Smallholder Farmers’ Perspectives on Advisory Extension Services: A Case Study of the Gamo Communities of Southern Ethiopia
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Content (accuracy and relevancy of advice),
- timeline (duration and availability),
- feedback (availability and mode of communication),
- relevance (meeting the needs and requirements for recipients/participants),
- targeting (appropriacy for recipients/participants),
- efficiency (of results obtained against resources invested), and
- effectiveness (achievement of objectives).
2. Results
2.1. Advisory Extension Services—Access, Participation, Service Delivery, and Impact
2.1.1. Presence of and Access to Advisory Extension Services
2.1.2. Smallholder Farmers’ Participation in Advisory Extension Services
2.1.3. Smallholder Farmers’ Responses Concerning Service Delivery and the Impact of Advisory Extension Services
- Timelines: The duration and availability of Advisory Extension Services was short and irregular, and there were insufficient options.
- Feedback: Advisory Extension Services required further following up and monitoring.
- Relevance: Influenced by other factors, such as seasonality, topography, and availability of resources.
2.2. Advisory Extension Services—Suitable Approaches, Methods, and Alternative Options
- AES targeting specific socio-demographics (e.g., younger and/or older generations and marginalized groups);
- AES focusing on specific situations, such as climate change and disease prevention; and
- relocation to more productive areas
3. Discussion
3.1. Advisory Extension Services—Access, Participation, Service Delivery, and Impact
3.1.1. Smallholder Farmers’ Access to and Participation in Advisory Extension Services
3.1.2. Smallholder Farmers’ Responses Concerning Service Delivery and the Impact of Advisory Extension Services
3.2. Advisory Extension Services—Suitable Approaches, Methods, and Alternative Options
3.2.1. Existing Approaches and Methods
3.2.2. Suitable Approaches, Methods, and Alternative Options
4. Materials and Methods
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
AES | Advisory Extension Services |
CBOs/FBOs | Community-/Farmer-Based Organisations |
CSOs/NGOs | Civil Society Organisations/Non-Governmental Organisations |
DAs | Development Agents |
EPRDF | Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front |
FFSs | Farmer Field Schools |
FGD&A | Focus Group Discussion and Activity |
GoE | Government of Ethiopia |
GTP | Growth and Transformation Plan |
KIIs | Key Informant Interviews |
PES | Participatory Extension System |
PIF | Policy and Investment Framework |
SNNPR | Southern Nations’, Nationalities’ and Peoples’ Region |
SSQs | Semi-Structured Questionnaire |
T&V | Training and Visit |
ToT | Transfer of Technology |
References
- Alobo Loison, Sarah. 2015. Rural livelihood diversification in sub-Saharan Africa: A literature review. The Journal of Development Studies 51: 1125–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, Jack. R., and Gershon Feder. 2004. Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and Hard Realities. World Bank Research Observer 19: 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assefa, Amanuel. 2014. A Pathway to A Lasting Partnership: Prolinnova–Ethiopia’s Decade of Experience with Innovative Farmers. Addis Ababa: PROLINNOVA-Ethiopia. [Google Scholar]
- ATA. 2017a. Transformation Agenda; Addis Ababa: Agricultural Transformation Agency. Available online: http://www.ata.gov.et/# (accessed on 30 June 2017).
- ATA. 2017b. Ethiopia’s Agricultural Extension System: Vision, Systemic Bottlenecks and Priority Interventions. Addis Ababa: Agricultural Transformation Agency. [Google Scholar]
- ATA, and MoA. 2014. National Strategy for Ethiopia’s Agricultural Extension System: Vision, Systemic Bottlenecks and Priority Interventions. Addis Ababa: Agricultural Transformation Agency and Ministry of Agriculture. [Google Scholar]
- Baffoe, Gideon, and Hirotaka Matsuda. 2015. Understanding the Determinants of Rural Credit Accessibility: The Case of Ehiaminchini, Fanteakwa District, Ghana. Journal of Sustainable Development 8: 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bayu, Teshome Yirgu. 2012. The Guge mountain range: Gis application for mountain resource degradation and rural livelihood. Journal of Research in Environmental Science and Technology 1: 91–99. [Google Scholar]
- Belay, Kassa. 2002. Constraints to agricultural extension work in Ethiopia: The insiders’ view. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 31: 63–79. [Google Scholar]
- Benin, Samuel, and Michael Johnson. 2008. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) System for the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAAP) (No. H04279). Colombo: International Water Management Institute. [Google Scholar]
- Benin, Samuel, Ephraim Nkonya, Geresom Okecho, Joseé Randriamamonjy, Edward Kato, Geofrey Lubade, and Miriam Kyotalimye. 2011. Returns to spending on agricultural extension: The case of the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) program of Uganda. Agricultural Economics 42: 249–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berhanu, Kassahun. 2012. The Political Economy of Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia: Economic Growth and Political Control. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies. [Google Scholar]
- Biggs, Stephen D. 1989. Resource-Poor Farmer Participation in Research: A Synthesis of Experiences from Nine National Agricultural Research Systems. Hague Países Bajos, No. 3. Hague: OFCOR-Comparative Study. [Google Scholar]
- Biggs, Stephen D. 1990. A multiple source of innovation model of agricultural research and technology promotion. World Development 18: 1481–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Biggs, Stephen. 2008. The lost 1990s? Personal reflections on a history of participatory technology development. Development in Practice 18: 489–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birner, Regina, Kristin Davis, John Pender, Ephraim Nkonya, Ponniah Anandajayasekeram, Javier Ekboir, Adiel Mbabu, David J. Spielman, Daniela Horna, Samuel Benin, and et al. 2009. From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 15: 341–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CBD. 2014. Ethiopia–Country Profile, Status and Trends of Biodiversity. Montreal: CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) Secretariat, Available online: http://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/default.shtml?country=et#status (accessed on 30 November 2014).
- Christoplos, Ian, Peta Sandison, and Sanne Chipeta. 2012. Guide to Evaluating Rural Extension. Lindau: Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. [Google Scholar]
- Croppenstedt, Andre, Mulat Demeke, and Meloria M. Meschi. 2003. Technology adoption in the presence of constraints: The case of fertilizer demand in Ethiopia. Review of Development Economics 7: 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, Kristin, Ephraim Nkonya, Edward Kato, Daniel Ayalew Mekonnen, Martins Odendo, Richard Miiro, and Jackson Nkuba. 2012. Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa. World Development 40: 402–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dawson, Neil, Adrian Martin, and Thomas Sikor. 2016. Green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa: Implications of imposed innovation for the Wellbeing of rural smallholders. World Development 78: 204–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Douthwaite, Boru, Nathalie Beaulieu, Mark Lundy, and Dai Peters. 2009. Understanding how participatory approaches foster innovation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7: 42–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elias, Asres, Makoto Nohmi, Kumi Yasunobu, and Akira Ishida. 2016. Farmers’ Satisfaction with Agricultural Extension Service and Its Influencing Factors: A Case Study in North West Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 18: 39–53. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. 2006. Evaluation Methods for the European Union’s External Assistance. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. [Google Scholar]
- Faure, Guy, Kristin E. Davis, Catherine Ragasa, Steven Franzel, and Suresh C. Babu. 2016. Framework to Assess Performance and Impact of Pluralistic Agricultural Extension Systems: The Best-Fit Framework Revisited. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute, vol. 1567. [Google Scholar]
- Fenta, Tesfahun, and Amanuel Assefa. 2009. Harnessing local and outsiders’ knowledge: Experiences of a multi-stakeholder partnership to promote farmer innovation in Ethiopia. Innovation Africa: Enriching Farmers’ Livelihoods 2009: 90–103. [Google Scholar]
- Gebremedhin, Berhanu, Dirk Hoekstra, and Azage Tegegn. 2006. Commercialization of Ethiopian Agriculture: Extension Service from Input-Supplier to Knowledge Broker and Facilitator. Addis Ababa: International Livestock Research Institute. [Google Scholar]
- Hagmann, Jurgen, Edward Chuma, Kudakwashe Murwira, and Mike Connolly. 1999. Putting Process into Practice: Operationalizing Participatory Extension. Agricultural research and Extension Network Paper no. 94. London: Overseas Development Institute. [Google Scholar]
- Hellin, Jon, Mauricio R. Bellon, Lone Badstue, John Dixon, and Roberto La Rovere. 2008. Increasing the impacts of participatory research. Experimental Agriculture 44: 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jona, Cecilie Ndeshipanda, and Stephanus Esaias Terblanche. 2015. Farmers’ perception on contact frequency, adequacy, relevance and quality of agriculture support services (Ass) in Oshikoto region in Namibia. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 43: 107–21. [Google Scholar]
- Jonfaa, Ejigu, Barry Pound, Endreas Getac, Ousman Sururd, and Furgassa Bedadae. 2003. Institutionalisation of Farmer Participatory Research in Southern Ethiopia: A joint learning experience. In Advancing Participatory Technology Development: Case studies on integration into agricultural research, extension and education. Edited by Wettasinha Chesha, Laurens van Veldhuizen and Ann Waters-Bayer. Silang: IIRR/ETC Ecoculture/CTA, pp. 237–54. [Google Scholar]
- Kassa, Habtemariam. 2008. Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: Historical evolution, relevant policies, and challenges. In Digest of Ethiopia’s National Policies, Strategies and Programs. Forum for Social Studies 2008: 153–75. [Google Scholar]
- Krishnan, Pramila, and Manasa Patnam. 2014. Neighbors and extension agents in Ethiopia: Who matters more for technology adoption? American Journal of Agricultural Economics 96: 308–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemma, Mamusha, and Beamlak Tesfaye. 2016. From research-extension linkages to innovation platforms: Formative history and evolution of multi-stakeholder platforms in Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development 4: 496–504. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, Adrienne, Sabine Gundel, Essie Apenteng, and Barry Pound. 2011. Review of Literature on Evaluation Methods Relevant to Extension. Lindau: Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services. [Google Scholar]
- MoANR. 2017. Overview of the Ministry; Addis Ababa: Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resource, MoANR (formally Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, MoARD). Available online: http://www.moa.gov.et/web/pages/overview-of-the-ministry (accessed on 5 May 2017).
- Mohan, Giles, and Kristian Stokke. 2000. Participatory development and empowerment: The dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly 21: 247–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oakley, Peter, and Christopher Garforth. 1997. Guide to Extension Training (No. 11). Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [Google Scholar]
- Poulton, Colin, Andrew Dorward, and Jonathan Kydd. 2010. The future of small farms: New directions for services, institutions, and intermediation. World Development 38: 1413–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pretty, Jules N. 1995. Regenerating Agriculture Policies and Practices for Sustainability and Self-Reliance. Washington: Joseph Henry Press. [Google Scholar]
- Rahmato, Dessalegn. 1984. Agrarian Reform in Ethiopia. Uppsala: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. [Google Scholar]
- Rajalahti, Riikka, and Burton E. Swanson. 2010. Strengthening Agricultural Extension and Advisory Systems: Procedures for Assessing, Transforming and Evaluating Extension Systems. Washington: World Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Rajalahti, Riikka, Johannes Woelcke, and Eija Pehu. 2005. Monitoring and Evaluation for World Bank Agricultural Research and Extension Projects: A Good Practice Note. Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper No. 20. Washington: World Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Röling, Niels. 1988. Extension Science: Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Samberg, Leah H., Carol Shennan, and Erika S. Zavaleta. 2010. Human and Environmental Factors Affect Patterns of Crop Diversity in an Ethiopian Highland Agroecosystem. The Professional Geographer 62: 395–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spielman, David J., Kristin Davis, Martha Negash, and Gezahegn Ayele. 2011a. Rural innovation systems and networks: Findings from a study of Ethiopian smallholders. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 195–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spielman, David J., Dawit Kelemwork, and Dawit Alemu. 2011b. Seed, Fertilizer, and Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia. Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II (ESSP II), International Food Policy Research Institute, ESSP II Working Paper 020. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute. [Google Scholar]
- Swanson, Burton E., Robert P. Bentz, and Andrew J. Sofranko, eds. 1998. Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual, 3rd ed. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [Google Scholar]
- Wigboldus, Seerp, and Cees Leeuwis. 2013. Towards Responsible Scaling up and out in Agricultural Development: An Exploration of Concepts and Principles. Wageningen: Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen Research Centre and University. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, Priyanka, and Anil K. Sharma. 2015. Agriculture Credit in Developing Economies: A Review of Relevant Literature. International Journal of Economics and Finance 7: 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zuurbier, Peter J. P. 1984. De Besturing en Organisatie van de Landbouwvoorlichtingsdienst. Ph.D. Thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. [Google Scholar]
1 | For the purposes of this research project, the term ‘AES’ is used as a synonym for ‘Advisory Extension Services’, and along with terms ‘Advisory Services’ and ‘Extension Services’, are often interchangeably used for service provisions across the range of sectors. |
2 | Examples include Farmer Participatory Research (FPR), Participatory Action Research (PAR), Participatory Technology Development (PTD), Farmer-led Participatory Innovation/Participatory Innovation Development (PID) and the Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) system. |
3 | There are four types of participation, for each of which there is a different type of relationship between provider and receiver. Biggs (1989, pp. 3–4) defined these as: Contract (advice and service delivered by provider), consultative (advice and service decided in consultation with the provider), collaborative (partnership between provider and receiver), and collegiate (in which the provider’s position is that of facilitator). |
4 | AES performance variables include Content (accuracy and relevancy of advice), Timeline (duration and availability), Feedback (availability and mode of communication), Relevance (meeting the needs and requirements for recipients/participants), Targeting (appropriacy for recipients/participants), Efficiency (of results obtained against resources invested), and Effectiveness (achievement of objectives) (Birner et al. 2009; European Commission 2006; Faure et al. 2016). |
5 | These groups or networks consist of an average of 25–30 farmers, and one in five groups have one lead model farmer and five follower farmers. |
Service-Providing Sector | Number of Advisory Extension Service Active in Each Area | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case Study District One | Case Study District Two | |||||||
Village 1.1 | Village 1.2 | Village 1.3 | District One Total | Village 2.1 | Village 2.2 | Village 2.3 | District Two Total | |
Government (Public) | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9 |
Civil Society Organisations/Non-Governmental Organisations | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 10 |
Private | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Community-/Farmer-based Organisations 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Cultural/religious Organisations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Total | 5 | 6 | 5 | 16 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 23 |
Service-providing Sectors | Number of Respondents Who Reported Receiving Advisory Extension Service of Each Type in Each Area | Grand Total | % of Grand Total District Response | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Case Study District One | Case Study District Two | |||||||||||
Village 1.1 | Village 1.2 | Village 1.3 | District One-Total | District One-% of Total District Response | Village 2.1 | Village 2.2 | Village 2.3 | District Two-Total | District Two-% of Total District Response | |||
Government (Public) | 46 | 54 | 37 | 137 | 71.73% | 34 | 31 | 35 | 100 | 64.10% | 237 | 68.30% |
Civil Society Organisations/Non-Governmental Organisations | 22 | 12 | 4 | 38 | 19.90% | 20 | 0 | 3 | 23 | 14.74% | 61 | 17.58% |
Private | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Product Safety Net Programme (PSNP, government-led programme) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.52% | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 3.21% | 6 | 1.73% |
Indirect/Informal | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1.05% | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.64% | 3 | 0.86% |
Community-/Farmer-based Organisations 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1.57% | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2.56% | 7 | 2.02% |
Others, visit and exchanges | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
No Advisory Extension Service | 4 | 2 | 4 | 10 | 5.24% | 7 | 10 | 6 | 23 | 14.74% | 33 | 9.51% |
Advisory Extension Service-Total | 72 | 68 | 41 | 181 | 94.76% | 60 | 34 | 39 | 133 | 85.26% | 314 | 90.49% |
Total number of responses | 76 | 70 | 45 | 191 | 67 | 44 | 45 | 156 | 347 |
Service-Providing Sectors | Number of Respondents Who Reported Receiving Advisory Extension Service of Each Type by Gender | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Female | % of Total Female Response | Male | % of Total Male Response | |
Government (Public) | 116 | 68.24% | 121 | 68.36% |
Civil Society Organisations/Non-Governmental Organisations | 25 | 14.71% | 36 | 20.34% |
Private | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Product Safety Net Programme (PSNP, government-led programme) | 3 | 1.76% | 3 | 1.69% |
Indirect/Informal | 3 | 1.76% | 0 | 0% |
Community-/Farmer-based Organisations 2 | 1 | 0.59% | 6 | 3.39% |
Others, visit and exchanges | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
No Advisory Extension Service | 22 | 12.94% | 11 | 6.21% |
Advisory Extension Service-Total | 148 | 87.06% | 166 | 93.79% |
Total number of responses | 170 | 177 |
Service-Providing Sectors | Number of Respondents Who Reported Receiving Advisory Extension Service of Each Type by Agroecological Classification 2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Highland | % of Total Highland Response | Lowland | % of Total Lowland Response | Midland | % of Total Midland Response | |
Government (Public) | 71 | 63.39% | 77 | 64.17% | 89 | 77.39% |
Civil Society Organisations/Non-Governmental Organisations | 24 | 21.43% | 22 | 18.33% | 15 | 13.04% |
Private | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
Product Safety Net Programme (PSNP, government-led programme) | 1 | 0.89% | 4 | 3.33% | 1 | 0.87% |
Indirect/Informal | 1 | 0.89% | 0 | 0% | 2 | 1.74% |
Community-/Farmer-based Organisations 3 | 4 | 4% | 3 | 2.50% | 0 | 0% |
Others, visit and exchanges | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% |
No Advisory Extension Service | 11 | 9.82% | 14 | 11.67% | 8 | 6.96% |
Advisory Extension Service-Total | 101 | 90.18% | 106 | 88.33% | 107 | 93.04% |
Total number of responses | 112 | 120 | 115 |
Examples of Positive Effects of Advisory Extension Services |
|
Examples of less positive aspects of Advisory Extension Services |
|
Examples of mixed responses concerning Advisory Extension Service performance |
|
Service-Providing Sector | Approaches 1 | Methods |
---|---|---|
Public (Government) | Trainings and Visit system | Training sessions, workshops, demonstration |
Civil Society Organisations/Non-Governmental Organisations; Community-/Farmer-based Organisations; Others (include cultural/religious organisations) | Trainings and Visit system, Farmer Field Schools approach | Training sessions, workshops, demonstration Field visits, knowledge exchange and sharing |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dowsing, M.; Cardey, S. Smallholder Farmers’ Perspectives on Advisory Extension Services: A Case Study of the Gamo Communities of Southern Ethiopia. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9090159
Dowsing M, Cardey S. Smallholder Farmers’ Perspectives on Advisory Extension Services: A Case Study of the Gamo Communities of Southern Ethiopia. Social Sciences. 2020; 9(9):159. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9090159
Chicago/Turabian StyleDowsing, Miki, and Sarah Cardey. 2020. "Smallholder Farmers’ Perspectives on Advisory Extension Services: A Case Study of the Gamo Communities of Southern Ethiopia" Social Sciences 9, no. 9: 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9090159
APA StyleDowsing, M., & Cardey, S. (2020). Smallholder Farmers’ Perspectives on Advisory Extension Services: A Case Study of the Gamo Communities of Southern Ethiopia. Social Sciences, 9(9), 159. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9090159