farmers' rejection of officially sponsoredtechnical packages. Pastoralists who depend on sheep,goats, and cattle for a range of consumable productshave been given advice which assumed they were pri-marily commercial beef producers (Moris and Hatfield1982; Behnke 1985). Efficient upland rice farmers inSierra Leone have been told to adopt a form of wet-rice,pure-stand farming which resulted in declining yieldsand the rapid emergence of iron toxicity (Richards1985). Farmers living in a drought-prone, marginalcropping area of eastern Kenya where rains are penially uncertain have been urged to buy hybrid seedsand to plant with fertilizers (Franzel 1984). Subsistencefarmers in Malawi have been told to plant high-yieldingvarieties of maize developed initially for large-scale,commercial farmersalthough such hybrids shouldnot be replanted as seed (as smallholders typically mustdo) and tend to deteriorate rapidly when stored at homeas a household's food supply. It is fortunate that farm-

Extension under East African Field Conditions 75

ers generally perceive the shortcomings of official ad-vice and react quickly; nonetheless, ministries andtheir salaried scientists will often persist in promotingunsuitable technical advice, irrespective of farmers' ob-jections.

Inadequate technical packages undermine the influ-ence of those who promote them in a number of ways.The negative impact of poor advice is especially perva-sive when a package has been advanced to farmersunder a credit program (as were most of the recom-mended packages just itemized). Field staff required toparticipate in such programs are put in a quandary. Ifthey persuade farmers to adopt the poorly screened offi-cial packages, they will undercut their own future influ-ence among their clients. Some are able to buy farmers'compliance by offering uncollectable loans or subsi-dized inputs; others, however, may feel obliged to sub-stitute their own unofficial views or to avoid giving anyspecific recommendations at all. In the mid-1960s Jfound that junior extension staff in Kenya were reluc-tant to let outside experts visit their own farms (Moris1970) because they did not themselves believe in orpractice what their own ministry recommended.

The Bureaucratization of Extension

Many of the problems of African extension work arisefrom the way in which this function is institutionalized.Most African extension workers are government em-ployees who are tied to sets of official duties and arepart of a larger bureaucratic system. The bureaucraticrealities which cause field staff the most difficulty in-clude steep hierarchies which place contact workers atthe very bottom of the pecking order, the high turnoverof supervisors; the emphasis on downward communica-tion rather than upward feedback; and the dependenceon public funding at a time when many countries haveinstituted expenditure cuts. In general, the contact cad-re's role in Africa is defined by the lines of authorityand prescribed duties; it is not seen as one of givingprofessional advice and assistance. Not surprisingly,those assigned to work in such organizations tend toview themselves as public servants, and not as farm ad-visers.

The immediate concern of field staff in such systemsis to placate superior officers, who are usually locatedin the district or provincial headquarters, at some dis-tance from the contact agent. Field workers generallytravel to the district departmental office to draw theirsalaries at the end of each month, but otherwise en-counter higher-level officials mainly on their infre-quent official field visits. Because many agriculturalpostings are in isolated areas, it is inevitable that con-

8 t9

76 Jon R. Moris

tact cadres will fail to meet the expectations of at leastsome of the various parties who make demands onthem. If field workers concentrate on meeting farmers,they are likely to be away from the station when super-visors stop by (often without warning because of poorfield communications). If, instead, they focus on im-pressing political authorities by attending meetings andassisting favored projects, their effort will remain un-recognized by most farmers and by their ministry su-periors. And if they cater to their own department's re-quests, neither farmers nor politicians will see much ofthem. Because they are rated and promoted by distant,technically oriented supervisorsoften on the basis ofannual confidential reportsfield staff have a strongincentive to respond to their superiors, but little reasonto serve farmers.

Ministry officials at the national level are often eagerto exercise more control over field staff, whom theydescribe as underemployed, unenthusiastic, and un-responsive. Seen from above, the activities of con-tact cadres may appear nebulous and ill-structured---asituation to be improved by imposing clearer lines ofcommand and more detailed job specifications. Thisquasi-military view of organizational action completelyneglects both the political imperatives which impingeon field staff and the other bureaucratic agencies withoverlapping jurisdictions and tasks. Civil service proce-dures are usually quite specific on this point: juniorstaff have no authority to commit the organization tononroutine tasks and are not supposed to initiate directcommunication with outside agencies except on themost routine matters.

In reality, of course, work environments differ sub-stantially from the orderly "top-down" world envisionedat headquarters. Smith, Lethem, and Thoo len (1980)have observed that (unlike infrastructure-oriented con-struction projects) rural development programs typi-cally operate in a turbulent environment in which staffdirectly control only a small proportion of the activitiesrelevant to their objectives. This is particularly so in thecase of extension work. Farmers are autonomous de-cisionmakers who must be persuaded rather than or-dered, while the organizational landscape is crowdedwith numerous other bureaucratic agencies pursuingtheir own agendas.

Farmers growing any important crop are potentialrecipients of an array of technical services and func-tions: farm planning, soil testing, applied research,certified seed, chemical inputs, land preparation, soilconservation, agricultural training, crop inspection,disease diagnosis, crop protection, postharvest process-ing and storage, farm record keeping, crop purchasing,seasonal credit, investment loans, and perhaps coopera-tive marketing. Most of these services are provided on

the farm itself and need to be adjusted to each house-hold's resources and situation. Although in Africa manysuch services are categorized as extension work, theyrelate to diverse specialties and are difficult to coordi-nate, even at the district level. The comparatively ju-nior staff who interact with farmers have scant influenceor authority within their own organizations, and noneat all when it comes to obtaining coordinated supportfrom other units.

Thus the conceptual advantage of treating these sep-arate technical functions as parts of a common servicedelivery system is largely negated at the operationallevel by the compartmentalization of tasks. Even incountries which retain huge ministries of agricultureand livestock development (as at present in Kenya andTanzania), the ministry will be subdivided internallyinto numerous sections and divisions. Field staff are at-tached to particular sections and must appeal upthrough several layers of the hierarchy each time a co-ordinated field activity is planned.

In principle a service delivery system can be org 1..

nized on the basis of technical functions, a commoncrop, or a given territory (Moris 1981). As already indi-cated, many African countries possess separate field ser-vices operating on all three bases: an extension servicedealing with food crops; several parastatal crop authori-ties supporting export crops such as coffee, tea, or to-bacco; and various integrated development projects de-fined territorially. Although all these entities may comeunder the treasury or national planning body in someway, there are few linkages among them at intermedi-ate levels. At best, such an array of service institutionsconstitutes what Aldrich (1977) terms a "loosely cou-pled system." The constituent agencies compete witheach other for clientele and funds. They are unlikely toshare information freely or even to adhere to com-monly agreed programs.

If field staff wish to serve farmers effectively, theymust find ways around this cumbersome, formal sys-tem, which inhibits rather than facilitates interorga-nizational cooperation. They may achieve this by an un-official barter of services between units, by invoking theunusual personal authority of a "big man," or by a vari-ety of other stratagems. Ti,:s tendency has been calledan "economy of affection," since it is based on an ex-change of favors outside the formal system. What offi-cials cannot do is to admit openly how they are acting,since their actions differ at many points from approvedprocedures. This makes it difficult to analyze the effec-tiveness of African extension on the basis of actual be-havior; instead, attempts at reform have been rooted inthe internalized images held by managers and consul-tilts alike of how bureaucratic organizations ought tooperate. Analysts drawing on classic managerial princi-

81.

pies will find a ready response to suggestions that im-proved performance depends on extra training, moredetailed plans, clearer tasks, and tighter controls. Sincemost African ministries of agriculture are undeniablypoor and strongly hierarchical, their leaders often sharethis vision of how agency performance should be im-proved.

Insight into the applicability of general managementtheory to African agricultural extension comes from areview of ninety-four studies of third world bureaucracydone by Kiggundu and others (1983). They found thatalthough investigators who concentrated on the inter-nal methods of agency operation could readily apply"universal" managerial principles, those who looked in-stead at the relationship of individual bureaucraticunits to their larger environment could not. The fore-going analysis suggests that this is precisely why stan-dard management prescriptions produce disappointingresults when applied uncritically to African extensionbureaucracies.

By definition, field extension agents are primarily in-volved in relationships outside their own urAt, dealingas the occasion demands with farmers, communityleaders, commercial suppliers, local and district gov-ernment, and other technical agencies. They find them-selves trapped in an invidious situation in whichachieving the desired results means dealing with exter-nal forces and actors in ways disallowed by their ownorganization. In Africa today, unfortunately, tiere aremany incentives for hard-pressed field staff to act inways which ultimately sabotage basic program goals.Unless such structural contradictions are removed, at-tempts to improve the output of contact staff by tight-ening internal control from above can produce unin-tended and counterproductive results.

Working Conditions in the Field

The resources made available to the typical extensionagent in contact cadres depend greatly on the individ-ual's rank and posting. Junior staff who happen to be at-tached to a large unit, such as a farmer training centeror a district agricultural office, can obviously expectsome assistance from higher-level staff when their as-signments dovetail. Those assigned to visit farmers,however, often work in remote communities wherethey alone represent the agriculture department.

Sometimes field staff do not even have an office oftheir own and are expected to work out of their houseor to use a in the corner of a cooperative societyoffice or chiefs camp. In other instances they will begiven the use of two or three rooms furnished with atable, some hard chairs, and perhaps a filing cabinet or

Extension under East African Field Conditions 77

locked cupboard containing some faded technical re-ports and files. Usually there is also a lockup room (,or"store") containing bags of seed or fertilizer and per-haps some broken c.-op sprayers and spare parts. If theextension agent is lucky there may be a typewriter andsecretaryeven a functioning telephone. But thismodest listing approaches the limits of what a fieldworker can expect; the larger items of equipment oftenseen lying about outside are generally broken down orawaiting spare parts. It is clear that the extension work-er's main theater of operations is intended to be in thefields or at farmers' homes, using whatever equipmentfarmers themselves can provide. In practice, however,only a few of the wealthier farmers will possess theitems of technology an extension worker :weds fordemonstrations.

The extension workers also need some means oftransport in the field. Countries differ greatly in whatprovision is made for transport. Probably the mostcommon is a bicycle allowance to repay the individualfor wear and tear on privately owned or ministry,supplied bicycles. In Ethiopia contact staff ride mulesor horses. In parts of the Sahel they tend to use light-weight mopeds, sometimes purchased under a minis-try-backed loan. Only in the relatively advanced econo-mies of southern Africa do field staff usually enjoy atleast motorcycle transport. When pressed to explainwhy their ministry is so parsimonious with transportsupport at the contact level, officials may argue thatcontact workers are supposed to live with farmers anddo not need better transport. They may also point outthat many contact workers are untrained and were re-cruited for temporary assignments which did not war-rant logistic support and which are due to be phasedout.

There appears to be a f-irly wide consensus amongextension workers concerning the types of problemthey encounter. Extension workers from six Nigerianstates have listed their five most important difficultiesin order of magnitude: insufficient transport facilities,low prices and lack of proper markets, lack of coopera-tion from other agencies in program implementation,lack of staff motivation, and inadequate technical train-ing in agriculture. Tanzanian extension workers, whenasked to explain their inability to give farmers the nec-essary training, listed among the main factors lack oftransportation (51 percent), unavailability of inputs andtraining facilities (49 percent), lack of research andtechnical support (43 percent), and lack of incentivesand administrative support (31 percent). The point isthat most of these perceived constraints cannot be rem-edied by the extension worker's individual efforts; theyare part of a structure in which disincentives greatlyoutweigh the incentives for positive action.

Consequently, field staff who must work in remotesettings without adequate transport and equipment areunlikely to behave in the ways suggested by extensionmodels derived from the experience of developed coun-tries. Staff may choose to minimize their travel timeand costs by concentrating on group meetings. Theymay cultivate a small, local network of compliant farm-ers and perhaps give them preferential access toministry-controlled benefits (loans, inputs, and ser-vices). Or they may simply report each day to the dutystation, which will at least absolve them from blame fornot working. Those adopting this tactic may respondquite quickly to suggestions from above, provided theycan tap accompanying resources, and mai; become in-volved in a succession of short-term campaigns (live-stock censuses, fertilizer distribution, locust spraying,and the like). Finally, as already noted, there is the end-of-month trip to headquarters to submit reports anddraw salariesa routine activity which may consumean entire week in places where transport is poor.

Such tendencies are reinforced in those African sys-tems where, as a matter of ministry policy, field staffare usually posted outside their home areas. Contact-level staff in these systems are unlikely to become acontinuous source of technical informatic . or a meansof mobilizing extra resources to solve farmers' prob-lems. To carry out either function staff would requireadequate logistic support and interaction with theirown supervisorstwo conditions that are essential forthe kind of extension work usually described in ..ext-books, but that are rarely encountered in Africa.

Probably the most common mode of communicationin low-resource extension systems is through farmers'meetings (called barazas throughout much of East Af-rica). Barazas date back to colonial times and are highlyritualized occasions, attended mainly by older menwith time to spare or unattached younger men seekingdiversions. Neither group tends to carry out the tasksunder discussion, which are generally the responsibilityof women or hired laborers in Sub-Saharan Africa. Theparticipants in such meetings show a polite deferenceto those in charge, an understandable but unfortunatereaction which deprives salaried staff from obtainingfeedback about the more unpopular aspects of theirtechnical recommendations. All in all, the typical ex-tension meeting serves as a form of administrativetheatercomplete with positions of honor, a recog-nized and familiar litany of innovations, a hortatorymode of address,, and a tacit understanding that whatis discussed will generally not translate into practice.(This consensus also undermines the impact of "dialog-ical" approaches to extension along the lines advocatedby Freire [1969j and others.)

The question of how to involve women in the contact

4

network remains unresolved. Field research across Af-rica has shown a systematic bias against the inclusionof women in development projects (Dey 1984; Fort-mann 1977; Paula 1978; Staudt 1978; and Swantz1985). In East Africa it is not uncommon for more thana third of rural households to be headed by women.They usually do not enjoy access to government credit,do not attend off-farm meetings, and are not visited bymale extension workers. By convention, women inmany African social systems are expected to let malerelatives act as "gate keepers" when dealing with out-side offizials. The younger, educated men who are likelyto be appointed as extension staff, moreover, often dif-fer from their potential clientele in age, experience,language, and even religion. This greatly diminishesthe prospect of any effective communication of agricul-tural information, either from agents to farmers or viceversa (elderly women, for example, often know a greatdeal about certain traditional crops).

The typical reaction from ministries of agriculturehas been to recruit more women into pre-service train-ing to earn a certificate, diploma, or degree. Althoughthis policy has increased the number of female staff, ithas not brought corresponding changes among contactworkers. The reasons are basically sociological andstructural. Only a tiny minority of women qualify inmathematics and science at the secondary level andthen complete advanced technical training. Many ofthem come from educated, elite families. Their malesupervisors are reluctant to post such staff into difficultfield assignments. Also, when these women marry (usu-ally another government employee) any changes in as-egnment bring immediate problems because of thespouse's posting and other family responsibilities (Mu-tiso 1979). Often, therefore, women are assigned to atown where their husbands can also find work, a solu-tion which removes dual career tensions but which alsotakes the woman out of contact with her rural clientele.

There are usually more unt. tined contact-level staffthan ministry policy recognizes. Why? First, because ofrigid procedures for the recruitment of permanent staff(especially in technical fields requiring pre-entry train-ing), ministry offices commonly operate with unfilledpositions. Most are permitted to add "temporary" staffas a stopgap measure while qualified personnel arebeing sought. '1 hen, too, many African countries havefrom time to time mounted crash programs to take onlarge numbers of school-leavers after only brief initialtraining, supposedly on a temporar, basis. Second, be-cause tt 'oorary staff are not shown on the nationalpersonnel register, local offices can use them to evademanpower ceilings and staff unanticipated new pro-grams. Third, unqualified local staff receive the verylowest salaries and, in theory z.c least, can be dismissed

83

at will if there is a budgetary shortfall. Fourth, becausesalaries for better-trained staff are also low, some min-istries experience a high turnover among those whohave earned a certificate or diploma. Having a pool ofuntrained but already engaged temporary workersmakes it easier for a district agricultural office to oper-ate normally despite high rates of staff turnover. Forextension workers, of course, a "temporary" job is bet-ter than no job at all.

The chronically low morale among the contact cad-res is best explained by the tendency of individuals toevaluate their own career in comparison with that ofothers from the same secondary school cohort or thesame environment. Unlike their classmates, extensionworkers at the contact level are often those who failedacademic examinations (perhaps in key subjects suchas mathematics or science). They are chosen for minis-try employment without consideration of their apti-tudes or personal interest, and they may view a field as-signment as a temporary setback, to be borne whilesearching for some way to obtain an urban posting orto re-enter the education system. Unlike workers in thefour other government services typically found in ruralcommunitieseducation, health, police, and admin-istrationextension staff must work highly irregularhours and are generally required to move about thecountryside without receiving any extra compensation.Primary school teachers, for example, who perhapshave less education than extension workers, are usuallyprovided with housing and work regular hours. Some-times, as a consequence, it is the more educated fieldstaff who have the lowest morale, since for them therelative deprivation is the greatest.

Unfortunately, the causes of poor performance aremost evident in places where extension work is mostdifficultin remote areas and in connection with cropsthat are not well serviced. Shortages of transport, tech-nical information, and trained staff have continued un-remedied for more than two decades in many suchplaces. This situation indicates that basic structural fea-tures which transcend fluctuations in ministry policyand program content are the issue.

Since the mid-1970s resource constraints have tight-ened in many African countries. Ministries have lessmargin for discretionary expenditure because of the in-creased proportion of the recurrent budget committedin advance to salaries. Headquarters display symptomsof organizational atrophy: abandoned vehicles awaitspare parts, light bulbs are missing, journals have beendiscontinued, and reagent bottles stand empty. Somefield personnel, however, have suffered much more se-vere privations. Fuel rationing leaves barely enoughgasoline for a journey to headquarters and back eachmonth. The supplies of inputs available legally have

Extension under East .4frican Field Conditions 79

dried up, making a mockery of extension advice whichinstructs farmers to apply fertilizers or to use sprays.Even spare bicycle tires and tubes, so essential for visit-ing farmers, may be unavailable. In some countriesdefaults on crop payments to farmers and on salarypayments to field staff are common and further breakdown the resource structure in which extension mustoperate.

Reforming African Extension

The preceding analysis refers principally to public sec-tor extension systems in countries suffering severe fi-nancial crisis. The dilemma of how to improve or sim-ply maintain services with diminished resources iscommon to many African countries, but especiallythose with a large extension service and declining ex-port crop earnings. Many East and Southern Africancountries fit this description. Witi) large field establish-ment in place, few are willing t.) scale down public sec-tor extension rapidly or, for that matter, to privatize it.Instead, their leaders continue to search for more cost-effective approaches to extension which can be adoptedwithin the current parameters of the agency. The aboveanalysis of constraints at the field level offers several in-sights into why past and present reform measures re-main relatively ineffective.

In the 1960s the concentration of technical assis-tance on extension methods (much of it funded by theU.S. government) had little impact. Adequate technicalpackages did not yet exist, and the few on-farm demon-strations that took place probably reinforced farmers'skepticism about ministry recommendations. Moregenerally, when a system as a whole begins to malfunc-tion, interventions which focus on only one componentai doomed to failure. Even if there is a localized im-provement, !4- will be masked by adverse trends rootedin the larger environment.

During the 1970s the emphasis on nonformal educa-tion, technical packages, and integrated rural develop-ment projects was also ineffective. In most cases, thesenew emphases were implemented outside of the ministry of agriculture's main structure by means of lou,,,lyattached "enclave" projects. They had their own projectmanagement units, which focused primarily on fi,,an-cial control. After much experimentation many of theseprojects did achieve unified budgeting systems, but thiswas often the only integrated aspect of their operations.A tightly administered project that by definition cutacross normal ministerial and agency lines became anempire accountable only to itself. Such projects usuallyenjoyed far more resources (staff, training, vehicles,and recurrent funding) than the parent agencies could

80 ion R. Moris

afford. Once external funding ceased, the projct's priv-ileged resources were soon dispersed to meet otherneeds within the larger system, and its impact meltedaway. Alternatively, if project managers attempted towork within the existing system, they soon discoveredthere were no effective devices for coordinated imple-mentation. Each ministry or agency continued with itsown programs, and it was rare to find actual integrationof activities in the field. Furt' ..rmore, it was assumedthat officially recommended technical packages weresound, although this was not always the case. Underrisky conditions and with an inadequate supply of in-puts farmers did not reap the anticipated profits, andloans 'ere not repaid. Even the nonformal emphasis,which had seemed so attractive in theory, ran afoul ofthe ritualized character of farmers' meetings. Most in-tegrated rural development projects are today regardedas failures.

The standard format or aid agency projects appearsto have contributed tAl the difficulties. Extension func-tions are not easily measured as "outputs," and it iseven harder to specify what "inputs" will be needed toperform them. The project cycle as usually imple-mented leaves no room for an extended period of orga-nizational learninga point emphasized in Korten's(1980) concept of the three sequential learning pro-cesses which characterize successful programs: learn-ing what to do, learning how to make it cost-effective,and learning how to replicate it. Project designers oftenwork outside the system being "assisted"; they preparea plan of action which others will implement. In Africaproject planners have often incorporated unrealMcdeadlines into the plan. It usually takes from two tothree years to recruit and install the field team, bywhich time they may be facing a midproject evaluationand be expected to have shown tangible results. Againand again, one finds that the extension phase slips to-ward the end of the project life and then becomes over-taken by pressures to show an observable output. Inmany cases, the extension component of a rural devel-opment project never becomes fully operational beforeoutside assistance is terminated.

In the 1970s most African ministries of agriculturelacked convincing arguments to justify requests forfunds to upgrade extension. A plethora of concepts andapproaches competed for attention: appropriate tech-nology, high-yielding varieties, nonformal education,functional literacy, women's groups, on-farm watermanagement, social forestry, and farm service centersrepresent only a handful of the fifty or more types ofrural development interventions being proposed (Moris1981). Since each external funding agency generallywanted its own discrete projects, each section of a min-istry became engaged in trying to identify interventions

5

which were fashionable with particular donors. In thisrace to garner funding. ministries of agriculture hadfew new -xtension ideas and even fewer solid achieve-ments to parade. They merely relied on the unconvinc-ing argument that a public extension service was a goodand necessary part of the rural development process.

At the same time, ministries of agriculture foundthat their field resources were becoming stretched evermore thinly as struggled to replicate the territorialhierarchy of the general administration. The budgetarycrisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s cut them offfrom vital recurrent funds and did not allow them toreplace vehicles. Morale among the field cadres deterio-rated just when farmers had the greatest incentive toswitch from the export crops ^n which national eco-nomic survival depended. Senior ministry officialstalked about greater discipline and closer accountabil-ity within the extension service but were not able tooffer positive incentives to stimulate higher levels ofproductivity. In short, by the mid-1980s an unten-able situation had developed in which overstaffed andunderbudgeted ministries of agriculture were demand-ing higher output from an already demoralized fieldservice.

Into this depressing context, external funding agen-cies have introduced two major innovations: farmingsystems research (FsR, initially sponsored by the U.S.Agency for International Development) and the train-ing and visit extension system (my, sponsored by theWorld Bank). The following discussion will concentrateon how these innovations have influenced or might in-fluence the effectiveness of the contact cadre of exten-sion. Although ministries of agriculture welcorr.ed bothinnovations, they did not necessarily approve of the sys-tems as such; FSR and T&V obviously represented ameans of securing external resourcesthe vehicles,hard currency, and external training which were sorelymissed by senior agricultural staff. Whether or not localofficials were committed to either innovation, they didneed the resources which accompany most large tech-nical assistance projects. FSR and T&V have thereforeeinerged as the main extension systems of the 1980s intropical Africa.

Farming Systems Research

By the early 1970s, obvious faults within station-basedresearch recommendations were recognized, if not bynatural scientists then at least by agricultural econo-mists (Belshaw and Hall 1972). It had become clear tothem that a whole-farm perspective was essential whenreviewing options for farming enterprises. The varyingresources commanded by farmers and their perceived

constraints and problems needed to be recognized andaccounted for in the generation of technology. Collin-son and Ruthenberg in East Africa and Norman in WestAfrica gradually evolved a new approach to on-farm,adaptive research, now generally known by its Ameri-can title of farming systems research'

From the earlier discussion of weak technical pack-ages, it should be obvious that FSR constituted a muchneeded modification to the way in which ministries ofagriculture derived their technical recommendations.Virtually all East Africa.. countries have now imple-mented FSR projects in one form or another. The com-mon elements within this approach have been thewhole-farm perspective, identification of immediatebottlenecks as perceived by farmers, use of a multidisci-plinary investigative team, willingness to employ rapidreconnaissance methods, the identification of recom-mendation domains, and a stratification of packages tosuit varying resource and managerial levels. Few proj-ects have yet reached the stage where all of this hasbeen accomplished, since farming systems have provento be far more complex than outsiders had generally as-sumed. In addition, when a broad range of considera-tions is taken into account, farmers' existing tech-niques have proven to be equal or superior to officiallyrecommended practices. In this sense, FSR has had agreater educational impact on research: scientistsbyproviding them a methodology for evaluating theirscreening criteriathan it has upon African farmers.

Initially, FSR experienced operational difficultieswhen attempting to transfer its results into extensionpractice. FSR units, although based in the research syc.-tern, require continual access to farmers in differentzones because on-farm adaptive trials must be carefullyplanned and closely supervised. To achieve the neces-sary liaison and quality control under African field con-ditions requires I, scal staff with substantial logistic sup-port, normally oeyond what research stations canprovide from their own resources. Thus, although ex-tensionists initially had little involvement in FSR proj-ects, they soon were requested to release field staff toassist with FSP, surveys and trials. At this point it becameapparent that FSR had no clear methodology for incor-

E.

reThis was a serious omission, and one which explainswhy in some quarters the approach is now termed FSR/

porating its research results into the extension system.

com-munication used by ministries of agriculture were one

the audiovisual section, and eventually issued in the

obstacle to the dissemination of FSR results. Researchstations traditionally issue annual reports, which arethen reviewed by the extension service, handed over to

(farming systems research and extension).

.1rm of pamphlets and recommendations to the field

The outdated and hierarchical modes of official com-

Extension under East African Field Conditions 81

service. Direct two-way linkages on a zonal basis be-tween researchers and district extension staff seemed toviolate the orderlybut excruciatingly slowprocessof producing official technical packages. Furthermore,the organization of FSR teams into units located at a spe-cific research static often left them under the controlof the station director, who might deny them the rightto initiate direct contact with extension staff.

Regional offices were set up on both sides of the con-tinent to support the introduction of the FSR approachin a number of countries, giving training and workingwith a broad cross section of ministry staff. A major un-certainty concerned the way in which FSR should be co-ordinated with a simultaneous innovation, the WorldBank's TO system. After 1980, senior extension officialsin several countries began to adapt the T&V system asdeveloped in India to suit their own rather different cir-cumstances. Some found the apparent lack of any rela-tionship between FSR and T&V confusing.

To resolve implementation problems, the regionalFSR support groups organized a series of regional andnational seminars, and external agencies and founda-tions entered the scene. By mid-1985 most ministriesof agriculture had become reconciled to integratingboth approaches into a common research-extensionsystem. It seemed obvious by then that the regulartraining sessions at the core of the T&V system presup-pose continuing access to field-tested innovationsprecisely the output FSR was supposed to generate.

Although it is too early to describe how FSR (or FsR/E)will become permanently institutionalized, one canrecognize the potential benefits of the FSR perspectivefor field staff. First, it offers a methodology for bringing

other than agronomy into the researchprocess. Second, it specifically recognizes variabilityand abandons the counterproductive efforts of minis-tries to arrive at nationally uniform technical packages.Third, it obliges researchers to work with extensionstaff, preferably as partners rather tha, rivals. Fourth,it takes farmers' perceived constraints and technicalknowledge seriously, for the first time opening a chan-nel for direct feedback from the grass roots. Fifth, thestratification of results to suit varying resource levelsand managerial competencies now allows these varia-tions to Le directly addressed by the extension service.These attnbutes represent a significant improvementover the earlier system of station-derived research re-sults.

The T&V System

The training and visit system came to East Africa underWorld Bank sponsorship, after its earlier successes in

86

82 Jon R. Mods

Turkey, India, and Southeast Asia. As developed byDaniel Benor, T&V consists of a package of organiza-tional measures which enable a ministry of agricultureto tighten its procedures and to intensify the deliveryof technological information to farmers. This latterfunction is seen as the main purpose of agricultural ex-tension. T&V advocates a return to classic managementprinciples: a functional delegation of tasks, clear re-porting lines, reasonable spans of control, regularizedand frequent training seminars coordinated with ascheduled cycle of farm visits by extension staff, and awork program mutually agreed between field staff andtheir supervisors. These changes not only allow farmersto know when and where they will be visited, but alsofacilitate supervision of the contact cadre's activities.Another key feature of TO is Benor's insistence that theextension service should not assume responsibilities forwhich it is not suited, such as input delivery, credit su-pervision, or community development.'

The T&V system in India appears to have been quitesuccessful, and the basic similarity of many African ad-ministrative systems to the Indian one suggested thatT&V could be eirectly applied in Africa. Those of us work-ing on agricultural extension in East Africa, however,had doubts about the suitability of T&V under Africanfield conditions. In India T&V could draw on a decade ofresearch on high-yielding varieties, an extensive irriga-tion network, and efficient and ubiquitous input deliv-ery sytems. The mair crops, wheat and rice, were al-ready popular among farmers, who had begun tospeciaiizc as commercial producers. They had access tocredit, and prices were generally adequate. Further-more, they lived in compact villages where it was easyto make visits on schedule, and they were served by arelatively efficient administrative system.

By way of contrast, for most of Africa suitaHe techni-cal packages have not yet been developed. The exten-sion service deals with scattered and sometimes inac-cessible farmers who grow a multiplicity of annual andperennial crops. Commercial input suppliers are oftenunreliable, and farm prices are frequently distorted toprotect urban consumers. The lack of irrigation meansthat Production is highly seasonal and risky, with greatvariations among areas, which makes it very difficult torecommend optimal combinations of recommenda-tions for farming enterprises. And, as we have seen, ad-miniszative systems are often flawed. These differencesargued against a direct transfer of the Indian versionof T&V into Africa.

Now that the first generation a UV projects has beenestablished in various parts of East and Southern Africa(notably in Kenya, but also in Botswana, Ethiopia, Ma-lawi, Somalia, Sudan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe), there is

a widening base of local experience to draw on. The in-troduction of TO has provided ministries of agriculturewith an opportunity to dramatize their needs. In partic-ular, Daniel Benor's international standing has guaran-teed attention and support from the highest levels ofgovernment. An example would be Kenya, where Leon-ard (1977) conducted a classic study of field extension.Though eminently sound, Leonard's recommendationsdid not provide the ministry with sufficient authorityto gain Treasury support; it was Benor's advocacywhich finally obtained a national commitment to exten-sion reform.

The Kenya case (generally regarded as the T&V sys-tem's most successful African project) has other lessonsto teach. The National Maize Program had already de-voted two decades to developing several types of hybridand synthetic maize, differentiated by maturation timeand altitudinal zone. In the heartland of the country,where the agricultural potential is greatest, the ex-tension service had been densely staffed since themid-1970s (Leonard 1977; Almy 1974). A wealth of ag-ricultural research institutes provided a large cadre ofscientists able to serve as potential subject matter spe-cialists for training contact staff; an underutilized agri-cultural information center also existed as did severalagricultural colleges. Commercial suppliers providedhigh-quality seed and inputs, while the transport sys-tem and infrastructure were excellent. Maize is the sta-ple crop, grown by nearly all the small farmers. And,perhaps most important, Kenya has stressed adminis-trative efficiency within its agricultural services. Wheresimilar conditions pertained, as in Botswana, Ethiopia,central Malawi, and Zimbabwe, the T&V system was ca-pable of being implemented successfully with onlyminor changes from the Indian model.

Even in Kenya, though, there have been unantici-pated pressures. Some agencies resisted when re-quested to release staff to serve as subject matter spe-cialists. Although the initial training sessions relied onthe large stoelt of existing technology and accompany-ing extension materials, new emphases needed to be in-corporated later. They required an array of specialiststo liaise with FSR staff on the content of training pro-grams, to design new audiovisual modules, and to con-duct the orientation and training of trainers. When infull operation, a biweekly cycle of training seminars im-plemented nationally generates an enormous demandfor fresh material and requires sophisticated and coor-dinated support from the parent ministry. Before theadoption of T&V, research stations were not held ac-countable for the regular delivery of field-tested recom-mendations. Now if technical packages are nuiiexistentor unsuitable, agricultural s,:it:ntists may come under

87

criticism from an extension service that depends ontheir timely input into the training cycle.

In countries or in areas with few resources for exten-sion or with dispersed populations, the T&V system hasbeen specifically adapted to the local situation. Trainingsessions have been put at the end of each month, whenfield staff must come to the administrative center in anycase. Visits to farmers have been addressed to groupsrather than individuals, so as to retain the advantageof a known schedule but expand the number contacted.Certain days of the month have been reserved forwomen's clubs or youth work (two groups which tendto get left out in the standard T&V approach). Timechanges attenuate the intensity of extension contact,but they do retain Benor's central concept of couplingregularized training with a reasonable and verifiablework load for the field agent.

Benor cannot be omnipresent; countries must as-sume increasing responsibility for sustaining a viableprogram themselves. In some min :Aries of agriculture,middle-level staff have failed to plan training sessionsand have shown themselves unwilling to release thetransport and financial resources TO requires. Othershave tried to use the top-down orientation of T&V to"ambush" junior officers who might be caught awayfrom their post. The danger is clear: unless a ministryis willing to address the causes of poor morale whichare rooted in the larger administrative and political sys-tem, the imposition of a rigid and demanding fieldschedule may instead increase the already high levelsof frustration among front-line extension workers.

Extension under East Aiican Field Conditions 83

Conclusion

Neither FSR nor T&V encompasses all aspects of the tech-nology diffusion process. I have argued that they arecomplementary to each other and should be seen as in-terrelated components of a larger system for generatingand conveying agricultural innovations. If effectivelyimplemented, they promise a number of benefits forfield staff. Having technical packages which really doaddress farmers' concerns will free extension workersfrom having to disguise or sugarcoat ministry recom-mendations. Having a realistic work load and regularcontact with supervisors and trainers is also highly de-sirable. Adoption of UN can safeguard contact staff fromunrealistic work demands, always a possibility when theextension service tries to match the territorial hierar-chy in the general administration. TO'S insistence onnot saddling front-line workers with loan collections ortime-consuming field surveys is all,o welcome.

Notes

I. Early sources on FSR in an African context included An-thony and others (1979), Gilbert and others (1980), Norman(1980), Ruthenberg 16), and Shaner and others (1981).

2. The system has _ten well described in the literature, forexample by Benor, Harrison, and Baxter (1984) and Benorand Baxter (1984). Independent assessments are available inHowell (1983, 1984a), von Blanckenburg (1982), and Moris(1983a and b).

13

Public Investment in Africa's Extension ServicesJohn Howell

Public expenditure on Africa's agricultural extensionservices has followed an uneven path. After a period ofhigh spending in the 1960s, the level of allocations in,:post countries fell in relation to other areas of agricul-tural investment, and in the 1980s it taken a majoreffort by external funding agencies to restore extensionto same importance in public spending. The factorswhich led to a loss of confidence in extensioli servicesare examined here, as well as the extent to which thesefactors have been addressed in the current renewal ofpublic investment in extension.

Trends in Expenditure

Compared with the rest of the world, Africa has in-vested substantially in agricultural extension. If ex-penditure on extension is expressed as a percentage ofthe domestic value of agricultural product (DvAP), M-

Table 13-1. Expenditure for Agricultural Extensionin Selected Regions, 1980

Region °cunt'Millions

of U.S. dollars

North Africa 1.71 173West Africa 1.28 205East Africa 1.16 106East Asia 0.85 241Northern Europe 0.84 201North Amerh 0.56 634Southern Africa 0.46 31South Asia 0.20 82

a. Expenditure as a percentage of domestic value of agriculturalproduct.

Source: Judd, Boyce, and Evenson, "Investing in Agricultural Sup-plY," Economic Growth Center Paper 442, Yale Untversity, 1983.

85

Table 13-2. African Expenditure on Researchand Extension, 1959-80(millions of 1980 U.S. dollars)

1959 1970 1980

Research 119 252 425Extension 238 481 515

Source: Same as table 13-1.

rica appears as the continent most committed to agri-cultural improvement through publicly provided advi-sory servir-s and technical support (see table 13-1).

If these figures for expenditure are traced back overtwenty years, however, it is evident that the major in-creases came in the 1960s, immediately after indepen-dence. Since 1970, investments in extension in relationto DVAP have faL2n sharply in North and Southern Af-rica and have risen significantly only in Eastern Africa.In absolute terms (1980 U.S. dollars) Africa's, invest-ment in agricultural extension has barely risen since1970, while that of Asia and Latin America has regis-tered substantial increases (Evenson 1986).

Another indicator of the changing emphasis on ex-tension investment can be seen by comparing spendingpriorities within the public agricultural sector. Re-search is the other main consumer of funds, and theevidence suggests an even pattern of growth amountingto a tripling of real expenditure on African agriculturalresearch over the twenty years to 1980 (see table 13-2).Africa's spending on research was 85 percent of itsspending on extension in 1980; in 1959 research spend-ing was only 50 percent of extension spending.

This decline in the importance of extension is onlypartly the result of new public expenditure priorities,however. More important, and contributing to resourceallocation decisions, has been the declining effective-

89

86 John Howell

ness of the extension services in question. This is im-possible to quantify regionally, although the weight ofindividual assessments of systems conducted in the1980s is difficult to contradict. In country after countrythe view of external funding agencies and ministry ofagriculture officials was that extension services failed tosupport farmers adequately and that their staffs weredeficient hi technical knowledge, lacked the facilitiesthey required, and were left unsupervised and errati-cally guided by their ministries (Chapman 1987).

It is now generally agreed that corrective actionshould consist of increased investment in extension(particularly if; recurrent costs) lin'aed to reforms inmanagement and training. The World Bank, in particu-lar, has taken the lead in this new emphasis on exten-sion. There are now few African countries not in receiptof external assistance in support of some national pro-gram to improve extension, normally based on a bet-ter-trained, better-supervised, and more mobile fieldservice.

This recent shift into extension investment was ledby the Nigerian government, which used World Bankloans to instigate a series of projects for extension,credit, and input supply in the early 1970s. In the 1980sgovernments in Eastern and Central Africa have begunto use loans and grants to support extension-specificprojects, often employing the training and visit approach. By 1985 the World Bank alone was financingmore than fifty projects in Sub-Saharan Africa that con-tained a substantial extension component, with bilat-eral donors such as the Overseas Development Admin-istration (oDA) and the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment (usAuo) often providing parallel grantsupport.

The long-term positive impact of this new level ofpublic investment, however, will depend on the extentto which extension services can overcome the difficul-ties that have characterized their performance to dateand that led to their neglect in the 1970s. The mostimportant of these difficulties are the inadequacy ofthe technical .4nd economic research required to com-plement the extension effort, the weaknesses in theorganizat; of technical support services and inputsupplies, disregard of the cost and financing issuessurrounding extension and other farm support services,and inattention to the need for systematic, professionalmanagement and training of field staff. These are dis-cussed in turn.

Research and Extension

Extension work in Africa has suffered from the poorperformance of research and, in particular, from the

unsuitability of recommendations to most small-farmsituations. This is not simply the familiar problem ofthe lack of technical breakthroughs in Africa of the sortachieved in South Asia and elsewhere. It also reflectsthe remoteness of agricultural research station workfrom activities at the field level.

Even in countries where good research work hasbeen doneon agronomic practices in mixed cropping,for examplethere are problems of communicating re-search results. Research bulletins have become irregu-lar or have even stopped in some countries; crop hand-books have not been updated; and an unacceptablenumber of field trials have been lost. In the latter case,spending for research station work may have been cutarbitrarily or the imiexibility of spending may have pre-vented, for instance the recruitment of casual labor fortrials or restricted the use of fuel needed to visit remotetrials. In the southern regions of Tanzania, 75 percentof the established on-farm sorghum variety and fertil-izer trials in the 1984-85 season were lost; agriculturaladvisers in Mtwara and Lindi regional governments at-tributed this loss to the problem of transporting suit-ably qualified agronomists to trial sites.

These resource and organizational problems apart,the research challenge itself has often proved too formi-dable for existing research establishments. Attempts todevelop new varieties and practices that outperformthose already used in peasant agriculture have fallenshort of meeting the complexity of farming in risk-prone and resource-scarce production systems. Occa-sionally researchers and extensionists have found thata simple recommendation is valid and acceptablesuch as replacing a disease-prone cotton variety with aless susceptible one, as in Malawi. But more often thesmall farmer must take account of a rano,: of character-istics other than the technical criteria of yield and dis-ease resistance. They include storage, labor require-ments, timing of planting and cultural operations inrelation to other crops, reliability of inputs, and palat-ability. It is this range of considerations that makes peas-ant agricultural development such a challenge to re-search scientists. Conversely, the lack of understandingof rural household systems has diminished the per-formance of crop research and has severely inhibitedresearch involving the relationship between crops, ani-mals, trees, and land within those systems.

The weakest link in extension organization in mostAfrican countries is the generation of useful informa-tion on farm operations and the transfer of this infor-mation through the extension service to the researchstation. The regular meetings and training days whichare a feature of recent extension investment have thepotential for rectifying this weakness, but the evidenceon performance suggests that feedback remains inade-

quate. Successful research efforts in Africa are likely torequire the help of extension staff in generating infor-mation on existing practices and on how they shouldinfluence research design and recommendations.

In Zambia, for example, Sutherland (NM reportsmuch closer support from the research branch to ex-tension services since the inception of an Adaptive Re-search Planning Team by the Ministry of Agricultureand Water Development. But he also notes the continu-ing failure of the extension agents to report systemati-cally on farmers' agronomic problems. In a striking ex-ample from Zimbabwe, Cousins (1986) reports on aplowing method developed with farmers by local exten-sion staff outside the formal research system and thu.,only recently subject to replication trials elsewhere.

The cimm-supported farming systems work in Zam-bia, Zimbabwe, and other Eastern African countries ishelping to address the structural gap between researchand Rxtension. But professional attitudes are not easilyaltered. Research staff are not often interested in sup-porting extension if this involves additional and unfa-miliar work. Yet with extension organized as it cur-rently is, research staff rarely receive much benefitfrom closer collaboration with extension staff.

Within training and visit systems, a period in thetraining day is normally devoted to reporting problems.In practice, however, this often results in a recitationof the difficulties involved in recommendingor gain-ing acceptance forimproved varieties and practicesdiscussed previously. In my own experience, there ap-pears to be little discussion of the reasons why farmershave not adopted the recommendation or followedother advice. One way of strengthening this aspect ofextension woic is to encourage reporting on the impactof extensionto put a premium on diagnosing reasonsfor nonadoption, or perhaps adaptation, by farmers.Particularly where understanding of farm problems ispoor, extension reporting of this sort can contributesignificantly to the design of research, although thereare real difficulties in aggregating and using the neces-sarily anecdotal information that comes from extensionmeetings (Howell 1984a).

It is axiomatic that successful extension requires theexistence of technologies to extend. Given the generallypoor performance of agricultural research in Africa,therefore, the case for public investment in extensionmight appear to be weak. One common argumentagainst it turns on the premiFe that effective extensionmust be "demand led"in other words, farmers mustalready be looking for opportunities to plant new vari-eties or to use new technologies before they will haveany interest in what extension can offer. This readinessto adopt will com. primarily when ordinary farmers ob-serve the experiences of the more innovative farmers;

Public Investment in Africa's Extension Services 87

therefore, the argument runs, until African researchstations have produced a stock of technologies that willattract this group of "leading" farmers, there will notbe enough demand for technical advisory services tojustify a major investment in extension.

But this argumentand its counterargumentissomewhat academic. There has been endless debate, forexample, over whether the widespread adoption of hy-brid maize varieties in Kenya and Zimbabwe was led byan extension service confident in its recommendationsor by farmer-to-farmer contact. Similarly, it can be ar-gued that the introduction of smallholder crops suchas tea and cotton in Eastern Africa in the 1940s and1950s was the result of well-organized extension effortsand would not have taken place merely by farmers re-sponding to market opportunities. The contrary hasalso been argued.

Technical Support for Extension and Input Supply

Of more merit than the foregoing argument, however,is the truism that extension services are unlikely to beof value to farmers unless they are buttressed by arange of specialist advisory services and by governmentsupport for input supply services. In practice, extensionservices often lack such a support system. Within theextension services themselves professional expertise isusually weak. This is largely because ministries of agri-culture expanded rapidly after independence, whichmeant that many of the best agricultural staffwere re-moved from direct field work and promoted into admin-istrative positions or transferred to crop authorities orspecialized. services (such as horticulture or plant pro-tection). The general field services of ministries ofagriculture therefore becameand remainrelativelylow-status sections of institutions dominated by spe-cialist services and planners.

The unavailability of inputs often impedes the effec-tiveness of extension services. In most African c, m-tries rural producers cannot count on the private sectorto supply their needs. Private involvement is largelyconfined to marketing output; there are few privatesuppliers of seed and fertilizer, and private credit islargely restricted to informal mechanisms that are un-able to meet the demands of large numbers of farmersfor highly risky seasonal crop loans. As a consequence,extension staff are frequently engaged, as agents of pub-lic sector organizations, in distributing inputs and dis-bursing and recovering loans. Where such mechanismsare operating effectively (as in Malawi, where theparastatal ADMARC supplies fertilizer and credit), theycan prove to be highly supportive of the technical advi-sory work of extension staff. Where the mechanisms are

88 John Howell

deficient (as in Tanzania, where planting mathials aresupplied through TANSEED), extension staff are severelyhampered. The availability of certified seed, fertilizer,and services for plant protection is of course vital tocrop extension work. Even when these inputs are avail-able, however, their effective distribution and utiliza-tion requires the involvement of adequate numbers ofspecialist staffat least until the public sector ceasesto be the dominant channel of supply.

For most African countries, the biggest single orga-nizational constraint to running an effective extensionsystem is the difficulty of establishing a referral andsupport system within the extension service. Of partic-ular difficulty is staffing the technical posts of subjectmatter specialists (sMs) at the district level. It is simpleenough to designate some underused diplomate in thedistrict office as the "agricultural engineering special-ist." It is another matter for him to act convincinglyin that capacity. Developing a cadre of sms with thecombination of training ability and research experience(or sufficient familiarity with research work to referproblems and information to the appropriate place) isa long-term ecercise. Even in a relatively well-endowedcountry such as Kenya, them are significant difficultiesin recruiting specialists (in horticulture and crop pro-tection, for example) to work at the district level andbelow (Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Devel-opment 1984).

The preparation and appraisal of extension projectsdo not always take into account the difficulties inbuilding up the sms cadre. The present low numberof sms posts in most African comities implies that thisarea of investment is neglected because of high recur-rent costs. In Africa this it; probably the factor whichmost severely limits the development of training andvisit forms of extension. World Bank staff developingapilot TM/ project in Ethiopia in the early 1980s, for ex-ample, identified the lack of sms and the long lead timerequired for their development as the critical obstaclesto the rapid replication of what had proved to be ahighly successful experiment.

Financing Extension

A major question mark hangs over the current set ofWorld Bankassisted extension projects in Africa. Thisrelates to the high level of long-term ;ncrementiAl costsimplicit in these projects. In the earlier generation ofBank financed extension projects in Asia, the incre-mental cost was generally less of an issue: there werealready in existence large research and extension in-frastructures, with well-developed systems of adminis-trative support. Extension investment in Asia was on-

erally concerned with ensuring better utilization ofexisting staff and physical facilitiesnot with buildingup staff structures and facilities virtually from scratch,as in much of Africa. If Asian models are to be followedin Africa, priority will need to be given to increasingsubstantially the level of staffing both in the field andat the supervisory level. It will also mean an increasein research expenditure for work at research stationsand on adaptive trials. The establishment of effectiveresearch, extension, and field trials involves a cer-tain amount of capital outlay, but even more significantare commitments to ecurrent costs. This necessarilymeans that in the long term governments, rather thandonors, will have to shoulder an increasing share of thecosts.

The financing of extension services raises two sets of,issues: first, the acquisition of funds within the nationalbudgetary allocation process; and second, either thegeneration of funds from users or the reduction of costsin order to expand or maintain the extension services'within a given government budget.

African extension officials at the African Workshopon Extension and Research held in Eldoret, Kenya, in1984 reported a mixed record in obtaining their re-quested budgetary allocations. Strong planning depart-ments within ministries of agriculture appear to be im-portant, as success in obtaining funds is clearly relatedto the ability to defend in detaa one's estimates and tothe strength with which such estimates are pressed.This is hardly surprising. Of greater interest is theproblem faced by ministries of agriculture in pressingfor recurrent funds when donor finance has previouslybeen available for extension but no longer is. Incremen-tal posts, allowances, and operating costs coveredunder the externally financed development (or capital)account during the early phases of extension projectsare only with reluctance transferred by ministries of fi-nance to the recurrent (or revenue) account once exter-nal support ends. Most funding agencies (especially bi-lateral donors), however, are reluctant to finance localrecurrent costs and normally look for a fairly rapidtransfer of recurrent extension costs to the aid recipi-entoften making this a condition of investment (asin Malawi's National Rural Development Program, forinstance). These somewhat conflicting tendencies oftenmean that extension will be seriously underfunded afterthe initial development phase.

The same officials also reported a range of difficultiesin the management of extension finances already ap-proved. During times of budgetary stringency, opera-ting costs were either cut severely or releused so slowlythat extension activities came to a virtual standstill.This gave the public the impression of an inefficientministry of agriculture unable to meet its responsibili-

42

ties to farmers. Moreover, adjusting to these exigenciesis no simple task for a ministry of agriculture. In suchcircumstances it cannot easily reduce staff to match theoperating funds availableand conversely, unless staffnumbers are increased, the ministry often cannot arguefor an increase in operating funds. Interestingly, offi-cials of several countries at Eldoret workshop feltthat the substantial unders, iffing of their extensionservices was a more serious problem than theunderutilization of existing staff.

Whether nr not to generate funds from the farm sec-..or to fin& .:e extension and other agricultural serviceshas been an issue in Africa from the colonial period,when crop taxes were earmarked for research and ex-tension investment. There is aiso a long record of levy-ing user fees, particularly for private goods such as ani-mal treatments or tractor rental. Although charges forpublic goods such as research or soil conservation can-not usually be transferred to the ultimate users, thereis clearly some scope for charging farmers for specificextension services (such as soil testing) or for individ-ual farm visits.

Experience in levying charges on animal health andartificial insemination services, however, has shownhow difficult it is to assess and collect such charges inthe traditional sector (Ramakrishnan 1985). Quiteapart from the practicalities, there is '..te fundamentaleconomic issue of whether charges should be levied inthe first placeand if so, to ,.hat extent. Should theybe sufficient to cover the full costs of specific productsand their provision, or is it desirable that a proportionof costs continue to be paid by the government?

Despite such questions, at least some of the activitieswhich come under the heading of extension in somecountries (such as pest control and seed inspection) canbe considered for charging or (in cases where chargesare already levied) for charging at a full economic rate.As shown in Nigeria's Kano St te, some input supplyservices can be transferred to government agencies thatat.. more commercially oriented than the extensionservice. The transfer of entire services to cooperativesor the private sector is another possibility, although co-operatives undertaking extension-type work (such asquality control and loan administration) have usuallyrequired government subsidies, and in most countriesthe private sector option is restricted to a narrow rangeof services such as veterinary care or to extension forspecific high-value crops.

The least promising possibiliy of all appears to be totransfer some or all of the salary costs of extensionagents to the farmers themselves. In Tanzania, for exam-ple, an experimental village-employed bwana shambascheme has proven unsuccessful despite the presenceof village development committees to collect contribu-

Public Investment In Africa's Extension Services 89

tions (Howell 1985). In addition to the practical diffi-culties of administering charges for extension in Africa,it would clearly be undesirable to encourage such a sys-tem where smallholder production is depressed by ex-cessive taxation of the agriculture sector as a result ofunfavorable terms of trade established by governmentfiat.

If one agrees with this somewhat pessimistic view ofthe prospects for generating substantial new sources ofrevenue for extension, then it is clear that most govern-ments are faced with the need to invest their scarce fi-nancial resources cautiously. An important principleadopted in many current projects is to assign prioritiesto certain geographical areas rather than to attemptprograms for the nation as a whole. Some governments(Kenya is an example) have used proven technical po-tential as the criterion and have concentrated expendi-ture initially on areas with high rainfall. The problemwith this option is that in areas with low agriculturalproductivity extension may have the greatest impact,but these areas would be deprived of staff in favor ofothers that are already relatively well supplied with ex-tension services. But governments opting to give prior-ity to disadvantaged areas (Tanzania and Ghana are ex-amples) have achieved, in the short run at least, a poorreturn on their investments.

Managing Field Staff

The fourth difficulty associated with extension invest-ment is that of increasing the productivity of field staff.To achieve this, stronger management and staff train-ing programs have recently been introduced, usuallyalong T&V lines.

In any system of structured management in Africathe sheer paucity of physical and trained human re-sources usually presents a problem. In Tanzania, for ex-ample, much of the extension service was immobilizedin the early 1980s merely by a lack of bicycle tires.In almost all countries several days at a time can belost when meetings at headquarters are canceledbecause there is noway of communicating this to remotefield agents. A crucial management tool in extension,the telephone, is a rare commodity in much of ruralAfrica.

Even so obviously desirable a measure as holdingregular technical meetings for extension agents is diffi-cult to arrange. Research staff and sms are scatteredand rarely very mobile; instructional material is diffi-cult to have prepared; overnight allowances are notavailable to pay extension agents traveling long dis-tances; meals must be arranged, and so on. In short,simply setting up meetings on a regular basis across the

3

90 John Howell

country can involve major administrative effort andcost.

But despite such obstacles to effective management,it is evident that new levels of investment in Africanex-tension do have to be accompanied by changes in orga-nization and in the approach to supervision. This hasbeen the thrust of recent World Bank support in theguise of the training and visit system. The main princi-ples of the system are difficult to contest. The emphasison control, however, is uncomfortably consistent withthe prevailing bureaucratic and hierarchical style prev-alent in most ministries. Rigidly applied, the systemcan stifle local extension initiative. Nonetheless, thisnew approach to extension management has broughtattention to three critical changes needed: focusing theefforts of extension staff on production matters, orient-ing the work more toward the field, and introducingregular instruction (Howell 1984a).

A feature of the 1960s and 1970s was the growing useof the extension worker as a general-purpose function-ary of the ministry to help with production schemes,data collection, the grading of crops, and so on. Insome countries attention to crop extension work wasfurther undermined by the amount of nonagriculturalwork that was imposed on the extension agent. Thiswork might involve anything from the organization ofpolitical campaigns to fulfilling routine administrativefunctions for other government departments. Anothertrend has been the proliferation of special campaigns,such as the organization of credit for the distributionof fertilizer. All of these pressures on extension staffhave inevitably deflected them from the job of develop-ing a system to provide regular technical advice tofarmers. It is impractical to suggest that the role ofministries of agriculture should be redefined to concen-trate wholly on technical production mattersbut theresponsibilities of field staff should at least be those ofthe ministry itself. When extension staff are at the beckand call of several ministries or regional authoritiestheir ineffectiveness is usually guaranteed, as has nowbeen recognized in Tanzania, for example.

Orderly extension appears to require the establish-ment of a fixed schedule of visits to selected farmers byextension agents. For most African countries, the indi-vidual farm visit remains the primary method of con-veying information and of obtaining information onfarmers' requirements. The use of mass media, localdisplays, demo. on plots, group visits, and groupmeetings are auxiliary to face-to-face work with se-lected farmers. Because such work should normallytake place during the growing season, and since farm-ers ne ,d to have advance knowledge of visits, the workprogram should be scheduled at regular, announced in-

94

tervals. This also facilitates the supervision of staff andgives to farmers not selected for individual visits theprospect of access to the extension agent.

A third contributor to effective extension has beenregular meetings of groups of extension agents opera-ting in similar agricultural environments, led by super-vising officers and specialist staff. Under most mv-styleprograms these meetings are devoted primarily to in-struction. sms and extension officers focus on teachingthe series of practices that agents are to recommend forvarious crops in the forthcoming period. Despite thelimitations of this approach in complex production en-vironments, it is clearly an advance over holding meet-ings on an ad hoc basis to discuss administrative andsalary matters alone. Like the narrowing of extensionduties and the introduction of scheduled visits, regulartechnical meetings have been an essential ingredient inthe improvement of extension work in Africa.

It must be recognized, however, that the caliber offield staff is generally poor and that farmers lack confi-dence in the technical and diagnostic abilities of exten-sion staff. In few countr: 3 has the majority of field staffachieved a good standard of secondary education andcompleted two years of advanced training, and fewcountries can afford to reach this level of basic trainingin the near future. Although the use of regular meet-ings to upgrade technical knowledge is likely to be ef-fective and relatively inexpensive, it does require super-vision by sms in the field, and in view of the shortageof bona fide sms adequate supervision is not alwayspossible at present.

Conclusion

In considering the economic returns to public invest-ments in extension, it is difficult to attribute increasesin production or incomes to extension as such, espe-cially when investments are accompanied, as they sooften are, by complementary changesin pricing pol-icy, for example, or in the availability of inputs. It iseven more difficult to attribute any precise economicvalue to the different components of extension reform,such as regular farm visits, the narrowing of duties, orthe inception of organized training sessions. It is there-fore difficult to know at which point extension reformis at its most cost-efficient. Evidence of improved agri-cultural output following investment in extension doesexist, however (see Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture1984b; Kenya, Ministry of Agriculture and Land Devel-opment 1984; Chapman 1987), and only the severestskeptic would claim that such increases in productionhave been entirely unrelated to improvements in the

deployment and management of field staff. Much moreuseful than attempting a precise indication of exten-sion's benefits is to focus on the complementary mea-sures that are necessary to sustain any improvementsin the extension services. As argued above, the mostimportant challenges confronting governments and

Public Investment in Africa's Extension Services 91

funding agencies in this regard concern the closer col-laboration of researd, and extension, the improvementof support services to extensionand thus to farm-ersand the establishment of mechanisms to ensurethat extension is adequately financed.

95

14

New Developments in Agricultural Extend©n

Michael Baxter

The World Bank has been working with its membergovernments on agricultural extension since the late1960s. It began by helping to finance relatively smallextension components in agricultural projects (particu-larly for specific commodities such as cocoa or rubber)and in irrigation projects. From the mid-1970s, largerextension components were included in projects for ag-ricultural development, integrated rural development,and agricultural research, which led eventually to proj-ects devoted solely to extension. As table 14-1 indicates,in 1985 the World Bank was financing some 102 agri-cultural extension projects or projects with extensioncomponents in fifty countries. From 1975 to 1985 theBank's financial commitment to agricultural extensionamounted to about $2.4 billion.

The nature of the World Bank's involvement in agri-cultural activities has undergone and continues to un-dergo change to take account of developments in theagricultural, human, economic, and 'iancial condi-tions of individual countries. The experiences of the ex-tension services themselves, as well as of the Bank,have similarly been influential. Although originally theBank may not have taken sufficient account of the dif-ferent situations faced by extension services, its in-volvement in extension has subsequently been subjectto considerable adjustment and experimentation. Thebest-known extension experiment supported by theBank is the training and visit (Tav) system of extension.This, however, is not the Bank's "official" extension sys-tem, nor is it the only system financed by the Bank.Moreover, it is increasingly difficult to define the UVsystem, since intentional and unintentional modifica-tions to it occur during implementation. The Bank cur-rently funds a variety of extension approaches, the main

93

criterion being that the system should support farmers'technological needs effectively and economically.

In view of this wide-scale involvement in extensionin a great variety of agricultural and administrative en-vironments, it is difficult to speak of new developmentsin a universal sense. What may be new for Burkina Faso(where an effort is being made to link extension closelywith agricultural research) may not be so in Indonesia(where highly structured extension-research linkagesare now common). Similarly, an innovation in manyareas is to have extension agents work directly withgroups of farmers rather than with individuals, but thisis certainly not new in francophone West Africa. Never-theless, I have identified five significant innovationswith potentially broad application that are under wayin Bank - funded projects.

Before discussing the five developments, it is worthdefining what the phrase "agricultural extension"means in the World Bank and in projects the Bank fi-nances. It refers to a system that provides farmers withthe technical advice required to increase their agricul-tural production and incomes (including advice oncredit, other inputs, and markets) and provide.; agricul-tural service organizations (such as those for researchand credit) with information on farmers' conditions,constraints, and priorities so that these organizationscan serve the farmer better. The extension activities theWorld Bank supports more often than not relale tocrops; separate organizations are normally responsiblefor livestock (especially veterinary matters), fisheries,and farm forestry, although these activities tend moreand more to be integrated with extension services foecrops. In some places, especially in Latin America, theBank also supports social extension activities, when thy

6

94 Michael Baxter

Table 14-:. World BankFinanced Agricultural Extension Projects, 1985

Region

Projects

Countrieswith

projectsExtension and

extensionlresearchWith extensioncomponents Total

West Africa 0 31 31 14

East Africa 3 17 20 12

Europe, MiddleEast, and North Africa 1 8 9 7

South Asia 16 1 17 5

East Asia and Pacific 6 4 10 8

Latin America 3 12 15 4

Total 29 73 102 50

Note: The table includes only projects that were being executed as of September 30, 1985.

field extension staff deal with nutrition, basic health,handicrafts, and domestic skills. These social extensionservices, as in Brazil, may be integrated with agricul-tural extension activities, but they are essentially sepa-rate. The Bank also finances other kinds of rural de-velopmenthealth and family planning, agriculturaland vocational education, credit, industry, and ser-vicesall of which have significant links to agriculturalextension and in some cultures and contexts are re-ferred to as "extension." But as used in the Bank andin this chapter, the term "agricultural extension" re-lates specifically to agricultural technology.

Communications Systems and Technology

Three recent developments in communications sys-tems and technology are particularly significant for ex-tension: the proliferation of the electronic mass media(radio and television), the availability of small, handyvideo cameras, and the development of interactivevideo-computer systems. Each is reviewed in turn.

Provided radio and television programs are closelyattuned to farmers' needs and conditions and are timedto complement agricultural operations, they can be astrong adjunct to field extension servicesbut not asubstitute for them, as experience even in the devel-oped countries indicates. Given the continuing expan-sion of ,narket-oriented agriculture and the increasingcomplexity of input requirements, there is a need forthe ongoing education of farmers and extension staff,and radio and television would be a good way to dissem-inate information to them. The difficulty of achievingtopical relevance is perhaps the main constraint to theeffective use of radio and television for this purpose indeveloping countries.

Small video cameras can have a significant impact onthe quality of training for field staff and thus on the

support that extension agents give to farmers and,more generally, on governments' responsiveness tofarmers. Small enough to be highly mobile and rela-tively unobtrusive, simple enough to be used with lim-ited training, and able to produce tapes that can beplayed back on increasingly common vas, these cam-eras can dramatically narrow the gap between farmerand government, and between field staff, teacher, andresearcher. They have been successfully used in LatinAmerica (for example, in Mexico's Programa de Desa-rrollo Rural Integrado del Tr6pico Htimido, PRODER1TH)to elicit villagers' awn analyses of their developmentsituations, needs, and priorities. A more direct use ofthem by technical specialists, trainers, and evcn exten-sion agents is for recording crop and other conditionsto instruct both staff and farmers themselves. The ad-vantages of these camerastheir flexibility and thefield orientation they encourageoutweigh their costwhen used appropriately.

Advances in microcomputer technology in the pastdecade have already had a significant impact on exten-sion and on farmers' access to information and theirunderstanding and use of this knowledge. The develop-ment of interactive systems will undoubtedly furtherinfluence the quality of extension work. There are al-ready advocates who promote farmers' access to suchequipment. For extension services in most developingcountries, however, the most practical use of suchequipment is in the training of extension staff. Thequality of the technical staff, and consequently of thefield staff, is often a major constraint on the upgradingof an extension service: interactive video-computer sys-tems will no doubt help to overcome this constraint.In India, for example, interactive video discs on pumpmaintenance and irrigation water management arebeing used by the Ministry of Water Resources in con-junction with various training institutes. With the useof such systems teaching materials are uniform, train-

,!es can proceed at their own pace, and their progresscan be constantly evaluated. But to reap these benefits,training modules must be accurate, locally relevant,and available in sufficient number.

A critical problem facing extension staff in many de-veloping countries is that technical recommendationsare often not sufficiently specific to agroecological con-ditions and to the resources available in the locality.This problem is caused not by the absence of technol-ogy but by the failure of researchers to take account ofthe conditions facing each main type of farmer. Conse-quently, another important use of interactive systemsis to encourage feedback from extension workers to re-searchers and other agricultural services and to helpdevelop technologies of relevance to farmers. It shouldnot be difficult to develop procedures whereby both re-searchers and extension staff can screen technical rec-ommendations for their suitability. At the least, and a5a starting point, interactive programs can be used tocheck the seasonal and economic ramifications of rec-ommended practiceswhether the period of cultiva-tion takes account of preceding and subsequent cropsand labor availability, for example, or the point beyondwhich prevailing prices do not justify the use of particu-lar imports.

Privatization and Cost Recovery

The "buzz words" of extension planning, currently invogue in many quarters, including the World Bank, areprivatization and cost recovery. Indeed, given the bud-getary situation of many governments and the obviousreal gains in productivity of at least some farmers inmost countries, privatization and cost recovery do havean attractionand not only in developing countries. Itis certainly true that the costs of an effective extensionservice can be significant, that public bureaucracieshave built-in tendencies toward inefficiency, and thatsome extension services are already privatized. Forthese reasons privatization and cost recovery are fieldsin which further investigation does appear warranted.

The greatest advances are being made in privati-zation. Private extension services are common in somedeveloping countries. The presence of high-value cropsfrequently encourages the emergence of individuals orsmall firms of private consultants who advise farmerson production and marketing. Similarly, useful exten-sion activities as well as research are often performedby input supply companies, although their proprietaryinterests are usually paramount. Cooperative societiesbuilt around vertically integrated industries often havetheir own extension staff who give advice and performa range of supply and marketing functions, as in the

New Developments in Agricultural Extension 95

cm-inspired cotton companies and the BAT tobaccoenterprises in Africa (see chapters 2 and 3). These ex-tension staff do provide valuable services for the cropsfor which they are responsible; unless considerable careis taken, however, they may not be adequately coordi-nated with government extension services operating inthe same area; nor do they always apply their resourcesto the food crops that are also grown by the farmerswho produce the cash crop in question. There are nownumerous instances, fortunately, where such short-comings have been avoided (see chapter 2).

The World Bank is involved in a project in Chile inwhich agricultural credit funds can be used to pay forextension advice from private individuals. Other proj-ects, for example in Nigeria, have provided staff to givelarge-scale farmers individualized advice on farm plan-ning and management. (These advisory services havegenerally been on the public account, but the conceptis only one step from privatization.) Extension servicesprovided by the private sector, or even by profit-oriented parastatals, cannot but upgrade the quality ofthe support available to farmers, not only for the cropsand activities in their domain, but also for the agricul-tural sector in general because of the competition theyprovide to government services.

Similarly, there are arguments in support of theprinciple of cost recovery. At least it instills a sense offinancial discipline, and it is one criterion (of many)with which to evaluate the appropriateness of alterna-tive extension strategies and activities.

There are limits, however, to the priority that shouldbe given to privatization and cost recovery in develop-ing effective, farmer-responsive extension systems.Knowledge, the "good" with which extension is con-cerned, is a public commodity. Only knowledge that isdiscrete and situation-specific is suitable for privatetransfer, which largely explains why private advisoryservices have developed for certain high value crops,often those with high entry costs, rather than for sub-sistence food crops. Governments, however, are re-sponsible for providing extension support to allfarmers, many of whom in developing countrieswork with very limited capital and land in difficultenvironments.

A system in which private groups bid for the rightto provide extension services in particular localitiesmay be a way to reduce governments' direct involve-ment in extension. In such a system, however, it wouldbe necessary to ensure that the extension service givesadequate coverage to the poorest and most isolatedfarmers and that it provides adequate feedback to, andpressure on, research and other agricultural services.In sum, experiments with privatization should con-tinue, but under a watchful eye to make sure that ex-

9c,

96 Michael Baxter

tension support is well balanced among the various top-ics and locations.

Although thefdiesirability of cost recovery is much dis-cussed, and has been implemented to some extent inthe context of commodity programs, cost recovery onfood crop extension has seldom, if ever, been success-fully implemented in developing countries. One canargue that the urban-biased terms of trade in most de-veloping countries more than offset the direct costs ofgovernment-financed extension services and thatcharging farmers for extension on top of this "tax" ontheir output would be economically inequitable andalso inefficient. In many situationsthe most obviousbeing water for irrigation and urban utilitieschargesare more easily quantified and paymcnts more easilycollected than in the case of extension servicesbutcost recovery is still not enforced. The logic of insistingon cost recoVery for extension is therefore not alwaysapparent. Given the generalized nature of extension's"good" (knowledge), costs are probably recovered mostefficiently through indirect methods associated withthe market economy, such as market fees. Of course,before cost recovery is enforced, one should be certainthat the extension system actually operates effectivelyand provides knowledge of tangible value.

Group and individual Approaches

Some extension services have spent considerable en-ergy in evaluating the relative advantages of individualand group approaches to farmers. Often this debate hasbeen conducted at the expense of actual work withfarmers. Contributing to the debate is the fact that theT&V system was initially applied in areas where the needfor group contact was not as apparent as elsewhere. Tosome extent, the discussion of the individual as opposedto the group approach has become a proxy for the de-bate over the relative merits of T&V and other exten-sion systems.

In any discussion of individual and group approachesthe goal of extension mist be kept in mind. Whateverextension method is used, this goal is to reach farmerswho represent a wide range of local production and re-source conditions, and to .reach them effectively, sys-tematically, and in away that can be monitored. In somelocationsfor example, villages highly stratified oncaste linesa group approach is not demonstrablymore effective than a fundamentally individual ap-proach. In others, especially African societies wheregroup cooperation is a significant cultural motivator, agroup approach is often more appropriate. In any loca-tion, however, the extension agent must invariably usea mixture of group and individual approaches: meetings

with groups of farmers for general contact, work plan-ning, and feedback, and visits to the fields of individualfarmers (often in the company of other farmers) to ex-amine specific conditions and to gather material for dis-cussion with other farmers and for feedback to exten-sion management, trainers, and agricultural services ingeneral. Any local institution that can improve exten-sion's access to and impact on individual farmers andthe farming community in general should be utilized,whether traditional leaders or village groups on the onehand or local government authorities and cooperativeson the other.

Village or farmers' groups can often help to identifylocal production constraints and development prioritiesand to monitor the work of government agencies suchas the extension service. Those who advocate the useof these groups, however, often do so on the basis oftwo particular assumptions. One is that effective farm-ers' groups do away with the need for extension agents.The other is that individual fanner contacts (such asthe " contact farmers" under the T&V system) are in-herently unrepresentative of the village at large (seechapter 7).

Both assumptions are erroneous. With effectivefarmers' groups, extension workers will normally beoriented more toward specific problems and local condi-tions; indeed they will often be more active (and cer-tainly better monitored) than in the absence of such agroup (see Morize 1985). The role of the extensionagent may change as village "animators" undertakesome of his basic functions, help farmers to use the ex-tension service better, and apply pressure on the agentto serve the farmers more effectively; but the need foran extension agent is not diwinished. Similarly, incountless instances contact farmersalso known as"lead," "pilot," or "progressive" farmersare unrepre-sentative of their farming community and may even bea barrier to broader contact between extension workersand farmers; but there is alto sufficient evidence thatthis need not occur.' The role of farmers' groups andindividual contacts in extension requires a more prag-matic approach than is often taken, and it is hoped thatthis will receive increased attention.

Extension-Research Linkages

The great number of recent publications and interna-tional symposiums cn linkages between research andextension attest to the need to strengthen the role ofextension in identifying agricultural problems and ori-enting research toward finding solutions to those prob-lems. There it also a renewed awareness that farmers,extension staff, and agricultural researchers operate

9 9

within one overall system and that effective communi-cation is needed among them. An important advance inthis field has been the development of farming systemsresearch and allied approaches.

A major difficulty facing many extension services isthat the technology made available to them by agricul-tural researchers is often not attractive to the farmers.Since the introduction of multidisciplinary diagnosticsurveys by farming systems research, the extension andresearch orgarazations in a number of countries haveundertaken comprehensive field reviews of farmers'production conditions and needs and the suitability ofrecommended technology. As a result, they have beenable to identify gaps in their extension and researchwork. Interesting work is being done in this regard inNigeria and a number of Eastern and Southern Africancountries, and some useful action-oriented reviewshave also taken place in India.2

The use of diagnostic surveys by extension and re-search to assess farmers' actual production conditionsand needs may appear to be an obvious step, given thenot inconsiderable funds devoted to extension and re-search. It is surprising, however, how often agriculturalresearch and extension organizations are not in effec-tive, professional communication with each other, eventhough they are responsible for the same zone. In suchcircumstances, extension attempts to propagate recom-mend?tions long since heard and rejected by farmers,while research works toward optimal yields far beyondthe interest and resources of farmers, even if they wereto learn of the required technology. A development suchas farming systems research, which brings farmers'conditions and needs to the notice of extenion andresearch, can only be encouraged in these conditions.

A related trend is for crop-based extension servicesto handle farmers' other productive activities. Once themethodological expertise of extension field staff is es-tablished and training and research programs appropri-ately oriented, an extension service should pay atten-tion to farmers' noncrop interests. The integration ofextension services for both livestock production (notveterinary services) and crop production is of basic im-portance in many farming societies where crops andlivestock are interrelated. In Ghana and southern Ni-geria the strengthened agricultural extension serviceinitially focused on crops, but the work programs of ex-tension staff now include tree crops, livestock, and farmfisheries. Extension is also involved in farm forestry inareas where there are active programs, as in some In-dian states and African countries (Ethiopia, for exam-ple, on a pilot basis). As staff resources permitandhere quality is a more important consideration thanst?.ff numbersan extension service should become in-volved in all productive farm activities of significance.

New Developments in Agricultural Extension 97

Extension and Women as Farmers

The involvement of women in farming operations var-ies significantly between cultures. It is not uncommon,however, for women to perform a greater share of agri-cultural tasks than men. But technological develop-ments (especially varietal improvements and improvedimplements) often benefit the casks and the crops towhich men's attention is directed, rather than those as-sociated with women.

There is now increased pressure on extension and re-search services to focus more effectively on the tasksperformed by women. Practical solutions are difficult toidea*, however, and even more difficult to imple-ment. For example, the common proposal to have morefemale extension staff is not necessarily an answer if fe-male employees are constrained from traveling freelyand from meeting farmers or if suitable technology forthe tasks performed by women farmers is not available.At the same time, undue emphasis on home economicsby women extension staff only diverts attention fromthe more critical issue of women's role in agriculturalproduction.

In view of the orientation of most extension and re-search services, the composition of their staffs, andtheir poor track record in helping women, the task ofdeveloping effective extension for women :fanners willnot be easy. Attention should continue to be given tothe role of women in agriculture, but priority shouldbe given to small projects in which women-oriented ex-tension methods are .ased not only to disseminate infor-mation but also to gather it, so that extension servicescan learn more about the specific problems women faceand increase staff awareness of the general issues. Ofthe new developments discussed here, the successfulimplementation of effective agricultural extension ac-tivities for women farmers is likely to be the most diffi-cult to achieve, but also perhaps the most significantin the long term.

Conclusion

The developments reviewed here are in many waysnot new; they are established issues in extension thatrequire continuing attention. Fortunately, they willbenefit from what is possibly the most significant of thenew developmentsthe greater attention now beinggiven to agricultural extension by governments, devel-opment organizations, and educational institutions.

Despite the obvious benefits of this attention, thereis also some cause for concern. In the process of dem-onstrating the importance of extension and of justifying

100

98 Michael Baxter

its more central place in agricultural development,there is a tendency to overlook some basic principlesof effectiveness. Analysis and design become increas-ingly complicated; extension systems and farmer-extension-research interaction become overelaborate.Extension, after all, takes place with farmers, most fre-quently in their fields; and it is only there that the im-pact and effectiveness of extension operations can bedetermined. This cardinal reality can easily become ob-scured in the excitement of working in an importantand expanding area. In the design and operation of ex-tension systems, however, the simplest and most directmethod of ensuring frequent, systematic contact be-tween farmer and extension worker, and between ex-tension teci-nical specialist and agricultural researcher,is, until proven otherwise, the best. Perhaps of greatestimportance is a constant review of agricultural exten-sion systems to ensure that staff, functions, and compo-

nents actively contribute to efficient, field-based, farm-er-responsive professional extension.

Notes

1. For contact farmer selection and function, see the pa-pers emanating from the World Bank Haryana AgriculturalUniversity research project on the impact of extension inHaryana (for example, Slade and Feder 1984).

2. The three-volume Status Report of the Tamil NaduNorthwestern Zone produced by the Paiyur Regional Re-search Station of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University inIndia (April 1986) is one such review.

Paper Presented at the Sixth International Farm ManagementCongress, Minneapolis, Minnesota, July 2, 1986.

References

(The word "Processed" describes works that are reproduced by mimeograph, xerography, or similar means; such works maynot be cataloged or commonly available through libraries and may be subject to restricted circulation.)

Aldrich, Howard. 1977. "Visionaries and Villains: The Politicsof Designing Inter-organizational Relations." Organiza-tions and Administrative Sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23-40.

Allo, A. V., and R. H. Schwass. 1982. The Farm Adviser: A Dis-cussion of Agricultural Extension for Developing Coun-tries. FFrc Book Series 23. Taipei; Food and Fertilizer Tech-nology Center.

Almy, Susan. 1974. "Development in Meru, Kenya: Economicand Social Factors in Accelerating Change." Ph.D. disc.,Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

Alverson, Hoyt. 1984. "The Wisdom of Tradition in the Devel-opment of Dry-Land Farming: Botswana.".luman Organi-zation, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1-8.

Anthony, Kenneth, and others. 1979. Agricultural Change inTropical Africa. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

ARDIL 1976. A Brief Description of the ARDU Projects. Asella,Ethiopia: Arssi Regional Development Unit, Planning andEvaluation Section.

1984. Objectives, Activities, Impact, Prospect andProblems. Asella, Ethiopia: Arssi Regional DevelopmentUnit.

Behnke, Roy. 1985. "Measuring the Benefits of Subsistenceversus Commercial Livestock Production in Africa." Agri-cultural Systems, vol. 16, pp. 109-35.

Belloncle, Guy. 1979. Chemin des Villages. Paris: L'Har-mattan.

1980. Femmes et Developpement en Afrique Sahe-lienne: L'Experience Nigerienne d'Animation Feminine,1966-76. Paris: Editions Ouvrieres.

1983. Alphabetisation et Gestion des GroupementsVillageois. Paris: Karthala.

Beishaw, D. G. R., and M. Hall. 1972. "The Analysis and Useof Agricultural Experiment Data in Tropical Africa." EastAfrican Journal of Rural Development, vol. 5, nos. 1 & 2,pp. 39-72.

Benor, Daniel, and Michael Baxter. 1984. Raining and VisitExtension. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. .

Benor, Daniel, James Q. Harrison, and Michael Baxter. 1984.Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Bergman, Goran. 1970. C.ADU Evaluation Studies: Trainingof Model Farmers. cAnu publication 60. Asella, Ethiopia:Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit.

Boserup, Ester. J ^55. Conditions of Agricultural Growth: TheEconomics oI Agrarian Change under Population Pres-sures. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine.

Braude!, Fernand. 1980. Civilisation Materielle, Economie etCapitalisme. Paris: Armand Colin. 3 vols.

Bureau, Rene. 1978. Peril Blanc: Rellerions d'un Ethnologuesur !'Occident. Paris: l'Harmattan.

Byerlee, D., and M. P. Collinson. 1980. Planning Technolo-gies Appropriate to Farmers: Concepts and Procedures.Mexico City: awn.

Cemea, Michael M., John K. Coulter, and John F. A. Russell,eds. 1985. Agricultural Extension by Training and Visit:The Asian Experience. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

CGIAR/TAC. 1978. Fanning Systems Research ar the Interna-tional Agricultural Research Centers. Rome: Technical Ad-visor)? Committee Secretariat, Agriculture Department,Food and Agriculture Organization.

Chapman, N. P. 1987. "The Evolution of TN in Somalia." In

99

102

100 References

John Howell, ed., The Thwining and Visit System of Exten-sion in Practice. Agricultural Administration Unit Occa-sional Paper 8. London: Overseas Development institute.

Collinson, M. P. 1982. Fanning Systems Research in EasternAfrica: The Experience of CIMMY7' and Some National Ag-ricultural Research Services, 1976-81. msu InternationalDevelopment Papers 3. East Lansing: Department of Agri-cultural Economics, Michigan State University.

Cousins, B. 1986. "Developing Appropriate Technical Mes-sages in Agricultural Extension." Department of Agricul-tural Technical and Extension Services, Harare, Zimbabwe.Processed.

Dejene, Alemneh. 1986. Peasant, Agrarian Socialism, andRural Development in Ethiopia. Boulder, Colo.: Westview.

Dey, Jennie. 1984. Women in Rice - Farming Systems. Rome:Food and Agriculture Organization.

Esminger, D., and I. T. Sanders. 1954. "What Is Extension?"In E. des Brunner and others, Farmers of the World. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Ethiopia. Ministry of Agriculture. 1984a. "An Interim Evalua-tion of the T&V Pilot Project in Shoa and Arssi Regions."Addis Ababa.

1984b. "Training and Visit Pilot Project Progress Re-port." Addis Ababa.

Evenson, Robert E. 1986. "The Economics of Extension." InGwyn E. Jones, ed., Investing in Rural Extension: Strate-gies and Goals. Barking, Essex: Elsevier Applied Science.

Feder, Gershon, and Roger H. Slade. 1983. Experiences withthe Monitoring and Evaluation of Thrining and Visit Ex-tension in India. World Bank Staff Working Paper 595.Washington, D.C.

1986. "A Comparative Analysis of Some Aspects of theTraining and Visit System of Agricultural Extension inIndia."Journal of Development Studies 22 (2).

Feder, Gershon, Roger H. Slade, and Lawrence J. Lau. 1985.The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Case Study of theThwining and Visit System in Haryana, India. World BankStaff Working Paper 756. Washington, D.C.

Feder, Gershon, Roger H. Slade, and Anant K. Sundaram.1985. The Training and Visit Extension System: An Analy-sis of Operations and Effects. World Bank Staff WorkingPaper 719. Washington, D.C.

Fortmann, Louis. 1977. "Women and Tanzanian AgriculturalDevelopment." En Paper 77.4. Dar as Salaam: EconomicResearch Bureau.

Franzel, Steven. 1984. "Modeling Farmers' Decisions in aFarming Systems Research Exercise: The Adoption of anImproved Maize Variety in Kirinyaga District, Kenya."Human Organization, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 199-207.

Freire, Paulo. 1969. Education for Critical Consciousness.New York: Continuum.

Gathee, J. W. 1982. "Farming Systems Economics: FittingResearch to Farmers' Conditions." In C. L. Keswani andB. Ndunguru, eds., Intercropphig. Ottawa: InternationalDevelopment Research Centre.

Gebregziabher, Betru. 1975. Integrated Development inRural Ethiopia. Bloomington, Ind..: International Develop-ment Institute.

Gilbert, E. H., and others. 1980. Forming Systems Research:A Critical Appraisal. msu Rural Development Paper 6. EastL 'sing: Department of Agricultural Economics, MichiganState University.

Grove, A. T., and F. M. G. Klein. 1979. Rural Africa. Cam-bridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

Hankins, Thomas. 1974. "So You Get Out Early to Plant, WhoAre You Ahead of?-The Role of Cotton Planting Time inSukuma Agriculture." Ph.D. dins., Clark University,Worcester, Massachusetts.

Haverkart, B., and Niels Roling. 1983. "Six Approaches toRural Extension." International Agricultural Center, Wa-geningen Agricultural University, Holland. Processed.

Herzberg, Frederick. 1966. Work and the Nature of Man.Cleveland, Ohio: World Publishing Co.

Howell, John. 1983. Strategy and Practice in the rand VSys-tern of Agricultural Extension. Agricultural AdministrationNetwork Discussion Paper 10. London: Overseas Develop-ment Institute.

1984a. Conditions for the Design and Managementof Agricultural Extension. Agricultural AdministrationNetwork Discussion Paper 13. London: Overseas Develop-ment Institute.

1984b. Small Fanner Services in India. London:Overseas Development Institute.

1985. "Accountability in Extension Work." In GwynE. Jcnes, ed., Investing in Rural Extension: Strategies andGoals. Barking, Essex: Elsevier Applied Science.

ed. 1987. The Training and Visit System of Exten-sion in Practice. Agricultural Administration Unit Occa-sional Paper 8. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Hunter, Guy, and others. 1974. "Final Report of the Appraisalof CADU and EPID." Stockholm: Swedish International Devel-opment Agency.

IRRI. 1979. Farm Level Constraints to High Rice Yields inAsia, 1974-77. Los Banos: International Rice Research In-stitute.

Israel, Arturo. 1982. "The Training and Visit System: A Warn-ing." Project Policy Department, World Bank, Washington,D.C. Processed.

Israel, Arturo, and others. 1984. "Initial Assessment of theTraining and -visit Experience in Burkina Faso." ProjectPolicy Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Pro-cessed.

Kenya. Ministry of Agriculture and Land Development. 1984."The Kenya Experience." Paper presented at the AfricanWorkshop on Extension and Research, Eldoret, Kenya. Af-rica Technical Department, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Kiggundu, M., and others. 1983. "Administrative Theory andPractice in Developing Countries: A Sy.thesis." Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, vol. 28, pp. 66-84.

Korten, David. 1980. "Community Organization and Rural

03

40EAC FINAL PACES W/B06orf +702.00Marl .3:28p Agricultural Extension in Africa World Bark

Development: A Learning Process Approach." Public Ad-ministration Review, vol 40, no. 5, pp. 481-511.

Krafft, Nicholas, and Nigel Roberts. 1984. "Proceedings of theAfrican Workshop on Extension and Research, Eldoret,Ktr,ya." Africa Technical Department, World Bank, Wash-ington, D.C.

Leagans, J. P. 1961. "Some Principles and Concepts of Exten-sion Vrogram Building." Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University.Processed.

Leonard, David. 1977. Reaching the Peasant Farmer: Organi-zation Theory and Practice in Kenya. Chicago, Ill.: Univer-sity of Chicago Press.

Lowdermilk, M. L. K. 1981. "Promoting Increased Food Pro-duction in the 1980s: Approaches to Agricultural Extensionin Different Production Systems." Proceedings of the Sec-ond Annual Agricultural Sector Symposium, January 5-9,1981, World Bank, Washington D.C.

Maunder, A. H. 1973. Agricultural Extension: A ReferenceManual. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

Morgan, W. B., and R. J. C. Munton. 1971. Agricultural Geog-raphy. London: Methuen.

Moris, Jon. 1970. "The Agrarian Revolution in Central Kenya:A Study of Farm Innovation in Embu District." Ph.D. diss.,Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.

-. 1981. Managing Induced Rural Development.Bloomington: International Development Institute, Indi-ana University.

1983a. "Reforming Agricultural Extension and Re-search Services in Africa." Agricultural Administration Net-work Discussion Paper 11. London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute.

. 1983b. "What Do We Know about African Agricul-tural Development? The Role of Extension Performance Re-analyzed." Consultant's report for the Bureau of Scienceand Technology, U.S. Agency for International Develop-ment, Washington, D.C. Processed.

Moris, Jon, and Colby Hatfield. 1982. "A New Reality: WesternTechnology Faces Pastoralism in the Masai Project." InThe Role of Anthropologists in Interdisciplinary Teams De-veloping Improved Food Production Technology. LosBanos: International 7lice Research Institute.

Morize, Jean. 1985. L'Animation des Groupements Villageois.Paris: Editions Forhom.

Mosher, A. T. 1976. Thinking about Rural Development. NewYork: Agricultural Development Council.

1978. An Introduction to Agricultural Extension.New York: Agricultural Development Council.

Mutiso, Roberts. 1979. "Career-role/Family-role Conflictamong Women Agricultural Extension Officers in Kenya."Journal of Eastern African Research and Development, vol.9, no. 1, pp. 67-77.

Nekby, Bengt. 1971. CADU: An Ethiopian Experiment in De-veloping Peasant Farming. Stockholm: Prisma.

Norman, David W. 1983. The Farming Systems Approach:Relevancy for the Small Fanner. msu Rural Development

References 101

Paper 5. East Lansing: Department of Agricultura; Eco-nomics. Michigan State University.

1982. Farming Systems Research Background Pa-pers: The Farming Systems Approach to Research. Farm-ing Systems Research Series 3. Manhattan: Kansas StateUniversity.

Okigbo, B. N. 1982. "Farming Systems Research: Part 1, AnOverview: Systems Concept anu Its Application to Agricul-tural Production or Farming Systems; Part 2, Its Defini-tion, What It Entails, and Scope; Part 3, Organization andManagement." Papers presented at Training Workshop onFarming Systems Research, Benin City, NIFOR, July30-August 4. 1982. Processed.

1983. "New Technologies and Management in Tropi-cal African Farming Systems." In E. U. Von Weizaeker andothers, New Frontiers in Technology Applications: Integra-tion of Emerging and Traditional Technologies. Dublin:Tycooly.

Paula, Achole. 1978. Women's Access to Land and Their Rolein Agriculture and Decision-making on the Farm: Experi-ence of the Joluo of Kenya. IDS Discussion Paper 263. Nai-robi: Institute for Development Studies, University ofNairobi.

Perraton, Hilary, Dean T. Jamison, Janet Jenkins, FrancoisOrivel, and Laurence Wolff. 1983. Basic Education and Ag-ricultural Extension: Costs, Effects, and Alternatives.World Bank Staff Working Paper 564. Washington, D.C.

Perrin, R. K., and others. 1976. From Agronomic Data toFarmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Man-ual. Information Bulletin 27. Mexico City: cimmrr.

Ramakrishnan, S. 1985. "Recurrent Agricultural Expendi-tures in Kenya." In John Howell, ed., Recurrent Costs andAgricultural Development. London: Overst.ds DevelopmentInstitute.

Richards, Paul. 1985. Indigenous Agricultural Revolution.London: Hutchinson.

Rivera, William M. 1985. "Comparative Extension: The Coop-erative Extension Service, T and V and FSRID." Universityof Maryland. Unpublished.

Ruthenberg, Hans. 1976, 2d ed. Farming Systems in theTropics. Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press.

Ruttan, Vernon. 1982. Agricultural Research Policy. Minne-apolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Saville, A. H. 1965. Extension in Rural Commodities. Lon-don: Oxford University Press.

Shaner, W. W., and others. 1981. Farming Systems Researchand Development: Guidelines for Developing Countries.Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Slade, Roger, and Gershon Feder. 1984. "Contact Farmer Se-lection and Extension Visits: The Training and Visit Systemin Haryana, India." American Journal of Agricultural Eco-nomics, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 6-21.

Smith, William E., Francis J. Lethem, and Ben A. Thoolen.1980. The Design of Organizations for Rural DevelopmentProjects: A Progress Report. World Bank Staff WorkingPaper 375. Washington, D.C.

104

40EAG FINAL PACES W/1306of 1-702.00.Mar.1-3M3p Agricultural Extension in Africa World Bank

102 References

Spedding, C. R. W. 1975. The Biology of Agricultural Sys-tems. London: Academic Press.

Staudt, Kathleen. 1978. "Administrative Resources, PoliticalPatrons and Redressing Sex Inequities: A Case from West-ern Kenya."Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 12, no. 4, pp.399-414.

Stavis, Ben. 1979. Agricultural Extension for Small Farm-ers. Working Paper 3. East Lansing: Michigan StateUniversity.

Sutherland, Alistair. 1986. Extension Workers, SmallscaleFanners and Agricultural Research in Kabwe Rural. Agri-

cultural Administration Network Discussion Paper 15. Lon-don: Overseas Development Inssitute.

Swantz, Marja-Liisa. 1985. Women in Development: A Cre-ative Role Denied' London: C. Hurst.

Tecle, Tesfai. 1975. An Approach to Rural Development: ACase Study of the Ethiopian Package Projects. RuralAfricana 28. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

von Blanckenburg, Peter. 1982. "The Training and Visit Sys-tem in Agricultural Extension: A Review of First Experi-ence." Quarterly Journal of Intemati.:nal Agriculture, vol.21, no. 1, pp. 6-25.

THE WORLD BANK

The first collection of articles on the practical application of different methods of agriculturalextension in Africa, this book is a lively contribution to the controversy over which form ofextension is most appropriate for conditions in African agriculture. Although the World Bankhas long supported the training and visit (T&v) system of extension, first developed by DanielBenor in India, its application in Africa is questioned by some of the authors, who propose,rnociifications or alternatives to T&V.

The extension systems in more than a dozen east and west African countries are described.They include commodity-based extension services (such as those provided by the large cotton andtobacco companies in Africa), the farmer-focused approach of the T&V system, community-basedextension that relies on the participation of farmers through village associations and coopera-tives, and the farming systems approach that takes account of the whole agricultural productionenterprise and farm family.

Among the problems considered are cost-effectiveness, the weakness of African systems forgenerating technology, the difficulties of forging more productive partnerships between research-ers, extensionists, and farmers, and the ineffectiveness of public services and the fragility ofinstitutions and infrastructure in most of Sub-Saharan Africa. Other issues discussed are thelimited participation of farmers in the management of extension and the tendency of governmentextension services to respond more to bureaucratic imperatives than to farmers' needs. Theauthors, who are largely extension practitioners, differ markedly in their solutions to theseproblems, but several call for blending the strengths of the various extension systems to serve thespecial needs of African agriculture.

Nigel Roberts is now the resident representative of the World Bank in Nepal and was formerlywith the Eastern and Southern Africa Projects Department of the Bank, specializing in agricul-tural extension.

WORLD BANK PUBLICATIONS OF RELATED INTEREST

African Agricultural Research and Technological DevelopmentEdited by Donald C. Pickering. Also in French

Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit SystemDaniel Benor, Jar. zs Q. Harrison, and Michael Baxter. Also in French

Guidelines Iv: Strengthening National Agricultural Research Systems in Sub-Saharan AfricaISNAR and SPAAR. Also in French

The Impact of Agricultural Extension in Tropical AfricaHans E. Jahnke, Dieter Kirschke, Johannes Lagemann, and others. CGIAR Study Paper 21.

International Agricultural Research Centers: Their Impact on Spend,tg for National AgriculturalResearch and ExtensionRobert Evenson. CGIAR Study Paper 22.

Monitoring and Evaluation in Extension AgenciesJosette Murphy and Tim J. Marchant. Technical Paper 79. Also in French

Training and Visit ExtensionDaniel Benor and Michael Baxter. Also in French

106ISBN 0-8213-1195-6