Farmers’ Participation in Extension Programs and Technology Adoption in Rural Nepal: A Logistic Regression Analysis
Chapter One
Researchย Objectives
Theย objectivesย of thisย studyย wereย to:
- Determine the main factors influencing small-scale farmer innovation and adoption of recommended technology;
- Explore the role and influence that extension has on small-scale farmer innovation and adoption of recommended technology; and
- Determine key attributes of an appropriate extension system and modes for small- scale farmers that may provide a lasting solution to the technology adoption issue.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoreticalย Framework:ย Definingย Agriculturalย Extension
The definition of agricultural extension has been much debated over the years. Earlierย definitions focused on transfer of agricultural knowledge, information, skills and technologyย for the purpose of improving farm productivity. Then, definitions began to include a bottom-ย up flow of information in the form of feedback from farmers to experts; a top-down flow ofย agricultural technologies or information from technocrats to farmers and a bottom up flow ofย informationย from theย farmersย toย technocrats (Pazvakavambwaย & Hakutangwi,ย 2006)
In recent debates, the role of farmers in the extension exchange has been given moreย prominence in definitions of extension. Birner et al. (2009) and, similarly, Davis (2008) viewย agricultural extension as a process whereby all stakeholders are involved in problem-solvingย and acquiring advice in terms of technologies and information for the betterment of farmersโย livelihoods.
Adding another dimension, Rivera and Qamar (2003) suggested extension can noย longer be viewed as a rigid discipline; but as a knowledge and information support function.ย Theyย definedย extensionย asย aย combinationย ofย learningย methods,ย facilitationย andย advisory
services which depend on other services such as marketing and credit facilities operatingย under prevailing economic policies and physical infrastructure for it to be successful (Riveraย & Qamar, 2003). Similarly, Worth (2014) frames extension as a โconversation aimed atย building the capacity of the farmer to engage in scientific enquiryโ (p. 91) around agriculturalย production,ย farmย management,ย agriculturalย economics,ย andย socialย andย environmentalย sustainability.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Researchย Design
Advertisements
ย Studyย areaย andย Sampling
The study was conducted in Nepal Communal area of Nepal, in Southern Asia.
To eliminate bias and ensure representativeness multi-stage stratified random sampling wasย used to select a study sample of 256 participant farmers from eight communities in Nepal rural area. This sampling technique was used toย caterย for equal representation of males and females and to ensure all villages within eachย wardย wereย represented.ย Theย Wardsโย extensionย agentsย assistedย inย thisย process.ย Dueย toย the relatively low number (21) of extension personnel servicing the Lower Communal area, allย theย extension workers participated in the study.
Dataย gatheringย methods
The study used both primary and secondary data (review of relevant literature). Literatureย reviewed on factors affecting technology adoption by small-scale farmers, characteristics andย circumstances of small-scale farmers, extension approaches and modes used in small-scaleย farming systems, and roles of extension in technology adoption and innovation by farmersย provided a benchmark for the primary research that followed. Primary data was solicitedย using three instruments: focus group discussions (Merton et al., 1956; Krueger, 1994); semi-ย structured interviews (Barriball and While, 1994; Campion et al., 1988); and participantย observationย (Marshallย andย Rossman,ย 1989,ย Kawulich,ย 2005).ย Theseย methodsย wereย usedย sequentially,ย eachย buildingย onย theย resultsย ofย theย previousย dataย collectionย exercise;ย eachย validating the data of the previous session. Each of the data gathering method is discussedย separately:
CHAPTER FOUR
Findings
Farmerย demographicsย andย circumstances
The majority (47%) of the interviewed farmers are above 50 years of age, while youngย farmers (less than 35 years old) accounted for only 9.5% (Table 1). This finding is consistentย with Masere (2011) that most of the farmers in rural areas of Nepal are generally olderย (over 50ย years) as mostย young people migrate from rural farming areas into towns andย neighbouringย countriesย in search of non-agriculturalย work.
Although most farmers (89.5%) have some formal education, only 35% managed to reach theย Ordinary Levels or better (Table 1). Only 10.5% of the farmers did not attend any formalย educationalย school.ย Ofย these,ย theย majorityย wereย theย oldestย womenย withinย theย study population. Despite the low level of education of the Nepal farmers, most of them areย highlyย experienced inย farming, withย 66% havingย moreย thanย 10years ofย farmingย experience.
CHAPTERย FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONSย ANDย CONCLUSIONS
ย Conclusions
Theย studyย highlightedย thatย AGRITEXย hasย notย beenย genuinelyย engagingย farmersย inย anย extension conversation aimed at building the farmersโ capacity to innovate as its focus is toย accelerate technology adoption. This has been one of the key reasons for poor adoption ofย recommended technology by farmers. Long gone are the days when extension agents wereย expected as a sole mode of operation to disseminate technology developed by researchers toย farmersย forย adoption.ย Farmersโย viewsย andย theirย participationย haveย becomeย importantย inย definingย farmersโย challenges,ย andย inย developingย andย testingย possibleย solutionsย orย technologies.ย Thisย farmerย involvementย hasย potentialย toย improveย farmersโย decision-makingย and innovation skills. In fact, farmers have shown their ability to take control of issuesย affecting their livelihoods by demanding certain services they deem are appropriate to dealย with their challenges regardless of what has been offered or recommended by extensionย agents.
The study further noted some mismatches between technology disseminated or โimposedโ onย farmers and technologies really needed by farmers. For instance, farmers were demandingย technologies that would move them from being primary producers into the realm of valueย addition, including preserving and canning of surplus produce for marketing and selling later.ย Despite this, extension agents were disseminating completely different technologies, whichย they thought were needed by farmers. The key factor here is that farmers have great insightย intoย whatย they needย toย improveย theirย livelihoods.ย Thisย furtherย emphasisesย theย needย forย extension and other stakeholders like technology developers to engage farmers in developingย technologies that reflect a genuine understanding of the farmersโ context, system, aims andย problems.
The study proposed an appropriate extension system for small-scale farmers that must beย backed-upย byย extensionย agentsย whoย areย committed,ย flexible,ย andย highlyย competentย inย technical andย extension methods and practicesย in offering extension services to farmers.ย These agents also require supporting policy frameworks and management systems that createย andย facilitateย theย requiredย flexibility,ย andย whichย haveย builtย intoย themย mechanismsย forย ensuringย that theย farmersย areย engaged throughout.
The study found that, although extension agents generally have basic education, workingย experience and maturity to perform their jobs, they are hindered by lack of in-service trainingย opportunities designed to strengthen their competencies and brokering skills needed in aย diverseย multi-actorย extensionย system.ย Otherย challengesย currentlyย facingย AGRITEXย andย affecting service delivery include poor funding, poor remuneration, poor infrastructure andย facilities (transport, accommodation, etc.), and poor general working conditions โ and anย appropriateย policyย and management framework.
The study found that the current extension system for Nepal Communal area hasย changedย overย the lastย two decades. Where once there was only theย public (AGRITEX)ย extension agentsย bringing technology to farmers, there isย now aย pluralistic system whereย otherย actors,ย mostย notablyย NGOs,ย agro-dealersย andย researchers,ย areย alsoย bringingย technologies for farmers to adopt. These emerging actors however cannot work with farmersย without the authority of AGRITEX and are mandated to have AGRITEX field extensionย agents to introduce them to farmers. In this way the role of extension has expanded to includeย brokering and facilitation. This has been both a blessing and a curse for the extension agents.ย Onย oneย handย theย agents,ย whoย haveย beenย failingย toย doย theirย jobsย effectivelyย andย efficientlyย due toย lackย ofย resourcesย likeย transportย andย materialsย toย trainย farmers,ย areย nowย ableย toย doย soย throughย theย newย actors.ย Onย theย otherย hand,ย theyย areย becomingย passively-aggressiveย orย apathetic. They perceive that they are no longer the drivers of extension service delivery asย their work is now โdictatedโ by these other actors who have the resources and technologies toย helpย farmers.ย Further,ย extensionย agentsย complainedย ofย farmerย apathyย towardsย extensionย projects where NGOs, agro-dealers are not involved. Conversely, farmers are eager to attendย meetingsย andย workshopsย andย projectsย involvingย NGOsย andย agro-dealersย โย somethingย extension agents attributed to availability of resources including inputs and technology forย training,ย demonstration and testingย to farmers inย theirย own fields.
Beyond the proposed reforming and redefining of extension roles in an appropriate extensionย system, the study found that farmers are more likely to adopt technologies which are cheaper,ย simpler,ย lessย riskyย andย compatibleย withย biophysicalย farmย conditions,ย simultaneouslyย improving farm production. Furthermore, modern technology with similar traits to farmersโย own indigenous practices or technologies developed by farmers and/or their counterparts areย easilyย adoptedย forย exampleย conservationย agricultureย andย thermalย compost.ย Farmersโย circumstances like their resource-endowments, willingness to take risk also play a major roleย in technologyย adoption.
Reflectingย onย theseย somewhatย disparateย collective,ย aย numberย issuesย haveย beenย surfacedย relevant to the extension services provided to small-scale farmer in Gweru, Nepal. First,ย theย findingsย suggestย anย earnestnessย onย theย partย ofย bothย farmersย andย extension.ย Theyย allย wantย toย findย a way forward.ย Thatย theirย viewsย of whatย shouldย be done vary,ย isย toย be expected.ย Farmer perspectives are necessarily differentย from extension agents. The issue is not to pitย one against the other, but to work towards building a common vision and shared pathwayย towardsย its realisation.
All of this point to two things the study explicitly explored and one thing the findings imply. First, the capacity of farmers and extension agents needs to be made a priority. In addition to building their practical farming and farm management capacity, farmers need to learn how to learn, how to engage with scientific enquiry and to take command of these processes. In addition to being technically competent (with frequent refreshing), extension agents need to learn how to foster the capacity of farmers along the lines suggested in a learning approach to extension as suggested in the Agriflection example. Extension agents need to help farmers become better at engaging with scientific enquiry โ to put them in a better position to command the factors that affect the sustainability of their farming enterprises, and thereby,ย theirย livelihoods.
The second is that extension policy and policy frameworks appear to be out of alignment withย theย currentย circumstancesย obtaining,ย atย leastย inย theย Gweruย areaย ofย Nepal.ย Thisย isย manifested by a number of false dichotomies that have emerged during the analysis of thisย study.ย The first,ย mentionedย earlier, isย the dichotomyย of farmerย versusย extensionย agent.
Onย theย issueย ofย technologyย adoptionย isย anotherย falseย dichotomy.ย Theย studyย foundย thatย AGRITEXย engagesย primarily inย top-downย transferย ofย technology toย farmersย whoย wouldย rather be consulted first and otherwise involved in the development of technology drawing onย their better knowledge of their own circumstances and on their local (indigenous) knowledgeย and practices, and perhaps using them as a starting point for developing new or improvingย existing technologies โ including tools, systems, methods and processes. Again avoiding theย pitfalls of dichotomous thinking, the study clearly shows the need for measured decision-ย making about the approaches and modes of extension to be employed. Choice of extensionย approaches is to be governed by the intended focus and purpose of the engagement, theย anticipated roles of extension and of farmers, the nature of learning to take place through theย engagement, and the social capital and sustainability issues contextualising the extensionย conversationย (Figureย 2).
Further, as already discussed, some technologies cannot be developed with farmers on theย ground, as it is impractical to do so. Where such technologies have already been developedย through other processes that, of necessity, excluded farmer involvement, technology transferย mayย beย moreย appropriate.ย Butย thisย doesย notย meanย thatย theseย technologiesย mustย beย implemented with its historical element of coercion. There is still ample room for farmers toย beย engaged,ย asย theย respondentsย inย thisย studyย haveย indicated,ย throughย fieldย days,ย groupย meetings, look-and-learn tours and demonstration and trials where imported technologies canย be tested, studied and adapted collaboratively with famers. The choice of approach must be aย measured choice based on a thorough understanding of the farmersโ contextsย โ which canย only be gained by working and walking with the farmers (individually or collectively) face-ย to-faceย in theย field.
A similar argument can be postulated for modes of extension. Whether to use individual orย groupย modesย shouldย beย determinedย byย lookingย particularlyย atย theย intendedย purposeย ofย the engagement and the stage of learning in the development of new and/or introduction ofย importedย technology.ย Again,ย it requiresย soberย andย measuredย consideration.
Relatedย toย approachesย andย modesย isย theย challengeย ofย pluralisticย extension.ย Theย studyย notedย theย tensionย betweenย AGRITEXย (public)ย extensionย agentsย andย otherย role-playersย onย theย ground. There need be no competition among role-players and service providers. When theย developmentย ofย theย farmerย isย theย focusย ofย extension,ย allย resourcesย shouldย beย enlisted.ย Collaborationย (whichย shouldย beย possible)ย isย empowering,ย whereasย competivenessย isย paralysingย โ and itย paralysesย farmers andย serviceย providers alike.
The final false dichotomy surfaced by this study is the tension between livelihoods andย production.ย Theย generalย tendencyย ofย AGRITEXย hasย beenย toย focusย onย increasingย productionย as an end unto itself. Farmers haveย expressedย the need for theirย farming enterprises toย contributeย moreย sustainablyย toย theirย livelihoodsย onย aย longer-termย basis.ย Butย theย twoย โgoalsโย areย notย necessarilyย mutuallyย exclusive.ย Whatย isย requiredย isย bringingย theย livelihoodย sustainability demands together with the production increases. The study offers no evidenceย that the farmers do not want to increase their production levels. If fact, it has found quite theย opposite. Farmers do want to see greater production. They want to expand their farmingย operationsย into value-addingย spaces.
Allย ofย thisย hasย implicationsย forย policy.
Policyย implicationsย andย recommendations
An evaluation of AGRITEX against the theoretical framework developed in this study, callsย for some technical and philosophical changes to be effected within Nepalโ extensionย system if farmer innovation and technology adoption issues are to be addressed. AGRITEXย needย toย changeย itsย philosophyย ofย focusingย moreย onย technologyย adoptionย ratherย thanย developing capacity farmers, and perceiving farmers as mere recipients and beneficiary ofย advisory services and technologies. Farmersโ indigenous knowledge and experiences andย perceptive should be valued and considered in developing interventions aimed at addressingย theirย challenges.ย Thus,ย farmersย shouldย beย equalย partnersย withย extensionย andย otherย keyย stakeholders like technology developers,ย agro-dealersย andย NGOs inย anย extension system.ย Only then can genuine engagement be possible, where farmers determine what they want toย learn about and participate in development of technologies tailor made for their challengesย andย farmsโย biophysical conditions.
Although AGRITEX extension agents have basic educational qualifications for extensionย work and valuable working experience there are hampered in effectively executing theirย duties due to lack of in-service training opportunities. This calls for the need for regular in-ย serviceย trainingย aimedย atย updatingย theirย knowledgeย andย skillsย includingย learningย newย technologiesย soย thatย whenย farmersย demandย adviceย orย informationย supportย onย theseย technologies,ย agents willย beย able to assist.
A key part of these in-service training should also be on equipping extension agents withย network building, facilitation and brokering skills in line with the changes in the extensionย landscape from one dominated by public extension agency (AGRITEX) to a pluralistic oneย involving new actors, which is the case on the ground. The study noted the passive aggressiveย andย apatheticย attitudeย ofย extensionย agentsย towardsย emergingย newย actors,ย asย theyย feltย theseย new actorsโ activities are now dictating their day-to-day duties. This indicates that agents areย yet to embrace their new roles within the pluralistic extension system. Hence, the need forย training aimed at sensitising agents on their โnewโ roles. The new actors are in a betterย position to assist farmers in extension service delivery due to the resources at their disposal,ย which AGRITEX currently do not have. However, there may be a danger of these actorsย pursuing their own agendas (i.e promote their own technologies) to benefit themselves at theย expense of farmers. Consequently, there is need for extension to play the important role ofย brokering and facilitation between the diverse actors. And there is a need for clear policyย guidelinesย thatย areย equally bindingย onย public,ย privateย andย NGOย sectorย role-playersย andย serviceย providers.
The study recommends building on the strengths of NGOs, agro-dealers and donors andย coupling them to the public extension (AGRITEX), who are trusted by farmers and areย mandated to serve farmers, to ensure improved service delivery in an environment whereย farmers are not exploited and that service provision is coherent and liberating, rather thanย paralysing. Thus, where feasible and where it strengthens and improves the overall extensionย system,ย AGRITEXย shouldย engageย inย public-privateย partnershipsย withย relevantย privateย institutions that are currently working with the farmers to ease their funding challenges. Inย this way AGRITEX and its agents can be able to offer improved and high quality serviceย deliveryย to its primaryย clients, mainlyย small-scale farmers.
The study further recommends the redefinition of roles for extension agents to more ofย innovationย brokersย soย asย toย meetย theย diverseย needsย ofย small-scale farmersย andย otherย keyย actors atย anyย givenย time.ย Inย thisย roleย theย mainย functionsย includeย linkingย diverseย actorsย andย actingย asย a catalyst for collective learning, facilitation, mediation, documenting learning and translatingย to ensure actors from diverse backgrounds are understanding each other (Swaansย et al.,ย 2013). One of the critical roles is linking farmers with firms offering credit facilities at viableย interestย ratesย to enableย farmersย to acquire theirย desired technologies,ย given that costย ofย technologiesย andย lackย ofย creditย facilitiesย forย farmersย wereย twoย majorย reasonsย forย poorย adoptionย ofย desired technology.
Finally, as noted earlier, the study documents the readiness of farmers to move from their current primary roles of growing crops into the realm of value addition and processing stage. Farmers themselves are keen on undertaking the value addition directly and not through selling to middle-men, so that they can make more income. However, their capacity to do this needs to be developed further. This suggests yet another role for extension where in a pluralistic flexible system, the government (perhaps through AGRITEX) together with other relevant role-players should collaborate to help farmers to form their own business where farmers are primary owners. In this, setting up companies that run things for the farmers should be avoided. Farmers must not merely be the producers of raw materials or crop earning low incomes, but should be assisted to gain the capacity to expand their farming enterprises vertically and horizontally where they can capture a share of the value of the value chain. The key to this, as this study has amply demonstrated, is in building the capacity of farmers to manage their enterprises, engage with their sustainability contexts and, above all, to learn so that they can engage continuously with scientific enquiry and innovate within a systems context with a view to ensuring the continued sustainability of their livelihoods.
References
- Allahyari,ย M.ย S.,ย Chizari,ย Mย andย Mirdamadi,ย S.ย M.ย (2009).ย Extension-educationย methodsย toย facilitateย learningย inย sustainableย agriculture.ย Journalย ofย Agri.ย Soc.ย Sci.,ย 5:ย 27โ30.
- Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A.,ย Spielman, D. J., Horna, D., Benin, S and Cohen, M. (2009). From best practice to best fit: Aย framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide,ย Theย Journal of Agricultural Education andย Extension,ย 15(4): 341-355.
- Chambers, R. (1991). Farmers’ practices, professionals, and participation: Challenges for soilย and water conservation. Summary proceedings of a workshop. 19-21 June 1991. ICRISATย Center,ย India.
- Masuku, M. M. (2011, October 31). Feedback: A development practitionerโs perception.ย Retrieved from http://livestockfocus.blogspot.com/2011/10/feedba-development-ย practitioners.html
- Swaans,ย K.,ย Cullen,ย B.,ย vanย Rooyen,ย A.,ย Adekunle,ย A.,ย Ngwenya,ย H.,ย Lema,ย Zย andย Nederlof,
- (2013). Dealing with critical challenges in South Asian innovation platforms: Lessons forfacilitation.Knowledge Management forย Development Journal,ย 9(3): 116-135.
- Swanson, B. E. (2006). The changing role of agricultural extension in a global economy.ย Journalย ofย Internationalย Agricultural andย Extension Education,ย 13(3):ย 5-17.