AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEMS COALITION Alternate models for agricultural and rural extensions in developing world Systems Coalition Approach to Agricultural Extension & optimize Knowledge & Technology diffusion Mainstreaming small holder farmer as an important stakeholder for bottom up agricultural advisory

Publica(on  By  Abdul  Rahman  Ilyas  IKP  Center  for  Advancement  in  Agricultural  Prac(ce  (ICAAP)  Thanjavur,  India  

A growing consensus has recognized that agricultural extension systems must be pluralistic networks of institutions providing varied information and innovation services. Such extension systems must be demand-driven with closer linkages to clients, must become more efficient, and must develop more sustainable sources of financing. Increasingly, extension services should be market driven integrated services that are tailor made to meet the needs of the clients.

Adapted from World Bank center for agriculture and rural development 2  

3  

The current agriculture and rural extension models are dominated by public systems.

It is estimated that approximately 95%1 of over 800,0002 official extension personnel globally.

Developing countries account for approximately 2/3 of the extension staff worlwide3. However,

despite decades of investments and experience with public extension programs, evidence of

their impact upon agricultural knowledge, adoption and production system development are

limited. Furthermore, the systems themselves have been criticized for high costs, problems of

scale and low levels of accountability4

Contemporary agricultural extension models in developing countries

To elaborate further, the contemporary models are

unprepared and stretched by ever increasing dynamics and

complex situations the agricultural sector is facing today.

The following illustration clearly elucidates the drawbacks of

current public system agricultural extension models in

developing countries. In addition the illustration also

underlines the minimal participation by private entities in

agricultural knowledge system development unlike the

developed countries

1,3. FAO world agricultural report 2. The State of Agricultural Extension: An Overview and New Caveats for the Future, 2013 by Amanda Bensona & Tahseen Jafryb* 4. Jenny C. Aker (2011). Center for Global Development Working Paper 269, September. Forthcoming in Agricultural Economics.

Technology Generation

Technology Transfer

Technology Utilization

•  Technology development •  Technology assessment •  Technology testing

•  Message development •  Training & backstopping •  Delivery strategy •  Technology distribution & •  sales •  Technology multiplication

Output/ production

•  Awareness information trial •  Farm level adaptation •  Technology adoption

Agricultural macro policy

Illustration 1.0: Agricultural knowledge system chain and limitations of extension models (Adapted from Swanson, Sands, & Peterson model

Feedback flow Limitations of current public extension systems Limitations of current public extension systems

Extension models today are

implemented mostly

by the public and NGO

settings in developing

countries with increase in

private standalone models

fast catching up.

4  

To abstract the illustration 1.0, the public

sector extension has a legacy of working in

isolation. Rigid hierarchy centralized modes

of p lanning, t radi t ion of assessing

performance in terms of technology

adoption, a history of rewarding only success

and thus a reluctance to report and analyze

reasons of failure; a history of working

independently and a mistrust of other

agencies; and a tradition of up-ward

accountability for resource utilization rather

than output achievement and cl ient

satisfaction are plaguing the knowledge

dissemination in developing countries.1

Further the public sector systems don’t

realize the importance of feedback flow

among the stakeholders. This often leads to

development of innovations that are

irrelevant to the beneficiaries.

Private sector participation in extension

Private sector models can be classified as

private not for profit delivered by NGOs and

private for profit (delivered by commercial

production and marketing firms (such as

input manufacturers and distributors).

Countries like the US, Canada, Australia,

and Denmark, which have very advanced

agricultural sectors, have always enjoyed

strong private extension services which are

lacking in developing countries. However, to

mitigate the limitations of the public sector

extension systems, private and business

entities started developing their own

extension models off late which have

resulted in cost escalations, whilst ROI of

such models is yet to be ascertained as

specified in illustration 2.0.

1. Citation from NABARD study on private role in agricultural systems

Seed Fertilizers Pesticides

Farm Inputs Farm machinery Processing

Beneficiary

Independent extension systems built by private sector Most of the systems are recreations with multiple investments in infrastructure, human resources

The beneficiary is subjected to Information dump and conflicting messages

Illustration 2.0: Private extension systems that are independent and reinventions of models

5  

extent of services received by the medium and small scale commercial farmers do not receive

devoted extension services in developing countries. The study also highlights that one out of

every five economically active person in agriculture receives the extension services;

surprisingly only about one fourth of the extension agent’s time is dedicated to education and

training services in developing countries1. Hence it is clearly evident that irrespective of the

spurt of activities by research agencies, public systems, private businesses contemporary

models of extension systems the unmet needs i.e. diffusion of global agricultural knowledge to

the small holder farmer, reduction of duplication with emphasis on efficiency, cost mitigation in

extension systems and more importantly sustainability of the systems still remain.

It is evident that the conventional public

and private extension models fail to

address the challenges of beneficiary

coverage, system duplications,

productivity and sustainability in

agricultural knowledge dissemination

ecosystem; this prompts for the

stakeholders especially

the private players to look for alternative

models and lessons exist in food

system models in the form of ‘system

coalitions’

1.  FAO world agricultural report

It is to be noted that varied agencies that are

accountable for research (CGIAR consortium

etc.) are getting in to creating own systems of

extension. In addition, developing world also

witnesses NGO operated extension models.

Irrespective of these diverse activities a huge

hiatus is being experienced in knowledge

dissemination and practical applicability. For

instance, it remains to be seen the extent of

penetration and applicability (among small/

medium farmers) of some of the best

technologies developed by CGIAR consortium

in developing countries. To support this

argument, a study conducted by the FAO the -

Alternate models for agricultural extension: Lessons from food system coalitions The search for the alternate models can borrow learning from allied sector, the food system

coalitions. The coalitions were able to bring varied stakeholders from Government to business

partners to civil society to academicians with the objective to enhance food security to

communities/counties they work for. These systems are coalition networks of varied

knowledge partners and create a sustainable social enterprises to execute the projects; the

coalition undertakes the mentoring, project and performance appraisals of the promoted

social enterprises.

6  

SLO County food system coalition: Representative case study 1.0 1

The Concept:

The Food System Coalition was founded in June, 2011 by representatives from nonprofits,

businesses, and government agencies from the social services, producers (farming, ranching,

fishing), health, education, distribution, consumers, gardening, and retail. The FSC brings

together stakeholders from diverse sectors to generate changes that will strengthen the local

food system.

The Operating model: The Food System Coalition, or FSC, is a collaborative network that brings together many

sectors, from consumer groups to County government agencies, the Farm Bureau to the

fishing community. Projects conducted by partner organizations are supported by the

Coalition, which also forms its own projects to strengthen the local food system. The FSC is

currently hosted by the Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo County. Short-term and

long-term work groups are formed around key issues and can include both Coalition

members and other interested people. An elected Administrative Committee takes care of

administrative functions.

1.  http://www.slofoodbank.org/board_of_directors.php 2.,3. Hunger free communities; characterizing the vulnerable population in San Luis Obispo county 2012 report prepared by Aydin Nazmi and Alexandra Lund

Coalition of varied stakeholders

acting as mentor for social enterprise

with an accountable administration

fostered the programme mileage

case of the FSC at San Louis

Obsipo county. Moreover the

programme also highlights the need

to involve varied stakeholders in

planning and feedback process so

as to ensure seamless movement of

communication;

Key take away: Coalitions to gain mileage and mitigate

duplication: The concept was able to build active

networks in the county within a short span of time1

Ability to reach majority of the beneficiaries:

Leverage networks to promote awareness and

within two years the models was able to reach 82%

of target beneficiaries2

Consistent feedback collection: The programme

banked on surveys and inputs provided by the

beneficiaries across varied socio-economic class to

streamline the operational model3

Framework for comprehensive food security system #

7  

Centralized coalition committee: To smoothen administrative and operational functions thus striving for accountability and

transparency Focused and collective approach

The programme involved diverse stakeholders who have been participating in the planning

process thus avoiding duplication of efforts while promoting a streamlined approach to

strengthen the local food system

1. http://www.community-food.org/overview/ # The framework represented is the extract in original from the website and is for information purposes only. Neither the author nor IKAAP claims the thought ownership of the framework and acknowledging that the ownership of framework is with community and regional food systems US.

Project components include research,

community engagement, out reach

efforts, education and advocacy. The

coalit ion aims to promote   the  

development  of  equitable,  sustainable,  and  

inclusive   Community   and   Regional   Food  

Systems.  

Community and regional food systems of Milwaukee, Chicao and Detroit: Representative case study 2.0 1

The Concept:

The mission of this project is to integrate research, outreach, education and advocacy in order

to better understand, develop and sustain community and regional food systems (CRFS) as a

means of addressing food insecurity and related goals in American cities. The project partners

include the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Growing Power, the University of Wisconsin-

Extension, Michigan State University, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, and Iowa State

University, in addition to community-based organizations in cities: Milwaukee, Chicago,

Detroit, Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Cedar Rapids, IA and Madison, WI.

8  

Envisage the ‘System Coalition’ model in agricultural extension The system coalition aims to build vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive extension systems. The

coalition model work integrates research, community engagement, outreach, education, and

advocacy. Research and dissemination of new models form the crux of the efforts. The

coalition model also aims to collect feedback and convey the same for stakeholders for

relevant actions and corrective measures.

Sustainability

Prosperity Knowledge Dissemination

Participation

Businesses Academicians Government

Expert group coalition

Community entrepreneurs

Research groups

Programme administration Project monitoring & appraisals Research on new extension models and systems

Qualified resources in the community and importantly proximal to beneficiaries

Illustration 3.0: Representative system coalition extension platform

1

2

3

4

1

Participation of stakeholders •  Adoption of new technologies •  Community involvement •  Business involvement

2

Knowledge dissemination •  Input knowledge •  Farm practices •  Product handling •  Feedback delivery •  Equitable access

3

Sustainability •  Comprehensive farm land protection •  Scope to monetize the knowledge •  Increased scope for interplay of agro

allied sectors

4

Prosperity •  Multiple level of sustainable livelihood

creation •  Accountable access to capital/finance •  Economic viability of farms

Illustration 4.0:Extension dynamics ushered by the coalition system models

We can envisage that these

coalition based models like

food organizations will lead to

the development of tools,

educational curriculum, and

training programs on

community, agricultural

practices, access to finance

etc. under the mentorship of

an expert group.

9  

As shown in the illustration 4.0, the new system coalition model is likely to transform the

extension model from mere service delivery model to more of an enabler. In addition the

system also strives for increased participation from the communities thus creating an

environment of seamless exchange of knowledge, messages and thought processes.

To abstract, the model doesn’t stop at pushing through innovations and education based

services but also created more comprehensive thinking around livelihoods, inclusiveness

and more importantly sustainability of the rural enterprises thus providing a bigger bang

per buck spent on the programmes.

In current scenario, when certain standalone model innovations promoted by public

systems, NGOs and businesses are criticized of lacking prac(cal   reali(es   of   adop(on,  

knowledge   fragmenta(on,     and   inherent   challenges   to   promote   pluralism   and   innova(on,   the  

coali(on    extension  model    is  likely  to  benefit  from  synergies  shared  by  stakeholders  and  can  likely  

present  more  solu(on  based  approaches  to  challenges  faced  by  conven(on  extension  models

The challenges the agricultural sector is facing are ever increasing and becoming complex. Consequently developments have also increased manifold in agricultural practices, technology platforms and approaches. The fast paced demands and the complex agricultural ecosystems are stretching contemporary extension service models, which otherwise have a crucial role to play in promoting agricultural innovation to keep pace with the changing context and improve livelihoods of the dependent poor.

© 2014 All Rights Reserved. IKP Center for Advancement in Agricultural Practice

Abdul Rahman Ilyas Chief Executive Officer

IKP Centre for Advancement in Agricultural

Practice (ICAAP)

- IIT Research Park, Chennai 600113, Tamil Nadu, India.

- 7th Cross Arulananda Nagar, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu

- IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Turkapally, Hyderabad,

Andhra Pradesh, India

Phone: +91 (44) 6668-7075 Mobile : +91-9840643774

Fax: +91 (44) 6668-7010

Email: abdulrahman.ilyas@icaap.org.in