Farmers’ Participation in Extension Programs and Technology Adoption in Rural Nepal: A Logistic Regression Analysis
Chapter One
Research Objectives
The objectives of this study were 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
Theoretical Framework: Defining Agricultural Extension
The definition of agricultural extension has been much debated over the years. Earlier definitions focused on transfer of agricultural knowledge, information, skills and technology for the purpose of improving farm productivity. Then, definitions began to include a bottom- up flow of information in the form of feedback from farmers to experts; a top-down flow of agricultural technologies or information from technocrats to farmers and a bottom up flow of information from the farmers to technocrats (Pazvakavambwa & Hakutangwi, 2006)
In recent debates, the role of farmers in the extension exchange has been given more prominence in definitions of extension. Birner et al. (2009) and, similarly, Davis (2008) view agricultural extension as a process whereby all stakeholders are involved in problem-solving and acquiring advice in terms of technologies and information for the betterment of farmers’ livelihoods.
Adding another dimension, Rivera and Qamar (2003) suggested extension can no longer be viewed as a rigid discipline; but as a knowledge and information support function. They defined extension as a combination of learning methods, facilitation and advisory
services which depend on other services such as marketing and credit facilities operating under prevailing economic policies and physical infrastructure for it to be successful (Rivera & Qamar, 2003). Similarly, Worth (2014) frames extension as a “conversation aimed at building the capacity of the farmer to engage in scientific enquiry” (p. 91) around agricultural production, farm management, agricultural economics, and social and environmental sustainability.
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Design
Study area and 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 was used to select a study sample of 256 participant farmers from eight communities in Nepal rural area. This sampling technique was used to cater for equal representation of males and females and to ensure all villages within each ward were represented. The Wards’ extension agents assisted in this process. Due to the relatively low number (21) of extension personnel servicing the Lower Communal area, all the extension workers participated in the study.
Data gathering methods
The study used both primary and secondary data (review of relevant literature). Literature reviewed on factors affecting technology adoption by small-scale farmers, characteristics and circumstances of small-scale farmers, extension approaches and modes used in small-scale farming systems, and roles of extension in technology adoption and innovation by farmers provided a benchmark for the primary research that followed. Primary data was solicited using three instruments: focus group discussions (Merton et al., 1956; Krueger, 1994); semi- structured interviews (Barriball and While, 1994; Campion et al., 1988); and participant observation (Marshall and Rossman, 1989, Kawulich, 2005). These methods were used sequentially, each building on the results of the previous data collection exercise; each validating the data of the previous session. Each of the data gathering method is discussed separately:
CHAPTER FOUR
Findings
Farmer demographics and circumstances
The majority (47%) of the interviewed farmers are above 50 years of age, while young farmers (less than 35 years old) accounted for only 9.5% (Table 1). This finding is consistent with Masere (2011) that most of the farmers in rural areas of Nepal are generally older (over 50 years) as most young people migrate from rural farming areas into towns and neighbouring countries in search of non-agricultural work.
Although most farmers (89.5%) have some formal education, only 35% managed to reach the Ordinary Levels or better (Table 1). Only 10.5% of the farmers did not attend any formal educational school. Of these, the majority were the oldest women within the study population. Despite the low level of education of the Nepal farmers, most of them are highly experienced in farming, with 66% having more than 10years of farming experience.
CHAPTER FIVE
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
The study highlighted that AGRITEX has not been genuinely engaging farmers in an extension conversation aimed at building the farmers’ capacity to innovate as its focus is to accelerate technology adoption. This has been one of the key reasons for poor adoption of recommended technology by farmers. Long gone are the days when extension agents were expected as a sole mode of operation to disseminate technology developed by researchers to farmers for adoption. Farmers’ views and their participation have become important in defining farmers’ challenges, and in developing and testing possible solutions or technologies. This farmer involvement has potential to improve farmers’ decision-making and innovation skills. In fact, farmers have shown their ability to take control of issues affecting their livelihoods by demanding certain services they deem are appropriate to deal with their challenges regardless of what has been offered or recommended by extension agents.
The study further noted some mismatches between technology disseminated or ‘imposed’ on farmers and technologies really needed by farmers. For instance, farmers were demanding technologies that would move them from being primary producers into the realm of value addition, including preserving and canning of surplus produce for marketing and selling later. Despite this, extension agents were disseminating completely different technologies, which they thought were needed by farmers. The key factor here is that farmers have great insight into what they need to improve their livelihoods. This further emphasises the need for extension and other stakeholders like technology developers to engage farmers in developing technologies that reflect a genuine understanding of the farmers’ context, system, aims and problems.
The study proposed an appropriate extension system for small-scale farmers that must be backed-up by extension agents who are committed, flexible, and highly competent in technical and extension methods and practices in offering extension services to farmers. These agents also require supporting policy frameworks and management systems that create and facilitate the required flexibility, and which have built into them mechanisms for ensuring that the farmers are engaged throughout.
The study found that, although extension agents generally have basic education, working experience and maturity to perform their jobs, they are hindered by lack of in-service training opportunities designed to strengthen their competencies and brokering skills needed in a diverse multi-actor extension system. Other challenges currently facing AGRITEX and affecting service delivery include poor funding, poor remuneration, poor infrastructure and facilities (transport, accommodation, etc.), and poor general working conditions – and an appropriate policy and management framework.
The study found that the current extension system for Nepal Communal area has changed over the last two decades. Where once there was only the public (AGRITEX) extension agents bringing technology to farmers, there is now a pluralistic system where other actors, most notably NGOs, agro-dealers and researchers, are also bringing technologies for farmers to adopt. These emerging actors however cannot work with farmers without the authority of AGRITEX and are mandated to have AGRITEX field extension agents to introduce them to farmers. In this way the role of extension has expanded to include brokering and facilitation. This has been both a blessing and a curse for the extension agents. On one hand the agents, who have been failing to do their jobs effectively and efficiently due to lack of resources like transport and materials to train farmers, are now able to do so through the new actors. On the other hand, they are becoming passively-aggressive or apathetic. They perceive that they are no longer the drivers of extension service delivery as their work is now ‘dictated’ by these other actors who have the resources and technologies to help farmers. Further, extension agents complained of farmer apathy towards extension projects where NGOs, agro-dealers are not involved. Conversely, farmers are eager to attend meetings and workshops and projects involving NGOs and agro-dealers – something extension agents attributed to availability of resources including inputs and technology for training, demonstration and testing to farmers in their own fields.
Beyond the proposed reforming and redefining of extension roles in an appropriate extension system, the study found that farmers are more likely to adopt technologies which are cheaper, simpler, less risky and compatible with biophysical farm conditions, simultaneously improving farm production. Furthermore, modern technology with similar traits to farmers’ own indigenous practices or technologies developed by farmers and/or their counterparts are easily adopted for example conservation agriculture and thermal compost. Farmers’ circumstances like their resource-endowments, willingness to take risk also play a major role in technology adoption.
Reflecting on these somewhat disparate collective, a number issues have been surfaced relevant to the extension services provided to small-scale farmer in Gweru, Nepal. First, the findings suggest an earnestness on the part of both farmers and extension. They all want to find a way forward. That their views of what should be done vary, is to be expected. Farmer perspectives are necessarily different from extension agents. The issue is not to pit one against the other, but to work towards building a common vision and shared pathway towards 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 – to put them in a better position to command the factors that affect the sustainability of their farming enterprises, and thereby, their livelihoods.
The second is that extension policy and policy frameworks appear to be out of alignment with the current circumstances obtaining, at least in the Gweru area of Nepal. This is manifested by a number of false dichotomies that have emerged during the analysis of this study. The first, mentioned earlier, is the dichotomy of farmer versus extension agent.
On the issue of technology adoption is another false dichotomy. The study found that AGRITEX engages primarily in top-down transfer of technology to farmers who would rather be consulted first and otherwise involved in the development of technology drawing on their better knowledge of their own circumstances and on their local (indigenous) knowledge and practices, and perhaps using them as a starting point for developing new or improving existing technologies – including tools, systems, methods and processes. Again avoiding the pitfalls of dichotomous thinking, the study clearly shows the need for measured decision- making about the approaches and modes of extension to be employed. Choice of extension approaches is to be governed by the intended focus and purpose of the engagement, the anticipated roles of extension and of farmers, the nature of learning to take place through the engagement, and the social capital and sustainability issues contextualising the extension conversation (Figure 2).
Further, as already discussed, some technologies cannot be developed with farmers on the ground, as it is impractical to do so. Where such technologies have already been developed through other processes that, of necessity, excluded farmer involvement, technology transfer may be more appropriate. But this does not mean that these technologies must be implemented with its historical element of coercion. There is still ample room for farmers to be engaged, as the respondents in this study have indicated, through field days, group meetings, look-and-learn tours and demonstration and trials where imported technologies can be tested, studied and adapted collaboratively with famers. The choice of approach must be a measured choice based on a thorough understanding of the farmers’ contexts – which can only be gained by working and walking with the farmers (individually or collectively) face- to-face in the field.
A similar argument can be postulated for modes of extension. Whether to use individual or group modes should be determined by looking particularly at the intended purpose of the engagement and the stage of learning in the development of new and/or introduction of imported technology. Again, it requires sober and measured consideration.
Related to approaches and modes is the challenge of pluralistic extension. The study noted the tension between AGRITEX (public) extension agents and other role-players on the ground. There need be no competition among role-players and service providers. When the development of the farmer is the focus of extension, all resources should be enlisted. Collaboration (which should be possible) is empowering, whereas competiveness is paralysing – and it paralyses farmers and service providers alike.
The final false dichotomy surfaced by this study is the tension between livelihoods and production. The general tendency of AGRITEX has been to focus on increasing production as an end unto itself. Farmers have expressed the need for their farming enterprises to contribute more sustainably to their livelihoods on a longer-term basis. But the two ‘goals’ are not necessarily mutually exclusive. What is required is bringing the livelihood sustainability demands together with the production increases. The study offers no evidence that the farmers do not want to increase their production levels. If fact, it has found quite the opposite. Farmers do want to see greater production. They want to expand their farming operations into value-adding spaces.
All of this has implications for policy.
Policy implications and recommendations
An evaluation of AGRITEX against the theoretical framework developed in this study, calls for some technical and philosophical changes to be effected within Nepal’ extension system if farmer innovation and technology adoption issues are to be addressed. AGRITEX need to change its philosophy of focusing more on technology adoption rather than developing capacity farmers, and perceiving farmers as mere recipients and beneficiary of advisory services and technologies. Farmers’ indigenous knowledge and experiences and perceptive should be valued and considered in developing interventions aimed at addressing their challenges. Thus, farmers should be equal partners with extension and other key stakeholders like technology developers, agro-dealers and NGOs in an extension system. Only then can genuine engagement be possible, where farmers determine what they want to learn about and participate in development of technologies tailor made for their challenges and farms’ biophysical conditions.
Although AGRITEX extension agents have basic educational qualifications for extension work and valuable working experience there are hampered in effectively executing their duties due to lack of in-service training opportunities. This calls for the need for regular in- service training aimed at updating their knowledge and skills including learning new technologies so that when farmers demand advice or information support on these technologies, agents will be able to assist.
A key part of these in-service training should also be on equipping extension agents with network building, facilitation and brokering skills in line with the changes in the extension landscape from one dominated by public extension agency (AGRITEX) to a pluralistic one involving new actors, which is the case on the ground. The study noted the passive aggressive and apathetic attitude of extension agents towards emerging new actors, as they felt these new actors’ activities are now dictating their day-to-day duties. This indicates that agents are yet to embrace their new roles within the pluralistic extension system. Hence, the need for training aimed at sensitising agents on their ‘new’ roles. The new actors are in a better position to assist farmers in extension service delivery due to the resources at their disposal, which AGRITEX currently do not have. However, there may be a danger of these actors pursuing their own agendas (i.e promote their own technologies) to benefit themselves at the expense of farmers. Consequently, there is need for extension to play the important role of brokering and facilitation between the diverse actors. And there is a need for clear policy guidelines that are equally binding on public, private and NGO sector role-players and service providers.
The study recommends building on the strengths of NGOs, agro-dealers and donors and coupling them to the public extension (AGRITEX), who are trusted by farmers and are mandated to serve farmers, to ensure improved service delivery in an environment where farmers are not exploited and that service provision is coherent and liberating, rather than paralysing. Thus, where feasible and where it strengthens and improves the overall extension system, AGRITEX should engage in public-private partnerships with relevant private institutions that are currently working with the farmers to ease their funding challenges. In this way AGRITEX and its agents can be able to offer improved and high quality service delivery to its primary clients, mainly small-scale farmers.
The study further recommends the redefinition of roles for extension agents to more of innovation brokers so as to meet the diverse needs of small-scale farmers and other key actors at any given time. In this role the main functions include linking diverse actors and acting as a catalyst for collective learning, facilitation, mediation, documenting learning and translating to ensure actors from diverse backgrounds are understanding each other (Swaans et al., 2013). One of the critical roles is linking farmers with firms offering credit facilities at viable interest rates to enable farmers to acquire their desired technologies, given that cost of technologies and lack of credit facilities for farmers were two major reasons for poor adoption of 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, M. S., Chizari, M and Mirdamadi, S. M. (2009). Extension-education methods to facilitate learning in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agri. Soc. Sci., 5: 27–30.
- Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A., Spielman, D. J., Horna, D., Benin, S and Cohen, M. (2009). From best practice to best fit: A framework for designing and analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(4): 341-355.
- Chambers, R. (1991). Farmers’ practices, professionals, and participation: Challenges for soil and water conservation. Summary proceedings of a workshop. 19-21 June 1991. ICRISAT Center, India.
- Masuku, M. M. (2011, October 31). Feedback: A development practitioner’s perception. Retrieved from http://livestockfocus.blogspot.com/2011/10/feedba-development- practitioners.html
- Swaans, K., Cullen, B., van Rooyen, A., Adekunle, A., Ngwenya, H., Lema, Z and Nederlof,
- (2013). Dealing with critical challenges in South Asian innovation platforms: Lessons forfacilitation.Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 9(3): 116-135.
- Swanson, B. E. (2006). The changing role of agricultural extension in a global economy. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 13(3): 5-17.
