Study of the Implementation Status and Effectiveness of New Agricultural Extension

Policy for Technology Adoption

Final Report PR # 5/07

By

Zahurul Karim, Principal InvestigatorMd. Abu Bakar, Co-Investigator

Md. Nazrul Islam, Co-Investigator

Center for Agriresearch and Sustainable Environment and Entrepreneurship (CASEED)

December 2009

This study was carried out with the support of the

National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme

This study was financed under the Research Grants Scheme (RGS) of the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme (NFPCSP). The purpose of the RGS was to assist in improving research and dialogue within civil society so as to inform and enrich the implementation of the National Food Policy. The NFPCSP is being implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), Ministry of Food and Disaster Management with the financial support of EU and USAID.

The designation and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO nor of the NFPCSP, Government of Bangladesh, EU or USAID and reflects the sole opinions and views of the authors who are fully responsible for the contents, findings and recommendations of this report.

i

Tables of Contents

Page No

Executive Summary vii

Chapter-1

Introduction 1

1.1 Food security in Bangladesh: overview 1

1.2 The National Food Policy (2006) and Agricultural Extension 2

1.3 Challenges of Post HYV Agriculture In Bangladesh 2

1.4 The critical role of agricultural extension 4

1.5 Study Objectives 5

Chapter-2

THE NEW AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION POLICY: MAJOR THRUSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISM 6

2.1 Agricultural extension in major agricultural policies 6

2.2 Bangladesh Extension System: overview 7

2.2.1 Crop Sector 7

2.2.2 Non Crop Sector 13

2.3 The NAEP: towards an integrated and demand-driven approach to agricultural extension 14

2.4 Institutional setting of NAEP implementation 18

2.5 Weaknesses of NAEP development and implementation design 22

Chapter-3

Assessment of NAEP implementation status and effectiveness 23

3.1 Methodology, Organizational Approach and Analytical Tools 23

3.1.1 Indicators of NAEP Performance: 23

3.1.2. Questionnaire Surveys of Stakeholders 23

3.1.3. Questionnaire Assessment 24

3.1.4. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) 25

3.1.5. Review of NAEP Committees’ Functions 25

3.1.6. Open Group Discussions 25

3.1.7. Expert Panel Discussions 25

3.2 Results and Findings 25

ii

3.2.1 Highlights on GOB agencies’ performance viz NAEP implementation 25

3.3. Awareness Development and Foundation Training of NAEP 27

3.4. Understanding of NAEP 28

3.4.1 Knowledge about Lead Implementing Ministry (Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) 28

3.4.2 Knowledge about Lead Implementing Agencies 29

3.4.3 Knowledge about NAEP Eleven Components 29

3.4.4 Knowledge about Implementing Committees of NAEP 30

3.4.5 Knowledge about Compositions and Functions of NAEP Committees 31

3.4.6 Status of Inter-agency Coordination in Joint Planning of Extension Activities 34

3.5 Findings from Focus Group Discussions 35

3.5.1. Perceived Weaknesses 35

3.5.2 Strengths 36

3.6 Opinions and Suggestions of District Level Officers. 36

3.6.1 Results from Open Group Discussions 37

3.7 Extension-Research Linkage and Technology Adoption: 38Role of NAEP Committees.

3.8 Impact of NAEP on Food Production 39

Chapter-4

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 43

4.1. Conclusion 43

4.2. Policy Recommendations: 46

Tables

Table 1: Major Agricultural Policies, Objectives and Years of Adoption in Bangladesh. 6

Table 2: The NAEP Study Sites and Stakeholders 24

Table 3: Level of Awareness of NAEP 28

Table 4: Knowledge about the Lead Ministry of NAEP 29

Table 5: Knowledge about the Lead Implementing Agencies 29

Table 6: Knowledge about NAEP Components 30

Table 7: Knowledge about Implementing Committees of NAEP 30

Table 8: NAEP Committees Compositions and TORs 31

Table 9: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of UAECC 32

Table 10: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of DEPC 32

Table 11: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of ATC 32

iii

Table 12: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of NATCC 33

Table 13: Inter Agency Coordination in joint planning of Extension Activities 35

Table 14: Talking Points/Issues and Suggestions 37

Table 15: Recommendations of DAE HQ Officers on improving NAEP implementation 37

Table 16: Recommendations of DLS HQ Officers on improving NAEP implementation 38

Table 17: Recommendations of DOF HQ Officers on improving NAEP implementation 38

Table 18: Percentage of land area planted to different crops in 2006-07 40

Table 19: the growth of non cereal commodities 40

Table 20: Bangladesh Livestock population (million) 41

Table 21: Production Trends of Fisheries 42

Table 22: Stakeholders’ perceptions on what should be done to improve NAEP implementation 45

Figures

Fig.1: Organizational Structure of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) 9

Fig. 2: Structure of NAEP Co-ordination Committees 19

Fig. 3: Total rice production in Bangladesh from 1997/98 to 2006/07 39

Fig. 4: Wheat production in Bangladesh from 1997/98 to 2006/07 40

Annexes

1. TOR of UAECC 48

2. TOR of DEPC 50

3. TOR of ATC 52

References 55

iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADAB : Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh

AI : Artificial Insemination

ARI : Agricultural Research Institute

ASRIP : Agricultural Services and Innovation Project

ASSP : Agricultural Support Service Project

ATC : Agricultural Technical Committee

ATI : Agricultural Training Institute

BADC : Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation

BARC : Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council

BARI : Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute

BFRI : Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute

BINA : Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture

BJRI : Bangladesh Jute Research Institute

BLRI : Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute

BRDB : Bangladesh Rural Development Board

BRRI : Bangladesh Rice Research Institute

BS : Block Supervisor

BSRI : Bangladesh Sugarcane Research Institute

BWDB: Bangladesh Water Development Board

CARE : Christian Association for Relief

CASEED: Center for Agriresearch and Sustainable Environment & Entrepreneurship Development

CDB : Cotton Development Board

CEAL : Community Extension Agent for Livestock

CERDI : Central Extension Resources Development Institute

CI : Co-Investigator

DAE : Department of Agricultural Extension

DEA : Decentralized Extension Approach

DEPC : District Extension Planning Committee

DG : Director General

DLS : Department of Livestock Services

DOF : Department of Fisheries

E&M : Extension & Management

ECS : Extension Coverage Survey

EPICC : Extension Policy Implementation and Coordinating Committee

v

ERP : Extension and Research Project

ESP : Extension Service Provider

FAO : Food and Agricultural Organization

FBCCI : Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industries

FD : Forest Department

FFP : Fourth Fisheries Project

FGD : Focus Group Discussions

FINA : Farmers Information Need Assessment

GO : Government Organization

HQ : Headquarter

HYV : High Yielding Variety

ICM : Integrated Crop Management

IPM : Integrated Pest Management

IPNS : Integrated Plant Nutrition System

JRD : Jute Regulatory Department

KII : Key Informant Information

LEAP : Local Extension Agent for Fisheries

MOA : Ministry of Agriculture

MOEF : Ministry of Environment and Forest

MOFL : Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock

MOU : Memorandum of Understanding

NAEP : New Agricultural Extension Policy

NAP : National Agricultural Policy

NARS : National Agricultural Research System

NATCC: National Agricultural Technical Co-ordination Committee

NEP : National Environment Policy

NFoP : National Forestry Policy

NFP : National Fishery Policy

NGO : Non-Government Organization

NLP : National Livestock Policy

NWP : National Water Policy

OGD : Open Group Discussion

Pl : Principal Investigator

PR : Program Research

PRA : Participatory Rural Appraisal

RDRS : Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Services

vi

SAAO : Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officer

T & V : Training & Visit

TAECC: Thana Agricultural Extension Co-ordination Committee

TAO : Thana Agricultural Officer

TOR : Terms of Reference

UAA : Union Agricultural Assistant

UAECC: Upazilla Agricultural Extension Coordination Committee

UNDP : United Nations Development Programme

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

V-AID : Village Agriculture & Industrial Development

vii

Executive Summary

Bangladesh has achieved considerable progress in domestic food production but still poverty-related food insecurity is widely prevalent. Data from the last (2005) household income and expenditure survey revealed that more than 40 percent of the population (56 million people) were categorized as “Absolute Poor”, failing to acquire the minimum level of food energy to maintain normal health, defined as 2122 kcal per person per day. Also 27 million people were categorized as “Hard-core Poor” unable to acquire 1805 kcal per person per day, and 11 million were “Ultra Poor”, failing to acquire 1600 kcal per person per day. The Hard–core Poor and Ultra Poor in the urban and rural areas represented just below 20 percent and 8 percent of the overall population respectively.

The Government of Bangladesh, in accordance with the World Food Summit Declaration of 1996 and the Millennium Development Goals (2000) has set its target at reducing the number of poor people to half by the year 2015. The Government reiterated its commitment to ensure dependable food security for all people at all times, with the formulation and approval of the National Food Policy (NFP) in August 2006.

Agricultural Extension System The National Food Policy Plan of action (2008-2015) has given a thrust on demand-driven crop and non crop new technologies development and pro-poor extension technology dissemination. It is the means of empowering the farmers with knowledge based information for increasing and intensifying agricultural productivity. Agricultural extension is an extremely important process which can accelerate technology transfer for social and economic development towards sustainable food security. Agricultural Extension Services in Bangladesh have evolved historically and changed overtime in one or another form.

At present, there are many agencies providing extension support to the farmers of Bangladesh. These include government agencies, namely, the Department of Agricultural Extension, Bangladesh Rural Development Board, Bangladesh Water Development Board, Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation Forest Department, Department of Livestock Services and Department of Fisheries. There are also many non-government organizations, commercial traders and input suppliers (manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers) operating in rural areas of the country providing extension services to farmers. Together all these partners can be seen as comprising the National Agricultural Extension System.

New Agricultural Extension PolicyThe NARS has so far generated a package of appropriate technology that was transferable to the extension systems for creating a great impact on food production and food security. Usually it takes several years to generate and transfer an agricultural technology because of a weak extension system. Realizing it, the Government framed an extension policy titled New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) in 1996 in order to faster the dissemination process of crops, fisheries and forestry technologies to farmers through improving the effectiveness of services provided by GOs, NGOs and Agribusiness Enterprises. The Goal of the New Agricultural Extension Policy is to: “Encourage the various partners and agencies within the National agricultural extension system to provide efficient and effective services which complement and reinforce each other, in an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of agriculture in Bangladesh”.

To achieve this goal the policy includes the following eleven key components; extension support to all categories of farmer; efficient extension services;

viii

decentralization; demand-led extension; working with groups of all kinds; strengthened extension-research linkage training of extension personnel; appropriate extension methodology; integrated extension support to farmers; co-coordinated extension activities; integrated environmental support.

Since the inception of NAEP in 1996 no systematic study was made to see the implementation status and effectiveness of NAEP. The present study is the first attempt to evaluate NAEP implementation status and its effectiveness with the following objectives:

I. To evaluate the level of awareness and understanding of NAEP stakeholders.II. To assess level of adoption and practice of NAEP by extension providers, GOs, NGOs and

private organizations.III. To assess inter-agency cooperation and coordination developed in extension initiatives.IV. To measure individual and collaborative planning and Implementation of extension activities by

extension providers.V. To assess integration of Research-Extension-Farmer-Linkage in technology packaging and

diffusion. VI. To evaluate success and weakness of implementation of NAEP,VII. To assess impact of NAEP on food production.

Policy ReviewDifferent ministries have formulated a large number of policies on agriculture, livestock, fisheries, forestry etc. The National Agricultural Policy (NAP) formulated by the ministry of Agricultural, 1999, emphasized implementation of New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) of 1996. It has focused strengthening research-extension linkage involving private sector entrepreneurs, NGOs and farmers. The NAP also encourages self motivation and cooperative system of production. The major policy gap in the NAP is the lack of direction on the implementation in the NAEP. The NAEP is an interministrial and interdepartmental policy, but the NAP did not mention anything on the strengthening coordination mechanism of NAEP.Besides NAP the following policy documents were also reviewed: National Livestock Policy (NLP) National Fishery Policy (NFiP) National Forestry Policy (NFoP) National Water Policy (NWP) National Environment Policy (NEP)

The major policy gaps identified from the analysis of these policies are; a) lack of coordination among the different ministries and department, b) weakness of planning processes and development of programs/projects, c) little field monitoring of the implementation processes and very weak interagency cooperation on policy development.

Methodology Field investigations were carried out to measure the implementation status and effectiveness of the NAEP. The awareness development, understanding of the NAEP, knowledge about the implementing agencies and functioning of various NAEP committees were assessed. The processes of joint planning, inter agency cooperation and the level of decentralized extension planning were also measured. The following tools and technique were followed during the assessment period from October 2007 to March 2008. These were Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Questioner Survey of GO-NGO stakeholders, review of NAEP committee composition and function, Open Group

ix

Discussion (OGD) and consultative workshops. The study was conducted covering 40 Upazilas within 20 Districts of 10 Regions.

Major Findings:Results of field observations, questionnaire surveys of stakeholders and review information of documents related to agriculture and NAEP were inter-weaved to decide major findings and recommendations. Analytical and qualitative assessment confirmed that foundation trainings for understanding

and implementation procedures of NAEP by stakeholders were very informal and as such knowledge of DAE, DLS, DOF and NGOs about concept of NAEP goal and objectives, its composition and implementation strategy was very poor. This weakness remained as a major barrier in successful implementation of NAEP in later successive years.

Field investigation data indicate that the officers of DAE were better informed on different activities from reading of documents, attending awareness meeting and from official correspondences. About 63% of the officers of DAE were aware from attending meetings while NGO representative and scientists were least informed. For other departments like DLS & DOF, awareness is poor. Awareness meetings seemed to be the most important tools of awareness building.

It was observed that ownership of NAEP was not appropriately explained resulting poor participation of the inter-departmental officers during the processes of implementation.

It was noted that knowledge about composition and function of the NAEP committees among various partners of DAE, DLS, DOF, NGO and Research organization were poor resulting in inadequate implementation of NAEP.

Implementation of NAEP was meant to be a collaborative task of the core GO agencies, DAE, DLS and DoF. Findings show that only 11% of DAE, 21% of DLS and 26% of DoF respondents knew about this institutional arrangement. But majority of DAE, DLS and DoF respondents said that it was a program of DAE only. Such perception of respondents was due to misconception and poor understanding about ownership of NAEP.

Stakeholders should have a clear idea about the eleven components of NAEP based on which extension activities were expected to be planned and implemented. But knowledge about the eleven components appeared to be poor among respondents. Only 3% of 172 DAE officers could correctly cite the name of all the components. About 56% of DAE, 5% of DLS and 7% of DoF officers correctly knew about 1-4 components.

Bottom-up planning, introduced at Upazilla level was observed as a good culture of inter-agency planning. UAECC officers of DAE, DLS and DOF were observed to show keen interest in the preparation of Upazilla plans. But mainly due to lack of funding after winding of ASIRP and follow-up inter-agency cooperation and commitment the success attained eroded gradually later on.

A positive aspect of the current situation seems to be the growing recognition by all the line departments that an integrated and decentralized extension approach involving all the stakeholders would be needed to effectively respond to varying needs of all categories of farmers.

Reviewing BARC documents on recently released agricultural technologies, a list of 45 technologies, 25 on crops, 10 on livestock and 10 on fisheries was prepared. Information collected from farmers indicates that knowledge and adoption of crop technologies by farmers were somewhat satisfactory, but unsatisfactory for livestock and fisheries. This was mainly due to lack of DLS and DOF effective extension service delivery at the village levels.

x

DLS and DOF don’t have extension agents at union or village levels resulting in a vacuum in technology generation and transfer.

The learning of NAEP among ESPs is that there is an increasing diversity in institutions involved in providing extension services and the government policy encourages development of partnership between different extension service providers. However, there were few examples of working relationships where a set of activities have been planned and implemented through mutual sharing of resources, knowledge and experience between the public and the private organizations.

The perceptions of the mid career and senior officers of DAE, DLS and DOF about NAEP

components varied widely. In general, they recommended restructuring of the 11 components of NAEP, development of common guide line for implementation and renaming of NAEP.

Talking Points Opinion NAEP 11 (Eleven) components

Proposed restructuring of NAEP components as follows: Decentralization of extension services Demand-led and Participator ExtensionGroup Approach ExtensionKnowledge sharing and skills improvement of Extension Personnel’sFarmers TrainingsMore Focus on Ultra poor and pro-poor households.Strengthening DLS and DOF Services at Village levelsMainstreaming Project ActivitiesFocus on sub-sectoral growth issuesStrengthening Public-Private Partnership.Mainstreaming Gender in agriculture.Promoting Commercialization of agriculture.Wide use of media for technology transfer.Integrated Environment Support.Climate change and Risk Management.

NAEP concept NAEP in its present form is inadequate and should be readdressed to reflect food and agricultural policies and should be renamed as National Agricultural Extension Policy ascertaining ownership of all stakeholders.

Compositions and TORs of Committees

Should be thoroughly readdressed. UAECC and DEPC should be made more active. There are members in these two committees not concerned with extension. They should be excluded.

Guideline for implementation of NAEP

DGs of DAE, DLS and D0F develop a common guideline for implementation of NAEP.

Memorandum of under standing (MOU)

For fixing responsibilities of line department officers, DAE, DLS and DOF develop and sign a MOU

Funding for NAEP DAE, DLS and DOF should ensure regular funding for NAEP activities from revenue as from well as projects budget.

The relationship between NAEP and food production could not be determined because of poor implementation of NAEP in all stages. The growth in rice production is due to increased coverage of irrigation in Boro season and better supply of inputs. Growth in livestock and fisheries sub-sectors is mainly by the contribution of private sector initiatives.

The production of nutritious crops like pulses, oil seeds etc. have declined over the period due to lack of comprehensive extension approaches in spite of government several projects and programs.

xi

Policy Recommendations:i) NAEP needs to be restructured in respect of its composition, renaming as “National”

instead of “New” Agricultural Extension Policy and guidelines for implementation.

ii) Commitment of DAE, DLS and DOF senior management staff for implementation of NAEP should be made mandatory and EPICC should monitor its implementation regularly.

iii) The project-based approach would need to be replaced by a program-based approach to ensure greater coordination between the national extension services and the extension needs of different projects.

iv) To revive NAEP, a regular funding from revenue budget of the government to the field level implementing committees should be ensured.

v) For balanced nutrition, only increased cereal production is not an adequate measure. Production of nutritious crops, fisheries and livestock should be increased through better technology generation and expansion. This calls for integrated approach as in NAEP. Food production for balanced nutrition must be emphasized in a holistic farming system approach. It would require more grass root level joint planning of extension packages for increased productivities with efficient use of local resources and greater interagency coordination.

vi) It is probably the right time to review the different departmental mandates and to reform institutes for greater coordination of extension services. Considering learning from this study, one may consider a Decentralized Extension Approach (DEA) centering the Upazilla. The model of Decentralized Extension Approach (DEA) under the World Bank funded ‘National Agricultural Technology Project (NATC)’ is an agreed extension approach for DAE, DLS and DOF. In DEA the idea of one stop extension service at union level by DAE, DLS and DOF is accepted but yet to be put into practice.

vii) The present UAECC may be renamed as Upazilla Extension Coordination Committee which would be the nucleus of the Extension system. DEPC, ATC and NATCC are each too big. Should be simplified with lesser number of members and clear TORs

viii) Strong monitoring about inflow of information among hierarchical committees of NAEP should be done on periodic basis so that there remain consistencies in feedback and follow-up actions among the NAEP committees.

ix) Technology flow should be rapid and precise. Extension and Research linkage must be revamped. NATCC should be revitalized with new clear mandates. The NATCC should also have supervisory role of implementation of extension programs.

x) Also, to cut down this time both for development as well as adoption of technologies for example new varieties of crops, the NARS should be involved in participatory research with farmers. This will allow the system to understand better the demands of the farmers for particular desirable traits in the varieties in a given ecological setting.

xi) Training Facilities at union, Upazilla and district levels be developed and equipped with training aid, and other media materials.

xii

xii) Building public-private partnership with NGOs and Agribusiness Enterprises by GO ESPs should be strengthened in sharing resources, skills and to expand outreach capacity to disadvantaged farmers. Given that a fuller overhaul of the technology generation and the public extension system would take time even if it begins from now on in all earnest, we need to look at the shorter tem options for the next 5 years or so. One area of immediate attention is agricultural extension system which is the largest sufferer from several malaises. A public-private-NGO partnership is called for.

1

CHAPTER - 1

INTRODUCTION

1.6 Food security in Bangladesh: overviewBangladesh has achieved considerable progress in domestic food production but still poverty-related food insecurity is widely prevalent. Data from the last (2005) household income and expenditure survey revealed that more than 40 percent of the population (56 million people) were categorized as “ Absolute Poor “, failing to acquire the minimum level of food energy to maintain normal health, defined as 2122 kcal per person per day. Also 27 million people were categorized as ” Hard-core Poor “ failing to acquire 1805 kcal per person per day, and 11 million were “ Ultra Poor “, failing to acquire 1600 kcal per person per day. The Hard–core Poor and Ultra Poor in the urban and rural areas represented just below 20 percent and 8 percent of the overall population respectively. During the recent years there are reports in the national dailies that the number of hungry people has increased to 2.4 million in Bangladesh. The pattern of food consumption of Bangladesh people is seriously imbalanced with inadequate intake of fat, oil and protein. More than 80 percent of calories are derived from cereals. Women and children are especially vulnerable due to their greater requirements of essential food nutrients.

A substantial proportion of rural households continue to experience chronic as well as transitory food insecurity. A variety of factors contribute to household food insecurity, including lack of access to land for cultivation, lack of employment opportunity, loan repayment obligation, exclusion from social safety net programs and vulnerability to natural disasters.

The major livelihood strategy in rural Bangladesh is subsistence agriculture either through agriculture production activities, agriculture labor or both. There are low pronounced lean seasons within the crop calendar, lasting from October to November and from March to April, which further aggravate the food security situation for small farmers and the agriculture laborers.

Food security for urban households is affected by many factors including the participation of household members in the urban labor market, physical access to markets, cost of food items in the market and prevailing wages rates. The size of the households and the ratio of wage earners to dependents, the education level, knowledge/skill and physical capacity of individual household members, all influence how effectively a household can secure sufficient food to meet its needs. There exists variation in food security depending on urban or rural residence and the region of the country where related to residences. In the long-run, it will be the aim of policy to check this regional variation in food security and poverty prevalence.

Critically, the progress that has been made will be difficult to maintain in view of the growing pressure of population on extremely scarce natural resources. Although population growth rate has shown some declining trend, net increase in population has been resulting in marginalization and landlessness, especially in rural areas. Domestic food grain production remains susceptive to floods and droughts thereby perpetuating the threat of major production shortfalls and inadequate food availability.

The Government is committed to the continued development of agriculture in order to maintain food supplies for the growing populations, provide income and employment for rural people, and protect the environment. Because land is scare in Bangladesh, the key to agricultural development is the efficient, productive and sustainable use of all farm land. This depends on the farmers who decide what to produce, what technology and inputs to use, how much to sell, and how much care to take in looking after their crops, livestock, fish and trees.

2

1.7 The National Food Policy (2006) and Agricultural ExtensionThe Government of Bangladesh, in accordance with the World Food Summit Declaration of 1996 and the Millennium Development Goals (2000) has set its target at reducing the number of poor people to half by the year 2015. The Government reiterated its commitment to ensure dependable food security for all people at all times, with the formulation and approval of the National Food Policy (NFP) in August 2006.The Objectives of the NFP are:

- To ensure adequate and stable supply of safe and nutritious food.- To ensure purchasing power of the people for increased food accessibility and- To ensure adequate nutrition for all especially women and children.

Achieving this target requires addressing all aspects of food security: (i) greater efficiency of domestic agriculture and enhanced availability of food, (ii) assistance to attain increased food access by the food insecure, (iii) sustained increase in the incomes of the poor and the distressed to enhance their access to food, (iv)adequate supply of safe food and (v) appropriate programs to reduce malnutrition through increased effectiveness and proper utilization of the consumed food.

Achieving the first objective “Adequate and stable supply of safe and nutritious food”, requires an overall development of agriculture to ensure production and marketing of food grains as well as non-food grain items to create employment opportunities and increase income, ultimately to improve their nutritional status. A key strategic dimension is increasing food production and diversification of agriculture through technology development and dissemination and efficient uses of natural resources like land and water and production inputs like seeds, feeds, broods, breeds etc.

Specifically, the National Food Policy Plan of action (2008-2015) has given a thrust on demand-driven crop and non crop new technologies development and pro-poor extension technology dissemination. It recommends introducing new extension methods (e.g demo farms, farmers schools), along with necessary training; in line with its demand driven and pro-poor approach, it also calls for expanding community based extension and training system and strengthening GO-NGO-private sector collaboration for extension delivery. The NAEP has strongly emphasized the GO-NGO partnership with the inclusions of members in the different implementing committees. For increased production, the plan of action of NFP has recommended use and management of water resources and adequate supply and sustainable use of agricultural inputs as major interventions. It emphasizes increased irrigation coverage; improved delivery and efficient use of safe irrigation water; reduced dependency on ground water and reduced cost of irrigation water. It also set a target of increased supply of quality crop and non-crop seeds, timely supply of fertilizers and balanced use of fertilizers; increased efficiency and sustainability of agricultural land use, as well as strengthened Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Crop Management (ICM).

The NFP is an umbrella document that calls for effective implementation of the NAEP. The national Food Policy Plan of Action (2008-2015) generally underscores improvements in Bangladesh agriculture and research and extension system as key priorities with a particular emphasis on strengthening research extension linkage through demand driven research and extension services, and in this regard, the document calls for an effective implementation of the New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP, 1996).

1.8 Challenges of Post HYV Agriculture In BangladeshBangladesh agriculture depends on HYVs (and of late also on hybrid varieties) and water management through irrigation during the dry period to produce as much as possible given the various constraints within which it had to operate. The basic goal was to raise productivity of

3

rice cultivation. Ensuring food security and raising income will still remain the paramount goal. Question is how. The basic answer to this may be of two types.

First, the HYVs or hybrids whichever is considered, will have to have other desirable traits a part from simply being high-yielding. That is the technology for the future shall have to be on a different but related plan.

Secondly, it is the farming system whose productivity as a whole has to increase, not just the yield of a particular variety. The second issue is particularly important because of the need to diversify crop and food production as discussed earlier. Furthermore, this will ensure better stability of income of farmers.

Bangladesh may thus have three strategic choices before her. These include:a) technology generation to widen the choice to farmers as well as development of varieties and

farming systems suited to changing ecological conditions, b) reaching information about new technology to farmers through an effective extension system

and,c) development of marketing (domestic as well as exports) as more of income-elastic

commodities are expected to be produced.

Policies have to be formulated and/or revised and implemented with a strong political will to make the strategic interventions effective. The political will, rather than remaining rhetorical, have to be reflected in proper planning for necessary programs with adequate budgetary provisions.

The technology generation shall have to consider several imperatives. These are:a) development of shorter maturity varietiesb) development of drought resistant/less water consuming varietiesc) development of varieties resistant to moderate flood levelsd) development of salinity resistant varietiese) development of varieties resistant to lodging in case of moderate stormsf) development of deep water rice varieties which are better-yielding than at present

In each case disease and pest resistance have to be built in. At the same time agronomic practices have to be developed through adaptive research to lower the demand for water and irrigation to lower cost and also withstand drought.

Farming system research has to be conducted to develop varieties so that various crops/varieties may be sown/planted at different times or even changed depending upon circumstances from the dependence on aman/boro combination to others including a non-rice crop. This will allow farmers to make better choice of the utilization of his/her resources including land. Most importantly, all such varieties/farming systems have to be higher-yielding than before.

The priority probably, at least for now, has to be given to development of varieties which are suited more for the aman season. For that, varieties may be developed which can be planted somewhat earlier so that it can be grown almost wholly in rain-fed condition obviating the need for supplementary irrigation. While one such variety has been released, one needs more of them to suit specific ecological conditions.

The method of technology generation should not be confined to the conventional ones. But it may include genetic engineering and other methods. This will necessitate a regulatory system for ensuring bio-safety. Unfortunately, the bio-safety law and regulatory mechanism is yet to develop fully in the country.

4

1.9 The critical role of agricultural extensionEffective technology dissemination will be the key for addressing the challenges of post-HYV agriculture in Bangladesh. Technology dissemination is the means of empowering the farmers with knowledge based information for increasing and intensifying agricultural productivity.

Agricultural extension is an extremely important process which can accelerate technology transfer for social and economic development towards sustainable food security. In particular, effective extension can:

help farmers’ identify and overcome production, farm management and marketing problems at farm level through the exchange of information among farmers, extension staff, input suppliers, credit agencies and marketing agents;

help farmers make better use of existing technology, for example, through more efficient use of seed, fertilizer or irrigation etc;

introduce new technology to farmers, such as new breeds, new varieties, new crops and new equipment;

provides information to agricultural research institutions on farmer’s production constraints so that appropriate basic, applied or adaptive research can be carried out to address them;

help in the successful creation of opportunities or situations in which farmers gain the abilities and skills necessary to meet their needs and interests in such a way as to attain continuous improvement and self-satisfaction;

help farmers learn to put information into use in ways that result in improvements in their living standards;

help farmers gain a clear vision of what can and should be done, encourages farmers to improve their pattern of living and helps them develop the necessary skills to do so.

The NARS has so far generated a package of appropriate technology that was transferable to the extension systems for creating a great impact on food production and food security. While various varieties under development, but usually it takes too long to release varieties, sometimes 8-10 years. Moreover, the time for actual adoption by farmers through a weak extension system is too long to be acceptable.

In Bangladesh, agriculture extension services are being provided by different agencies and ministries and also by private agencies and NGOs and the system has been plagued by a number of weaknesses, including top-down approaches and lack of inter-agency coordination. In this context, the government decided to provide efficient participatory and sect-oral balanced and demand led extension service and as such encouraged the various partner and agencies within the national agricultural extension system to provide efficient and effective services which complement and reinforce each other, in an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of agriculture in Bangladesh.

Subsequently, the Government framed an extension policy titled New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) in 1996 in order to faster the dissemination process of crops, fisheries and forestry technology to farmers through improving the effectiveness of services provided by GOs, NGOs and Agribusiness Enterprises.

In line with the NAEP, the National Food Policy Plan of Action (2008-2015) underscores strengthening of research extension linkages, through the development of demand-driven research and extension services, and in this regard, recommends an effective implementation of the New Agricultural Extension Policy (1996).

5

1.10 Study ObjectivesFor the implementation of NAEP the Ministry of Agriculture developed a strategy in 1997. The strategy included Establishing an Extension Policy Implementation Coordinating Committee (EPICC), creation of Thana (Upazilla) Agricultural Extension Coordinating Committees (TAECCs) and revised terms of references for NATCC, ATC and DEPC. The strategy also emphasized on creating awareness of NAEP and instructed all District and Upazilla Extension workers to develop basic multi-disciplinary skills in Livestock, Fisheries, Crop production and the Environment. Because the NAEP recognizes the need for an integrated farm management approach and it is considered important that extension staff are made aware that each activity that farmers engage in has an economic implication and a risk attached to it and that each activity in the production cycle in some way affects the outcome of other activities.

Since the inception of NAEP in 1996 no systematic study was made to see the implementation status and effectiveness of NAEP. The present study is the first attempt to evaluate NAEP implementation status and its effectiveness, using pre-designed methodological tools and techniques that includes both quantitative questionnaire surveys of stakeholders, GO and NGOs and qualitative assessments through FGDs, KIIs, OGDs and panel discussions. In the following chapters the findings of the assessment and effectiveness of the implementation process were discussed. The specific objectives of this assessment were:

I. To assess the level of awareness and understanding of NAEP stakeholders.II. To assess level of adoption and practice of NAEP by extension providers, GOs, NGOs

and private organizations.III. To assess inter-agency cooperation and coordination developed in extension initiatives.IV. To measure individual and collaborative planning and Implementation of extension

activities by extension providers.V. To assess integration of Research-Extension-Farmer-Linkage in technology packaging

and diffusion. VI. To evaluate success and weakness of implementation of NAEP, VII. To assess impact of NAEP on food production.

We first reviewed the main thrusts of the NAEP and implementation mechanism put in place (Chapter II). We then presented the results of the participatory assessment of NAEP implementation effectiveness (Chapter III). The impact of NAEP on food production could not be assessed because of poor implementation of NAEP; however the growth of food production after NAEP has been reviewed and presented in section 3.8. Chapter IV is a concluding chapter highlighting a set of policy recommendations towards improving implementation effectiveness.

6

CHAPTER - 2

THE NEW AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION POLICY: MAJOR THRUSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISM

2.1 Agricultural extension in major agricultural policiesDifferent ministries have formulated a large number of policies on agriculture, livestock, fisheries, forestry etc. A plethora of policy documents on broad agriculture rural development is presented in (Table-1). The National Agricultural Policy (NAP) formulated by the ministry of Agricultural, 1999, emphasized implementation of New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) of 1996. It has focused strengthening research-extension linkage involving private sector entrepreneurs, NGOs and farmers. The NAP also encourages self motivation and cooperative system of production. The major policy gap in the NAP is the lack of direction on the implementation in the NAEP. The NAEP is an interministrial and interdepartmental policy, but the NAP did not mention anything on the strengthening coordination mechanism of NAEP. Rather the NAP has focused more attention on supply and management of agricultural inputs like seeds, fertilizers and minor irrigation.

Table 1: Major Agricultural Policies, Objectives and Years of Adoption in Bangladesh.

Name of the policies Major objectives Year of adoptionNational Agriculture Policy (NAP)

Attaining self-sufficiency in Food Production, mainly crop foods.

1999

National Livestock Policy (NLP)

Prioritizing issues for DLS reforms for enhance livestock growth, diversification, and privatization.

2007

National Fishery Policy (NFP)

Development of fisheries resources, increasing production, enhance in exports.

1998

National Forestry Policy (NFoP)

More area coverage, conservation of bio-diversity, land and water resources and government ratified agreements with donors related to global warming.

1979

National Water Policy (NWP)

All necessary means and measure will be taken to manage water resources in the country in a comprehensive, integrated and equitable manner.

1998

National Environment Policy (NEP)

The overall objective of protecting the environment with a view to achieving a sustainable development through environment friendly use of natural resources.

1992

The ministry of fisheries and livestock formulated national livestock development policy in 2007. This policy broadly covered development of poultry, dairy and meet production, breeds development and marketing. It has small section on livestock research and extension. The policy did not mention any new area or approaches on livestock extension rather it has discussed the traditional system of departmental programs of officers training management of veterinary hospital and artificial insemination activities etc. The livestock development policy did not mention anything about NAEP and its implementation processes. It’s a serious gap undermining the implementation of NAEP by the department of livestock services.

In 1998 the ministry of fisheries and livestock formulated national fisheries policy like livestock policy. These policies did not mention anything on NAEP. Small section in this policy deals with fisheries extension, but its primary focus was on fisheries conservation, demonstration farm and fisheries group formation. It also emphasized use of mass media and development of entrepreneurship.

7

The current national forest policy was prepared in 1994 with the major objectives of increasing aforestation in 20% of the forest area by the year 2015. It also emphasized massive aforestation and social forestry program on the sides of road, railways, dam and khas tank. These policies encourage the forest department carryout educational training program. NAEP did not consider the earlier forest policy as such a wide gap of coordination existed during the entire process of its implementation.

National water policy and national environmental policy are cross-cutting policies. The water policies among many other issues emphasized efficient use of water in agriculture and preservation of water in haors, boars and beels. The environmental policy has no direct linkages with agricultural production, but is closely connected with land use, biodiversity fisheries livestock production. This policy encourages sustainable agricultural production practices. Integrated environmental support is one of the components of NAEP. It concerns pest damage, over-extraction of water and inappropriate use of pesticides. To maintain the ecological balance in the natural environment, NAEP should encourage efficient use of natural resources and sustainable agricultural practices like Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Integrated Plant Nutrition System (IPNS).

The major policy gaps identified from the analysis of these policies are; a) Lack of coordination among the different ministries and department, b) Weakness of planning processes and development of programs/projects, c) Little field monitoring of the implementation processes and very weak interagency cooperation on policy development.

The other common concerns of all these policies are the expressed need for strengthening research- extension linkage and coordination amongst the ministries and agencies in the design, approval and implementation of projects. In particular, the extension delivery system is now much diversified, robust and governed by different ministries.

2.2 Bangladesh Extension System: overviewAgricultural Extension Services in Bangladesh have evolved historically and changed overtime in one or another form; In Bangladesh, the decade of the 1970s witnessed fragmentation of the agricultural extension service into multiple extension agencies with the aim to promote specific crops and provide specialized extension services.

At present, there are many agencies which provide extension support to the farmers of Bangladesh. These include government agencies, namely, the Department of Agricultural Extension, Bangladesh Rural Development Board, Bangladesh Water Development Board, Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation Forest Department, Department of Livestock Services and Department of Fisheries. There are also many non-government organizations, commercial traders and input suppliers (manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers) operating in rural areas of the country. Together all these partners can be seen as comprising the National Agricultural Extension System.

2.2.1 Crop SectorAgricultural Extension has a long history which started with different names traced back to 1870, (Halim & Kaida 2001). Although the separate department was established in 1906, the first extension work started through some demonstration farm in 1914, primarily dealing with seeds and seedlings.

After Independence of India and Pakistan in 1947 the provincial Agriculture Department was created by merging the Jute Regulation Department (JRD) created during British period and a large number of field officers were appointed. During 1950s Government did several trials and experiment for conducting agricultural and rural development activities.

8

Examples are creation of V-AID project in 1953 (with the assistance of USAID) to conduct extension and rural development works, established livestock, fisheries and marketing directorates along with agriculture (crop agriculture) and initiation of irrigation project. The V-AID program tried to organize the rural people through their participation in agricultural and rural development activities along with the government personnel at the grass root level. Its objectives were to increase the productive output and real income of the villagers through modern techniques of farming sanitation and health, co-operatives, cottage industries and also to develop a spirit of self-help among the men, women and youth of the locality. V-AID also tried to co-ordinate the works of different department and to extend its own activities to the villages by providing an extension services to the rural areas (Obaidullah, 1998). But the V-AID project was abolished in late 1950s and its different activities were merged with deferent other organizations gradually. However most of the agricultural technology related programs were handed over to the Directorate of Agriculture and the other rural development departments.

The extension activities of the Directorate of Agriculture were mainly to educate and motivate the farmers for adoption of improved and recommended practices in agriculture. The field level extension worker, who was called as Union Agriculture Assistant (UAA) used to serve at union level. Their main jobs were to conduct demonstration, organize farmer’s group, make farm and home visits and provide information to the farmers regarding the availability of credit and other production inputs. Both individual and group methods of extension work were followed to conduct extension activities. Each union was served by one UAA and he was responsible to the Thana Agricultural Officer (TAO) as usual. The use of mass media was being initiated and was very poor and inadequate to serve the needs of the farmers. Radio was the main mass medium to supply information to the rural areas. But radio was a scarce material at that time in Bangladesh. Very few people, even in urban area could hold a radio in those days. Therefore the personal and group contacts made by the UAA and the distributors of different inputs (as seeds, fertilizer, water, credit etc.) were the main source of extension information to the farmers. Extension activities were confined to motivation, education, and distributions of inputs to the farmers through traditional extension teaching methods. Issues regarding environment, sustainability, quality of life, gender equity, human resource development, research-extension linkage, farming systems approach, resource management, monitoring and evaluation were mostly beyond the coverage of extension system. Further, due to lack of appropriate research outputs from the research stations, extension could not serve the basic needs of the farming community. The extension approach was mostly top-down and participation of the beneficiaries in the system was almost absent. The UAA used to visit different villages of his own assigned union and report to the Thana government departments by providing information as and when needed. Whatever activities in extension were performed by the Directorate of Agriculture, were related to crop sector. So, the government during this period established separate agricultural organizations for livestock and fisheries. These agencies also tried to start extension activities by themselves separately, but could not make progress due to lack of manpower and technology and also due to emphasis on food crops given both by the government and the farm people.

During this period, the Directorate of Agriculture was bifurcated into (a) Directorate of Agriculture (Extension and Management) and (b) Directorate of Agriculture (Research and Education) under the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). Simultaneously, the Bangladesh Rice Research institute (BRRI) released some HYVs of rice with the support of IRRI. This new HYV seeds of rice along with package technologies made the way for the Directorate of Agriculture (E&M) to strengthen its extension activities at the farmers’ field. The extension activities of the government in crop sector got a momentum due to release of HYV rice seeds and package technologies as fertilizer, irrigation, pesticides, training and credit. Rice based extension activities followed by green revaluation started in late 1960s was the starting point of the present day extension system (Halim & Kaida 2001). The Agriculture system continued to develop and

9

has under gone further reform after Liberation of Bangladesh in 1971. The Directorate of agriculture (Research and Education) was fully given the responsibilities to conduct research. Many of the extension agencies were merged in 1982 to form the single Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) with a new organizational structure (Fig. 1).

Non-crop sector extension agencies were not strengthened to the level of crop sector. Only some components like animal health and artificial insemination in livestock services and setting up of few hatcheries and limited number of aquaculture and fisheries management projects were initiated by the Government. The growth in the non-crop sector so far obtained was mainly due to private sector initiatives.

Fig. 1: Organizational Structure of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE)

The Management Committee comprises of the Director General and the Wing

HeadsDirector General

Food Crops Wing

Cash Crops Wing

Field Services

Wing

Plant Protection

Wing

Training Wing

Planning & Evaluation

Wing

Administration & Personnel Wing

Horticulture Centers

Regions

Districts

Upazilas

Blocks

Quarantine Stations

CERDI ATIs Personnel Management

Financial Management

10

The present organizational structure of DAE is the result of unification of six mono-crop organizations in 1982. The problems of the extension program were: (a) inadequate demarcation of function and areas of responsibility, (b) Misuse of resources due to lack of coordination, and (c) Farm family and the farming community was not looked as one unit. However, the benefit of this bifurcation was that it could make a break through and initiated a ‘take off ’to help the farm people.

Major changes in approach to extension service deliveryIn order to accelerate agricultural growth, government of Bangladesh switched to Training & Visit System (T & V System) since the mid-70s as the dominant extension approach.

Prior to the Training and Visit System (T&V), there was one Union Agricultural Assistant providing a service to 2-3,000 farm families (1:2,500). T & V was introduced in Bangladesh through the support of the World Bank funded Extension and Research Projects (ERP) phase I& II from 1977 to 1991. ERP II, which extended T&V across the country on the basis of the pilot ERP I. It was noted that the “World Bank formulated ERPII without a proper and in-depth evaluation of ERP I”. In 1992, DAE was thought to be directly contacting 10% of the farming population. Some 89% of extension expenditure was absorbed by staff pay and allowances, with the balance for operational costs (Halim & Kaida 2001).

T&V system of extension work was first introduced in Bangladesh in 1977, initially to cover a few northern districts. Experiencing good results of T&V system, it was gradually expanded to the whole of Bangladesh from 1979-80 through the Directorate of Agriculture (Extension and Management) with the assistance of World Bank. This system continued in Bangladesh up to the late part of 1980s with further support of FAO/UNDP. Actually during this period the unification of all the mono-crop extension services was done and the department was renamed at its present nomenclature as the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE). The DAE was reorganized with 5 divisions such as (i) Food Crops Division, (ii) Cash Crops Division, (iii) Training Division, (iv0 Field services Division, (v) Plant Protection Division and 2 other wings named as (i) Planning and Evaluation Wing and (ii) Administration and Personnel Wing. The district was the important focal point for managing the operations of DAE. The managerial direction and administrative professional support for an average of 7 to 8 Upazilas (Thana was renamed as upazila in 1984 and this is the closest point of institutional service to the farmers) with a combined establishment of over 250 personnel was provided by a Deputy Director for districts and by an Assistant Director for districts having less then 8 Upazilas. Below upazila, there was Block, where a Block Supervisor (BS) who worked with the farmers to cover on average of 800 farm families. By 1982-83 all the districts of Bangladesh were brought under T&V system. The total number of DAE’s extension personnel at that time (during mid 1980s) was 24,046. Out of these personnel, 709 (2.95%) worked at the head quarter level, 3209 (13.34%) worked at the district level, 7488 (31.14%) worked at the upazila level and 12,640 (52.59%) used to work at the block level (Kibria, 1987).

The focal point of T&V extension approach was the Block, the lowest unit of field extension works, where a block supervisor had to visit and conduct his field works. A block covered 800 to 900 farm families depending upon the intensity of activities in the area. During the T&V system each block was divided into 8 sub-blocks. Ten contact farmers were selected by BS in each sup-block, based on some criteria (relatively innovative, big and educated farmers were usually selected as per criteria). When a farmer’s group was present in the area, in most cases, the model farmers/farm leaders were selected as the contact farmers. The BS’s activities comprised of face to face contact through farm visit schedule, delivering impact points (technological information packages validated earlier by the research and extension personnel) to the contact farmers, and conducting demonstrations in the locality (mostly in the field of contact farmer). The two steps flow of information (from BS to the contact farers and then from

11

contact farmer to the non-contact farmers) was the mode of message delivery system in T&V approach. Each BS had to maintain a dairy book to record his activities over the fortnightly visit schedule. Diary was the most important day-to-day guidebook of BS in performing and recording his jobs. Out of a fortnight, the BS had to make 8 day field visits, attending 1 day training and 1 day conference at the upazila, 2 days extra visit to the field to make-up the arrear works and 2 holidays. It was expected that the contact farmers of the farming community should deliver messages and technology to the other farmers of the farming community. There were no formal group activities except gathering of people in the demonstration plots of the contact farmers.

BS work schedule: 8 days field visit 2 days make-up visit 1 day upazila training 1 day upazila conference 2 holidays

The T and V system focused on the following methodological approaches: 2) developing professionalism in extension system;3) single line of technical and administrative command;4) concentration of efforts on important and relevant aspects of agricultural production

(impact points);5) regular and continuous training of extension staff specially Block Supervisors (BSs)

presently named; Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officer(SAAO) – the grass-roots level extension staff;

6) regular scheduled visits by SAAOs to contact farmers and delivery of programmed extension messages to them who, in turn, are expected to diffuse these messages to their fellow farmers and thus act as informal change agents;

7) on average 900 farm families under the jurisdiction of one SAAO;8) strong linkages with research and training systems; and9) effective monitoring and supervision.

With the introduction of T&V system some progress had been made in improving the coordination of the government agricultural extension programs, training of extension personnel and management and supervision of field level activities. The broad majority of the extension personnel and their supervisors were very much in favor of T&V and found its basic principles necessary in order to conduct good extension works. But in reality due to many reasons the work performance of most of the extensions personnel remained below satisfactory level, which was not expected through the T&V concept. It can be said that the reorganization of DAE has formally been completed, but the system could not be implemented successfully at the field level. Some of the weaknesses of T &V were as follows (Halim & Kaida 2001). Lack of participation of farmers and field level staff in the planning process of the extension

programs. The planning process was mostly top down. Extension programs mostly took care of the relatively big farmers, with less care to the small

and marginal farm families. The message did not ‘trickle-down’ from the contact to the no-contact farmers as was

expected in the concept of the T&V system. Linkage between research-extension-education was inadequate to provide the farmers with

appropriate ‘impact point’ (p0ackage of messages for the farmers) every month/periodically. Farmer’s technology and indigenous knowledge was not taken care of in the system.

Information needs of the farmers were less emphasized and the ‘impact point’ was mostly developed without considering the felt needs of the locality.

12

Nevertheless, during the late 1980s, the T&V system was abandoned but it lifts behind several elements and learning experiences for the government extension programs. The DAE revised the extension approach to incorporate the missing elements of T&V. Consequently group approach, decentralization, responsive to farmer’s needs, targeting and attention to women, environmental issues in extension, use of multi-media and participatory extension approaches were highlighted in the DAE’s new extension approaches. The good impact of T&V was that a momentum in the organization, management, training and resource utilization was developed in the extension system of the government, specifically in crop sector.

The Revised Extension Approach (REA)After 1989 another system known as Revised Extension Approach (REA) was established through Agricultural Support Services Project (ASSP) phase-I (A ten year review, ASIRP 2003).The REA consisted of five principles; decentralization; targeting; responsiveness to farmer needs; the use of a range of extension methods and working with groupsThere are some common and dissimilar features in NAEP and REA. The REA is a crop extension approach and it does not cover fisheries and livestock. The NAEP has eleven components to cover all the three sub-sectors’ coordinated extension activities. The group approach and decentralization were common thrust areas both in NAEP and REA. The NAEP concept of group approach and decentralization is much broader covering all categories of farmers with emphasis on demand–led extension in crop, fisheries and livestock.

DecentralizationFarming systems, household economic activities, agro-ecological conditions, credit and marketing opportunities vary considerably from place to place. For this reason, the department had decentralized responsibilities for the planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of extension programmes to staff at block, Thana (Upazilla), district and regional levels.

The Upazila level was the basic unit for planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating local extension programmes. This system ensured that decisions about the services provided by the Department Agricultural Extension were taken at the lowest possible level, but with the full support of specialist staff at district and regional level.

TargetingAll members of rural households contribute to agricultural activities. Their information needs however vary. Targeting involved developing programmes which would meet the needs of different types of farmers. DAE’s Mission Statement emphasized that extension services should be provided to all categories of farmer.

Responsiveness to farmer needsA central part of the Extension Approach was the requirement for the Department to meet the needs of farmers. This means that the Department must identify farmer needs. As mentioned above, a Farmer Information Needs Assessment (FINA) had been designed for this purpose. Once farmer needs have been identified DAE is able to plan specific activities in response. DAE, during 1996-2003 with financial assistance of ASSP and ASIRP developed and cultured the practice of FINA in its bottom-up planning of extension activities. A good number of extension activities like farmers trainings on new technologies, field problem shootings, establishment of demonstrations on farmers plots, field days, exposure visits, fairs, folk songs, publications of print media materials etc were planned and executed as follow up of FINA. But with the closer of ASIRP fund support these activities discontinued.

13

Using a Range of Extension Methods The Department recognized that there was a wide range of extension methods which could be used. These included; mass media, such as television, radio and newspapers and printed material; folk media, such as songs, puppet shows and drama; agricultural fairs; group extension events such as field days and group discussion meetings; formal farmer training classes and farmer field schools, and individual extension events such as demonstrations and farm visits

Working with groupsWorking with groups meant working with more than one farmer at a time. The Department recognized that working with groups as well as individual farmers could offer many advantages.These were. it increased the total number of farmers that have access to extension serves; it increased contact with categories of farmer that have largely been ignored in the past, such

as women of smaller farmers; it promoted co-operation and improves the likelihood of farmers working together to address

issues that cannot be addressed by individuals; it increased cost-effectiveness, as a single member of staff can meet several farmers at on

time; it improved the quality of extension events, as farmers often learn more in a group, can

discuss issues and ideas among themselves particularly when discussing possible solutions to problems;

it increased the quality of farmer participation in defining extension needs, and in planning appropriate extension events.

2.2.2 Non Crop Sector Animal health, disease control, artificial insemination, production and supply of poultry chicks to individuals and firm owners have received special attention now in the extension system of livestock and poultry in Bangladesh, through the Department of Livestock Services (DLS). Extension activities of DLS aim at:

Prevention, control and treatment of diseases Artificial Insemination (AI) of cattle for genetic improvement and increased production Fodder production and nutrition development for livestock Distribution of inputs like veterinary biological, chick pullets, heifer and concentrate

feed, fodder seeds for increased production Training of farmers and entrepreneurs Creation of employment and income through livestock and poultry rearing

The Department of Fisheries (DoF) is part of Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (MOFL)focuses extension work on pond, open water, marine and brackish water fisheries. The Department employs about 5000 staff; of those about 1000 are professionals, 2000 sub-professionals and 2000 support staff. Unlike DAE, DoF have a few staff at the Union level. Its focus of extension support is Upazilla, from where the DoF staff performs all fishery-related activities, aquaculture extension, training, conservation and enforcement. In view of the growth potential of aquaculture, in recent years, a lot of attention has gone to supporting this sub-sector with a focus on pond aquaculture.

14

2.3 The NAEP: towards an integrated and demand-driven approach to agricultural extension. Bangladesh agriculture consists of crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry. Farmers are not practicing mono-culture. Our farming system is a mixed farming system. While farmer inquires delivers of extension services for crops from DAE, they also at the same time, seek for extension delivery of other commodities. Because of bi-furcation of ministries and departments, extension service is provided by four main departments. These are Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Department of Livestock (DLS), Department of Fisheries (DoF) and Forest Department (FD). The REA was a follow-up of T&V system extension for crop sector (DAE) only. It is fact that, REA five provisions have many commonalities with NAEP, within the framework of REA; one important activity was building partnership with other ESP. This is consistent with NAEP and it has provided a broader framework for NAEP in integrating extension services of crop, fisheries and livestock. The productivity of farmer’s resource base is not being exploited by the delivery of integrated extension packages for all components of farming system. The Government thus recognized the importance of linking extension services delivery to farmers. This has resulted in the development of a New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) in 1996. The primary objective of the New Agricultural Extension Policy given in the Policy strategy document “A Strategy for Implementing NAEP” (Ministry of Agriculture, 1997) is;“.......... to facilitate and accelerate technological transformation with a view to becoming self-sufficient in food production and improving the nutritional status of the population.........”

The Goal of the New Agricultural Extension Policy is to: “Encourage the various partners and agencies within the National agricultural extension system to provide efficient and effective services which complement and reinforce each other, in an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of agriculture in Bangladesh”.

To achieve this goal the policy includes the following eleven key components;

extension support to all categories of farmer; efficient extension services; decentralization; demand-led extension; working with groups of all kinds; strengthened extension-research linkage training of extension personnel; appropriate extension methodology; integrated extension support to farmers; co-coordinated extension activities; integrated environmental support.

Each of these components is briefly reviewed in the following sections.

Extension Support to All Categories of Farmers A major objective of the NAEP is to ensure that all farmers have access to the extension services they need. This is to be done by targeting particular activities to meet the needs of particular categories. Extension programs will therefore include specific activities for; women farmers and other women household members, in support of homestead

production and post harvest activities as well as their roles in filed crop production; young people, who are the farmers of the future and small and marginal farmers who constitute more than 80 percent of the rural HHs. Large and medium farmers; landless households, who have no farmland but may have homestead areas.

15

After 1996 extension services of the departments of DAE, DLS and DOF were decentralized to grass-root level extension. During recent years, most donor funded projects extension activities also supported extension priority to the landless, marginal, small, women and youth farmer. In absence of a nationwide approach, project base activities dominated the extension service. This has been a problem in the implementation of NAEP allover the country.

Efficient Extension ServicesCapacity building, institutional strengthening and logistical support are the main components of the NAEP. Therefore training and skill development were given priority for all categories of extension agents including farmers. Moreover, the policy seeks to ensure that effective co-ordination is established to increase the efficiency of agricultural extension. Always there were fund constrains impeding capacity building programme. The public sector research institutions like BARI, BRRI, BINA, BLRI and BFRI have developed many technologies so far. But many of these technologies could not be transferred for lack of training of extension staff and farmer and other extension activities.

DecentralizationOut of five principles of REA, one is Decentralization. NAEP’s one element is also Decentralization bearing same meaning and applicability for both cases. The only difference is that REA “Decentralization” concerns only the crop extension by DAE. Whereas the NAEP goal of Decentralization process involve devolving planning, funding, implementation and monitoring responsibilities of crop, livestock and fisheries sub-sectors to Upazilla level to finance extension activities decided jointly with farming communities. The NAEP seeks the devolution of much of the responsibility, especially in the government sector, for key aspects of the planning and implementation of extension programs. These key aspects will include: Identifying and responding to information needs: selecting appropriate information

for farmers according to their needs; Collecting information about local resources: basing extension program on a clear

understanding of the availability of local resources, and the prevailing social and physical environment;

Program planning: details of work schedules and extension activities planned at local level, by staff in consultation with their immediate supervisors;

Training: farmer and extension personnel training plans drawn up at local level, to reflect local needs;

Media: radio and television programs, bulletins, leaflets, posters and folders produced locally (and nationally) to provide farmers with appropriate information.

Crop sector extension strengthened the Upazilla level extension services of addressing the problem of location specific variability of farming system, household, economic activity and agro-ecological diversity. The DAE in most of the Upazilla used local information and data base for planning of extension programmes. In DLS and DOF such efforts were not visible. Demand-led ExtensionThe NAEP provides that all extension activities and research priorities are to be based on the needs, problems and potentials identified at farm level. This may lead to the involvement of extension agencies in local on-farm participatory research in order to identify appropriate solutions to farmers’ problems through Rapid Rural Appraisal, Participatory Rural Appraisal and Problem Censuses. The ASSP and ASIRP developed the culture of decentralization and demand-led planning of extension activities in DAE, DLS and DOF. The performance of DAE was somewhat good but for other non-crop agencies there was not much success mainly for inadequate fund provision from revenue budget and poor initiative of the public sector extension leaders.

16

Working with Groups of all Kinds The REA approved as a crop sector extension approach advocates for working with groups of all kinds, landless, marginal, small, medium and large farmers. The NAEP endorses the principle that extension staff should “work with groups of all kinds”, in order to bring maximum benefit to farmers. The existing groups would be the focus of extension activities and where needed new groups will be encouraged. REA’s “working with groups” and NAEP’s “Working with Groups of all Kinds” are synonymous. NAEP emphasizes to work with groups to; bring extension staff into contact with more farmers; help all categories of farmers (men, women, large, small and marginal) to get benefit

from extension; improve the learning and spread of knowledge among the farming population; enable farmers to fully participate in the planning of extension programs; provide a forum where decisions can be taken for farmers to take coordinated action

leading to self-reliance (for example, on pest management, forest management, livestock grazing and soil conservation);

promote a closer, participatory working relationship between staff and farmers;

Group extension approach has been recognized by DAE, DLS and DOF as the best approach of reaching large number of farmers. But in practice group approach was followed by DAE only in areas where donor supported projects were implemented. The DOF has some success in large wetland areas where community people formed groups for fish cultivation. But DLS also works for all types of clients in an individual approach not in group approach.

Strengthened Extension-Research Linkage The NAEP has underscored the need of extension research linkage and provided the following institutional mechanism for close cooperation and coordination. A National Technical Co-ordination Committee, comprising extension representatives

from the government, non-government organization and private sectors and representatives from research:

Agricultural Technical Committees, each covering a number of districts in similar agro-ecological zones and comprising local representatives of extension agencies and research institutes;

Research-extension review workshops between staff of the Extension service providers and research institutes.

The NAEP also provided instructions for contract research involving extension departments and farmers. Learning from informal research was also encouraged. Research extension reviews were held, when project fund was available. This has resulted in relatively better technology demonstration Overall Extension-Farmer-Research Linkage improved very little and as a result very few technologies could reach the farmers. Whatever gain was achieved during ASSP and ASIRP period that could not be sustained further. Initiative from the research organization on development, testing, screening and transfer of technologies was also poor.

Training of Extension Personnel The New Agricultural Extension Policy emphasizes training of all categories of extension staff and diversified clients including land less households’ women and youth. This is in line with the Government policy for training opportunities and funds to be made accessible to all extension service providers. Training resources and facilities will be optimally utilized and strengthened, and higher education encouraged.

Training of extension personnel is being performed continuously by DAE, DLS and DOF to a limited extend. Much more rigorous training of all classes of extension staff including farmers are to be carried out.

17

Appropriate Extension Methodology The NAEP recognizes the use of appropriate extension methods. It advocates extension agencies to select appropriate extension methods like farm visits, media, training, demonstrations, fairs, visits and motivational tours etc. Farm visit, training and demonstration were the appropriate extension methodologies. These have been with ESP, but not in a coordinated fashion as embodied in the NAEP.

Integrated Extension Support to FarmersThe policy of the Government is to provide farmers with advice on all aspects of agriculture. And as such ESPs should develop and implement extension activities jointly and sharing resources, skills and physical facilities for cost effective extension. At present, the DAE has extension agents at grass root level. One extension agent is primarily responsible for approximately 2000 farm families. The Department of Livestock Services and Department of Fisheries don’t have extension staff at Upazilla level. The Department of Forestry has staff mainly at District level. UAECC was expected to play a significant role in this regard. In practice little efforts were made. There was no sharing of programme of DLS and DOF by DAE at the grass-root level implementation stage.

Coordinated Extension ActivitiesThe extension services of the various agencies within the national agricultural extension system will be coordinated in order to optimize the use of the resources. This implies the sharing of information and expertise among the agencies involved, and participation where appropriate in each others extension activities.

The New Agriculture Extension Policy recognizes that different agencies working in the same areas often have complementary expertise and that where this is brought together the effectiveness of all agencies in their service to the farmers can be enhanced.No evidence is available on integrated extension support to farmer and coordinated extension activity. The district and Upazila committees have mostly reviewed crop production technology, rarely non-crop technology. The National Technical Coordination Committee as the apex body of research functioned very weakly.

Integrated Environmental SupportThe NAEP recognizes environmental problems and sustainable agriculture practices in order to maintain the ecological balance in the natural environment, with the following objectives: control and prevent pollution and degradation related to soil, water and air promote environment-friendly activities; strengthen the capabilities of public and private sectors to manage environmental

concerns as a basic requisite for sustainable development; create opportunities for people’s participation in environmental management activities.

The NAEP also included the following strategies for the realization of the above objectives: integration of the environment into the overall agricultural policy to ensure sustainable

agricultural development; environmental impact assessment as an integral part of the development and testing of

innovations by agricultural research institutes, universities, non-government organizations and GO ESP;

promotion of environmentally sound agricultural practices, such as Integrated Pest Management, and active discouragement of damaging and hazardous agricultural practices;

monitoring the impact of agricultural practices by environmental agencies, and the use of findings to stimulate a continuous improvement of eco-friendly agricultural technologies and agricultural policies;

18

2.4 Institutional setting of NAEP implementationNAEP provisions for extension providers who have a stake in NAEP are divided into three main categories;

Government Organizations (GOs)Non Government Organizations (GOs)The private Sector and Agribusiness Enterprises

Each broad group has a crucial role to play in creating an environment which ensures the optimal utilization of all available resources for the successful implementation of NAEP. However, in terms of development approach, motivation, resources and competence there is as much variation within each of the broad groups as there is between them. For this reason, detailed implementation plans within the overall NAEP strategy will vary widely. Subject to the principles laid down in this policy, the decision to implement NAEP and the plans for implementation will be a matter of free choice for each agency/organization. The NAEP partners will develop their own work programmes within the framework of a mutually agreed strategy.

In a broader context NAEP will create a development environment which will assist GoB in identifying extension initiatives which merit support. The institutional and organizational framework which is integral to policy implementation will also provide for a greater degree of co-ordination of donor-aided agricultural extension projects.

The recommendations for implementing the NAEP1996, was endorsed by the NAEP Task Force Sub-Committee on 1 October 1997describing the principles of the recommendations of workshop held in 1997and those were retained to form the basis for this strategy ‘ A Strategy for Implementing The New Agricultural Extension Pliicy,1997’. This strategic document also provided structure of NAEP coordination committee (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Structure of NAEP Co-ordination Committees

19

Ministry of Agricultural

DAE (Secretariat)

Other Ministries

BARC Other Research Inst’s

Other Depart-mental HQs

FBCCIADABAutonomous Corporations

EPICC Sub-Committees

DAE Regional Offices

Consultative Sub-Committee

DONORS

Research StationsMinistry Division

Offices

DAE District Offices

DistrictOffices

DistrictOffices

Private Orga-nisations

District Chamber

DistrictNGOs

DAE Thana Office

Thana Office Local NGOs Local

Traders

Farmers and Groups Farmers and Groups Farmers and Groups Farmers and Groups Farmers and Groups

DAE BSs

EPICC

Research Stations

NATCC

ATC

DEPC

TAECC

20

NAEP Implementation Committees

For policy guidance and oversight of NAEP implementation, a high power Government committee was formed at the national level following a Task Force recommendation with Secretary, MOA, as Chairman and Director, Field Services wing of DAE as Member-Secretary. There were in total 31 members representing different ministries and agencies of both GOs and NGOs. The committee formed was named as Extension Policy Implementation and Coordinating Committee (EPICC). EPICC (see Box1) had several sub-committees for assisting its different activities.

Box 1. Extension Policy Implementation and Coordinating Committee (EPICC).Chairman

1. Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture

Members

2 & 3 Additional Secretaries (responsible for Extension and Policy Planning)4. Executive Chairman, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC)5. Chairman, Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC)6. Director General, Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE)7. Director General, Livestock Department8. Director General, Fisheries Department9. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Women’s Affairs10. Joint Secretary, (Extension), Ministry of Agriculture11. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock12. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests13. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources14. Executive Director, Cotton Development Board (CDB)15. Director General, NGO Affairs Bureau16. Director General, Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BRDB)17. Director General, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI)18. Director General, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI)19. Director General, Bangladesh Jute Research Institute (BJRI)20. Director General, Bangladesh Livestock Research Institute (BLRI)21. Director General, Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute (BFRI)22. Director General, Sugarcane Research Institute (SRI)23. Chief Conservator of Forest, Forest Department24. Director, Tea Research Institute25. Joint Chief, Planning Wing, Ministry of Agriculture26. Member, Planning, Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB)27. Executive Director, Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh (ADAB)28. Representative of Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industries (FBCCI)29. Representative, Seedmen’s Society of Bangladesh30. Representative, Bangladesh Seed Merchants Association31. Director, Field Services Wing, DAE-Member-secretary

EPICC may co-opt other members as necessary

21

Apart from EPICC, Implementation Committees were formed at Upazilla, District, Region and National levels as mentioned below:

i. Upazilla Agricultural Extension Coordination Committee (UAECC) : 25 members

ii. District Extension Planning Committee (DEPC): 20-35 members (Numbers very due to varying numbers of Upazilla Agricultural officers who are all members).

iii. Agricultural Technical Committee (ATC) : 20-30

iv. National Agricultural Technical Coordination Committee (NATCC): 31 members.The compositions and Terms of References (TORs) of the committees are shown in annexes (Annex -3,4 & 5).

Implementation Strategic GuidelinesThe Ministry of Agriculture in 1997 approved a strategy for implementation of NAEP (MOA 1997). A brief account of the implementation strategy containing guidelines is reproduced below.

In a national workshop held in 1997, the following recommendations were made for enhancing implementation of NAEP:

The terms of reference of the following committees should be reviewed;- National Agricultural Technical Co-ordination Committee (NATCC)-- Agricultural Technical Committees (ATC)-- District Extension Planning Committee (DEPC)-- DAE/NGO Liaison Committee (Homestead)-- Upazilla Agricultural Extension Committee (UAECC)

There were some questions raised by core ESPs like DLS and DOF e.g. chairmanship of NAEP implementing committees, number of members in each committee, area of work of each committee. Considering all such issues the TORs of ATC, DEPC and UAECC were amended by EPICC/MOA (Annex. 3, 4&5).The other guidelines included,

- Conduct a Nationwide Campaign to Create Awareness of NAEPResponsibilities entrusted with DAE, DLS and DoF

- Issue Instructions for Attendance at NAEP Related Committee MeetingsDirector Generals (DGs) of DAE, DLS and DoF were given this task

- Encourage Extension providers to utilize the Resources and Outreach Capacity of NGOs

- Develop Management Systems to Support NAEP Implementation

- DAE to Offer Services and Support to Other Agencies

22

- All district and Upazilla Extension Workers should develop Basic Multidisciplinary Skills in Livestock, Fisheries, Crop production and the Environment

- Extension Agencies should Develop Master Training plans to Support NAEP Implementation- Provide Upazilla Training Halls for Use by all Extension providers and Rural Community

Organizations- Extension Plans and Recommendations must be Environmentally Friendly.

2.5 Weaknesses of NAEP development and implementation design In assessing the NAEP implementation effectiveness it is important to consider the process under which it was developed. In this regard, it is important to note that implementation of NAEP was supported by Agricultural Support Services Project (ASSP) phase II from 1996 and then by Agricultural Services Innovation and Reform Project (ASIRP) from 1999 to 2003. Since 2003 there was no separate funding to support NAEP. It appears that the policy was developed without much discussion and participation of all the stakeholders, with significant implications in terms of national ownership.

The objective of the Extension Policy Implementation Coordinating Committee (EPICC) was to provide a forum for all agricultural extension partners to participate in implementing the New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) approved by the Government of Bangladesh. In practice, formulation structure of NAEP Coordination Committees involving various partners proved not to be so much effective, mainly because of involvement of too many organizations having little interest in NAEP as well as ownership confusion by core agencies like DLS and DOF (more in next Chapter).

23

CHAPTER - 3

Assessment of NAEP implementation status and effectiveness

Field investigations were carried out to measure the implementation status and effectiveness of the NAEP. The awareness development, understanding of the NAEP, knowledge about the implementing agencies and functioning of various NAEP committees were assessed. The processes of joint planning, inter agency cooperation and the level of decentralized extension planning were also measured. The following methodology including tools and technique were followed during the assessment period from October 2007 to March 2008. The study tools and technique were Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Questioner Survey of GO-NGO stakeholders, review of NAEP committee composition and function, Open Group Discussion (OGD) and consultative workshops. The study was conducted covering 40 Upazilas within 20 Districts of 10 Regions.

3.1 Methodology, Organizational Approach and Analytical Tools

The Study Methodology Involved a number of activities as mentioned below:3.1.1 Indicators of NAEP Performance:

Stakeholders are made aware through good orientation Stakeholders at different levels understand the compositions, TORs and implementation

strategies. Stakeholders express strong commitments for Adoption

Stakeholders put NAEP into planning and implementation of extension activities by sharing knowledge, skills and resources. Review of policy Documents For quantitative assessment Questionnaire Surveys of stakeholders.

For qualitative assessment activities involved Focus Group Discussions (FGD) Open Group Discussion (OGD) Review of NAEP Committees functions Review of Inter-agency coordination through Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) Extension-Research Linkage Expert Panel Discussion

3.1.2. Questionnaire Surveys of StakeholdersAlong with qualitative assessment tools and techniques applied for the study, quantitative assessment about Awareness, Understanding and Adoption and Practice or implementation of NAEP was conducted among stakeholders of GOs and NGOs. Initially 875 stakeholders were decided to be surveyed in 40 Upazilla of 20 districts under 10 agricultural regions as shown below (Table-2):

24

Table 2: The NAEP Study Sites and Stakeholders

Study Sites No of clients to be SurveyedNational Region District Upazilla National Region District Upazilla NGO s &

OthersDhaka 1. Rajshahi 1. Rajshahi 1. Rajshahi

2. Natore25 5 10 20 20

2. Natore 1. Boraigram2. Lalpur

10 20

2. Rangpur 1. Rangpur 1. Sadar2. Mithapukur

5 10 20 20

2.Laimonirhat 1. Domar2. Saidpur

10 20

3. Jessor 1. Jessor 1. Sadar2. Chougacha

5 10 20 20

2. Jhenaidha 1. Sailkopa2. Kaligonj

10 20

4. Barishal 1. Barishal 1. Sadar2. Badergonj

5 10 20 20

2. Raibari 1. Balikandi2. Sadar

10 20

5. Dhaka 1. Tangail 1. Shakipur2. Gopalpur

5 10 20 20

2. Narsingdi 1. Shibput2. Roypura

10 20

6. Mymensingh

1. Sherpur 1. Nokia2. Nalubari

5 10 20 20

2. Mymensingh 1. Trishal2. Ishawargonj

10 20

7. Comilla 1. Baria 1. Kasba2. Nabinagar

5 10 20 20

2. Comilla 1. Burichang2. Homna

10 20

8. Chittagong

1. Chittagong 1. Mirersorai2. Lohagara

5 10 20 20

2. Feni 1. Porshuram2. Sonagaji

10 20

9. Sythet 1. Sunamgonj 1. Sadar2. Dhhatak

5 10 20 20

2. Habigonj 1. Nabigonj2. Sadar

10 20

10. Rangamati

1. Rangamati 1. Kaptai2. Sadar

5 10 20 20

2. Bandarban 1. Sadar2. Alikadam

10 20

Total 50 200 400 200

3.1.3. Questionnaire AssessmentA number of tools were applied. These included, on requests from CASEED, Director Generates (DGs) of DAE, DLS and DOF issued letters to concerned division/region, district and Upazilla level officers of their respective organization. CASEED investigation team developed field visit schedules with prior consultations with division/region and district level officers and conducted field questionnaire surveys and also FGDs, OGDs and KIIs.

25

3.1.4. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)FGDs were conducted at 20 districts. Participants were district and Upazilla level officers of DAE, DLS, DOF and representatives of NGOs. About 15-25 participants took part in each FGD. Talking points were pre-designed so as to keep participants on tract.

3.1.5. Review of NAEP Committees’ FunctionsNATCC, ATCs and UAECCs were the most functional tools for implementation of NAEP Going through records and minutes of NATCC, 2 ATCs (Rajshahi and Comilla), 10 districts and 7 Upazilla, attempts were made to see the performances of the committees in respect of sittings as per TORs, consistency in follow-up actions, technology deliberation, problem shootings etc.

3.1.6. Open Group Discussions Preliminary findings as results of field investigations were summarized and discussed with groups of officers drawn from DAE, DLS, DOF and NGOs of districts not involved in formal fieldinvestigations.

3.1.7. Expert Panel DiscussionsMajor findings and observations, strengths, weaknesses and recommendations for improvement of NAEP, were discussed in senior and experienced officers’ meetings. The observations and suggestions as outcomes of such discussions were recorded and are addressed in the final report.

3.2 Results and Findings

3.2.1 Highlights on GOB agencies’ performance viz NAEP implementationDAE: Adoption of New Agricultural Extension Policy (NAEP) represented a major shift in the mandate of DAE and its implementation required DAE to:

Expand the client-base; Change from a centralized extension service to a decentralized pluralistic extension system; Integrate different needs related to different sub-sectors; Encourage paramedic between all the stakeholders based on comparative advantage and Move from a top down operational mode to a participatory demand-led approach.

The Department of Agricultural Extension’s mission is to provide efficient and effective needs based extension services to all categories of farmer, to enable them to optimise their use of resources, in order to promote sustainable agricultural and socio-economic development. In order to achieve the mission DAE had developed several planning tools with the aids of donor supported projects. The planning tools provided guide lines for need assessment, decentralization of farming system distribution of responsibilities of officers and staff at all tiers, creation of supportive environment and development of partnership.The implementing strategy document of NAEP (1997) provided some useful guidelines for its implementations.

The demand led extension requires farmers and extension workers grass root level planning which largely depends on capacity building. Integrated extension support also requires close cooperation and collaboration of planning, monitoring and implementation jointly by all Extension Service Providers.

26

From mid 90’s to 2003, ASSP and ASIRP provided some fund for carrying out such activities. The ASIRP made some survey (ECS 2003) about the extension coverage in some randomly selected villages. According to this survey majority of farmers in Bangladesh, particularly women in the smaller farm sizes or lower income categories, remain unaware of the main formal ESPs in both the government and non-government sector. Similarly, ECS 2003 shows that the proportion of larger farm households aware of ESPs is greater than awareness in small farm household- particularly by the GO ESP.

Methodological tools included among other things identifying farmers’ needs using simple Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques e.g., farmers needs for new knowledge and skills, new crop seeds, field problems shooting etc. those needs are then transformed into actions as appropriate extension tools like Farmers’ Trainings, Result Demonstrations of new technologies, Motivational Tours, Agricultural Fairs, development and use of mass media materials

Soon after winding-up of these projects, these activities ceased to work because of lack of financial support. This was a serious weakness in the creation of NAEP by the Government as it was developed based on project supports without keeping regular revenue budget provision by the Government.

Likewise, ASIPR also provided some fund to every committee for holding meetings, reviewing progress and problems and keeping inter-agency cooperation among DAE, DLS, DoF and others operational. With closer of ASRIP in 2003 there was no revenue budgetary provision from DAE to keep the committees operational and to continue their activities. ASIPR also provided piecemeal support to the decentralization of extension service delivery (delegation of financial power, decision making power with the upazila and district level concerned officials, and regular flow of fund from the government exchequer. But this support from project did not bring good results.

Revised Extension Approach has been with DAE for almost 15 years, and the NAEP has been in place for 10 years, it is pertinent to make a broad-brush assessment of their status. DAE has always operated as a project implementation unit. In this context, it has never been entirely possible for them to fully adopt either the REA or NAEP.

The issue of constitutional rights and entitlements has also not been addressed. By acting as a project implementation unit, DAE activities are time/space and subject bound. There is no “mainstream” national extension service, simply national staff coverage (skewed towards resource rich areas). As of the 2002/3 allocations under the development budget, DAE operated 26 projects. The availability of service to farmers depends entirely on where they live-of the 26 projects, most were area based.

DLS Extension ServicesAs noted earlier, DLS is meant to support fairly broad areas of activities through its extension service. In practice however, main focus appears to be on providing AI services and distribution of subsidized inputs. However, the department has very little operational budget to disseminate sustainable technologies or to train farmers to improve productivity of livestock or poultry. In the meantime, the private sector, especially the poultry sub-sector, has grown rapidly with only limited involvement of DLS. Technological change in the livestock sector through efforts of the public extension has been limited. The main divers of growth in the livestock sector, e.g. the poultry and dairy, seem to be the technologies introduced and investment made by the private sector and supporting policy changes introduced by the government.

27

DLS has a nation wide network of extension workers up to Upazilla level. However, at union level, DLS does not have any extension worker. Also at district and Upazilla levels DLS does not have sufficient manpower and logistics support. The culture of bottom-up planning is also absent. However, in spite of many constraints, the major barriers for DLS in implementing NAEP appeared to be its lack of commitment through out the hierarchy. DLS made little internal review of its status in implementing NAEP.

There is a need for DLS to develop policy issues for NAEP that takes into account the changing circumstances (especially the increasingly important role being played by the private sector) and that gives greater attention to the needs of the poor and the landless. For example, through its own efforts and/or by forging strategic partnerships, it can improve productivity of small ruminants and backyard poultry and help to promote a vertically integrated production system involving species such as Bengal goat, native to Bangladesh, involving systems for stall feeding, meat processing, packaging and marketing, and improvements in quality of raw hide.

DOF Extension ServicesDOF is somewhat in a better position in respect of manpower from national Headquarter to Upazilla levels. At Upazilla level DOF has 2-3 officers but very few extension workers at union levels. DOF is also in better position in respect of logistics supports at field levels. DOF also admits importance of NAEP for improving its participatory bottom-up planning of extension activities. But in practice, DOF commitment of implementing NAEP appeared to be very weak. The Department always thought that NAEP was a DAE project activity, not as a policy issue of integrated and participatoryextension service delivery approach.

3.3. Awareness Development and Foundation Training of NAEPNAEP was put into implementation in 1996. Implementation committees were formed at Upazilla, district, region and national levels. The first and most important job was to lay a good foundation of NAEP among practicing stakeholders, working at Upazilla and district levels. As such, information was collected to ascertain as to what extent stakeholders were made aware of NAEP, Five indicators as sources of knowledge about NAEP were used e.g.

i. From documents on NAEPii. Awareness meetings/trainings arranged by senior officers in the hierarchyiii. Office letters sent from higher officersiv. Heard from Colleagues andv. Not aware at all

From (Table-3) it is evident that levels of awareness of NAEP among agencies/stakeholders were highly variable. Awareness was somewhat good among DAE officers, less in DLS and DOF and least in NGO officers.

28

Table 3: Level of Awareness of NAEP

Sl. No Sources of Knowledge

Respondents

DAE DLS DOF NGO Research Total1 From documents of

NAEP55 20 15 0 5 95

(32) (31) (36) (0) (16) (27)2 Awareness meeting 63 20 15 0 10 108

(37) (31) (36) (0) (32) (31)3 Received letters on

NAEP20 10 5 20 0 55

(12) (16) (12) (50) (0) (16)4 Heard from

colleague18 5 2 10 0 35

(11) (8) (5) (25) (0) (10)5 Not aware at all 16 9 5 10 16 56

(9) (9) (12) (25) (52) (16)Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

During field investigation, informal dialogues were made with respondents. Many of them, who have been in service since 1996, opined that during inception of NAEP no formal orientation was made at various levels; particularly at Upazilla and district levels. Another aspect of awareness was that officers, who entered jobs in DAE, DLS and DOF after 2000, were quite unaware of NAEP, its composition and functions. Field data indicate that the officers of DAE were better informed on different activities from reading of documents attending awareness meeting from official correspondences. About 37% of the officers of DAE were aware from attending meeting while NGO representative and Scientists were least informed. The picture for other departments like DLS and DOF is disappointing. The foundation of implementation was very weak as no proper orientation was made and no regular planned awareness campaign was made.

3.4. Understanding of NAEPSince introduction of NAEP into practice in 1996 more than a decade is passed and implementing officers of DAE, DLS and DOF at field levels are supposed to have good understanding of NAEP in respect of its background, lead ministry, lead implementing agency, NAEP 11 (eleven) components, names of committees, compositions and TORs of each committee. Field investigation results about understanding of NAEP composition reveal that levels of understanding about various issues of NAEP even after a decade were not satisfactory rather poor (Tables 3, 4, 5 & 6). Written instructions from HQ of DAE were issued to field level officers for training on NAEP but it appeared from field investigations that no nationwide systematic training program was planned and implemented. This poor understanding led to weak implementation of it.

3.4.1 Knowledge about Lead Implementing Ministry (Ministry of Agriculture (MOA)Knowledge about NAEP and its understanding was measured from sample respondent of 294 officers from different department (Table-4). But even being an agency of MOA, only 134 respondents of DAE (78%) out of 172 knew that MOA was the lead ministry while DLS, DOF and Research respondents appeared to have poor knowledge about the lead ministry (Table-4). More than 50% DLS officers knew MOA as the implementing agency. Knowledge of the officers of the research organization was poor i.e; the 50% of them know correctly about the lead ministry and implementing agency.

29

Table 4: Knowledge about the Lead Ministry of NAEP

Agency Lead MinistryMOE MOA MOFL PCB Jointly None

DAE 5(3)

134(78)

1(1)

1(1)

20(12)

11(6)

DLS 0(0)

37(58)

2(4)

1(2)

16(24)

8(12)

DOF 0(0)

25(60)

1(2)

1(2)

12(29)

3(7)

Research 0(0)

8(50)

0(0)

1(6)

4(25)

3(19)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

(Note: PCB- Planning Commission of Bangladesh)

3.4.2 Knowledge about Lead Implementing AgenciesImplementation of NAEP was a collaborative task of the core GO agencies, DAE, DLS and DOF. Findings show that only 11% of DAE, 21% of DLS and 26% of DOF respondents knew it correctly. But majority of DAE, DLS and DOF respondents said that it was DAE. Such perception of respondents was because of misconception of understanding about ownership of NAEP (Table- 5).

The lead implementing agencies are DLS, DAE & DOF but only small fraction of the officers of different departments knew it correctly. It is interesting to note that 72% of the officers of DAE thought that it was the task of DAE officers. This has influenced the whole project implementation process. It indicates that ownership of NAEP was not appropriately explained. This yielded poor participation of other departmental officers and stakeholders.

Table 5: Knowledge about the Lead Implementing Agencies

Agency Respondents stating that Lead Implementing Agency isDAE DLS DOF MOA MOFL MOA

& MOFL Jointly

DAE, DLS & DOF

None

DAE 126(72)

0(0)

2(2)

19(11)

1(1)

3(3)

21(11)

0(0)

DLS 38(59)

1(2)

0(0)

2(3)

0(0)

4(6)

13(21)

6(9)

DOF 24(58)

0(0)

0(0)

3(7)

0(0)

1(2)

11(26)

3(7)

Research 7(44)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

0(0)

3(20)

4(24)

2(12)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

3.4.3 Knowledge about NAEP Eleven ComponentsStakeholders should have a clear idea about the eleven components of NAEP based on which extension activities were expected to be planned and implemented. But knowledge about the eleven components appeared to be poor among respondents. Only 3% of 172 DAE officers could correctly mention all the components while 33% of DAE, 5% of DLS and 7% of DOF officers correctly knew about 1-4 components (Table- 6).

30

Of the eleven components of NAEP only 7% of DLS, 9% of DOF and 26% of Research organizations reported to have known a few of the components correctly. Of DAE only 49% knew a few components but only 5% knew all the components.

Table 6: Knowledge about NAEP Components

Agency Know all the components

Know 5-10 components

Know 1-4 components

None All % of Total respondent

DAE 5(3)

24(13)

56(33)

87(51)

85 49

DLS 0(0)

1(2)

3(5)

60(93)

4 7

DOF 0(0)

1(2)

3(7)

38(91)

4 9

Research 0(0)

2(13)

2(13)

12(74)

4 26

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

3.4.4 Knowledge about Implementing Committees of NAEPNAEP is implemented through the following committees:

National Agricultural Technical Co-ordination Committee (NATCC) Agricultural Technical Committee (ATC) District Extension Planning Committee (DEPC) Upazilla Agricultural Extension coordination Committee (UAECC)

For implementation of NAEP committees were formed at Upazilla, district, region and national levels as UAECC, DEPC, ATC and NATCC. Field investigation results indicate that respondents of DAE, DLS and DOF have poor understanding of these committees (Table- 7).Understanding was somewhat better in DAE and poorer in other agencies.

Table 7: Knowledge about Implementing Committees of NAEP

Agency UAECC DEPC ATC NATCC Know all committees

DAE 100(58.14)

86(50.00)

96(55.81)

27(15.70)

24(13.95)

DLS 6(9.38)

5(7.81)

3(4.69)

1(1.56)

0(0.00)

DOF 3(7.14)

7(16.67)

2(4.76)

0(0.00)

0(0.00)

Research 5(31.25)

5(31.25)

6(37.50)

1(6.25)

1(6.25)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

Only 24 officers of DAE out of 172 respondents know about all the committees and their TOR, officers of DLS and DOF were not aware of all these committees. Only 7% of the officers of DOF knew about UAECC which is the most vital grassroots level implementing committee. Knowledge about NATCC is poor in the all organizations. Information about DEPC and ATC is also poor (Table- 7). Research organization is always lacking behind.

31

3.4.5 Knowledge about Compositions and Functions of NAEP Committees

NAEP Committees Compositions and TORs

Weaknesses of TORs were observed by NAEP committees during field practice from 1996 to 1999 and field observations for revisions of TORs were communicated to higher offices. MOA, restructuring compositions and functions of UAECC, DEPC and ATC issued office orders (Annex: 3, 4& 5) and circulated such orders to all concerned in 1999 and 2001. During field investigations all such orders were found in files of DAE, DLS and DOF offices at Upazilla, district and region. Key compositions and TORs for different committees are provided below (Table- 8):

Table 8: NAEP Committees Compositions and TORs

Name of committees

Compositions Key issues of TORs

ATC Total members :20-31(Annex-5)

Chairmanship rotational among 9 core members At least 4 meetings in one year Approving district plans Deciding research priorities for NATCC Deciding short term research activities for

location-specific areas Holding Workshops Advising DEPCs for developments of crops,

livestock and fisheries related activities.DEPC Total core members : 15

Observers (all UAOs):10-16(Annex-4)

At least 3 sittings per year Chairmanship rotational among district level

officers Approving UAECC work plans Deciding extension activities and problems of

the district Referring problems to ATC for approval and

solutions. Strengthening partnership.

UAECC Total members : 31(Annex-3)

At least 4 meetings in one year Joint planning of extension activities based on

Farmers Information Need Assessment (FINA) which was later practiced by DAE.

Screening and packaging of latest technologies and transfer of such technologies to clients.

Maintaining coordination with higher committees.

Chairmanship rotational among Upazilla level officers.

Information generated from field investigations indicate that Knowledge of respondents about compositions and functions of different committees was poor (Table- 9, 10, 11, 12) for lack of interest of different implementing agencies and poor awareness building.

32

Table 9: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of UAECC

Agency

Know composition of UAECC

Don't know composition of UAECC

Correctly cited 5 and above functions

Correctly cited 1-4 functions

Correctly know

who as Chairman

DAE 100(58)

72(42)

7(4)

69(40)

102(59)

DLS 6(9)

58(91)

1(2)

12(19)

24(38)

DOF 3(7)

39(93)

1(2)

9(21)

14(33)

Research 5(31)

11(69)

1(6)

6(38)

5(31)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

Table 10: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of DEPC

Agency Know composition

of DEPC

Don't know composition

of DEPC

Correctly cited 3 and above

functions

Correctlycited 1-2functions

Correctly know who as

ChairmanDAE 86

(50)86

(50)14(8)

56(33)

117(68)

DLS 5(8)

59(92)

1(2)

9(14)

42(66)

DOF 7(17)

35(83)

1(2)

6(14)

25(60)

Research 5(31)

11(69)

2(13)

4(25)

9(56)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

Table 11: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of ATC

Agency KnowCompositionof ATC

Don't knowcompositionof ATC

Correctly cited3 functions

Correctly cited 1-2/ less than 3 functions

DAE 96(56)

76(44)

14(8)

34(20)

DLS 3(5)

61(95)

0(0)

9(14)

DOF 2(5)

40(95)

0(0)

3(7)

Research 6(38)

10(63)

0(0)

4(25)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

33

Table 12: Knowledge about Composition and Functions of NATCC

Agency Know composition/Name of NATCC

Don't knowcompositionof NATCC

DAE 27(16)

145(84)

DLS 1(2)

63(98)

DOF 0(0)

42(100)

Research 1(6)

15(94)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

The above committees are the most functional part of the implementation of NAEP. The UAECC is the grass root level committee for developing extension packages for the farmers and to prepare production plan based on farmers’ needs by the participation of different ESP. In fact this is the committee to initiate the programmes. The efficiency of the NAEP implementation has been seriously undermined by lack of knowledge of the concerned officials of the different departments about the functions of UAECC. About only 4% Officers of DAE knew correctly about functions of the committee (Table-9)

Other departments’ knowledge is also very poor. The DEPC is responsible for reviewing of the implementation of the recommendations of the UAECC and also to recommend technical issues to ATCC for approval. The district level officers of DAE were not well informed about composition of this committee, only 8% officers of DLS know about composition of the committee. About the function of the committee most of the departmental officers had very poor knowledge (Table-10). The Agricultural Technical Committee (ATC) was the most important committee as it approved technical programmes for the districts and also identified location specific problems for making recommendations to the NATCC for Research Institutions.

Field survey indicated that only 20% of the DAE respondents correctly know three functions of ATCC. DLS, DoF and Research Scientists had very poor knowledge about the functions of the ATCC; only 7% of respondents of DoF correctly knew three functions of ATCC (Table-11).

The NATCC is the national committee where technological package (s) from the NARS needs to be cleared. Respondents should have better knowledge about this committee. But the investigation revealed that only 15% of the respondents know about it (Table-12).

The causes of poor implementation of NAEP are the results of poor function of these committees.Results from review of 20 committees of different levels indicate that the two most important committees, the UAECCs and DEPCs are somewhat defunct. In sample areas since 2003 up to December 2008 only 7 UAECC and 11 DEPC meetings were held irregularly on special purposes. Holding of regular meetings of NAEP committees, specially UAECC and DEPC stopped after 2003 because of lack of funding by the Government, ASRIP a nationwide donor aided project of DAE provided an uniform fund of Taka 75000.00 annually for each UAECC for its bottom-up planning and implementation of extension activities including operational costs for holding meetings, workshops etc. Similarly, ASIRP provided funds for holding meetings and other operational costs of DEPCs and ATCs.

34

ASIRP was closed in June 2003 and there was no more regular funding either from revenue or development budgets of the Government for NAEP implementation. ATCs are irregularly in operation with little effects since UAECCs and DEPCs are not working. Based on a recommendation of a NATCC meeting held on 9/11/05, an expert committee was formed to suggest measures for reactivating ATCs. The committee made number of recommendations including regular funding from revenue budget, voluntary participation of the members, mandatory discussion of technology of different ARIs and preparation to a Agricultural Development and Technology Manual etc.

3.4.6 Status of Inter-agency Coordination in Joint Planning of Extension Activities

The criteria decided to assess the performance of NAEP were:

Inter-agency coordination in joint planning of extension activities Research Extension Linkage & status of technology diffusion Adoption and Status of Implementation

Based on the criteria, the notion, as per TORs of UAECC and DEPC was that, in order to make local level planning demand-led, an UAECC will conduct Farmers Information Need Assessment (FINA) at farmers’ levels to identify problems and needs of the farming community. Problems and needs thus identified had to be prioritized and extension activities decided to solve problems related to crops, livestock, fisheries and agro-forestry. The UAECC then made an Extension Plan for a crop season or for the whole year. Such a plan was discussed in a pre-scheduled workshop of the UAECC where participants decided what activities to be undertaken on priority basis, and what problems (beyond the capacity of the UAECC) to be sent to the DEPC concerned. The UAECC also needed an approval of the UAECC plan from the DEPC. In this process, DEPC accorded approval to UAECC plan with its observations and recommendations and passed technical problems to ATC for necessary action. The concerned ATC reviewed the problems and decided action research for location specific problems. Problems requiring attention of higher authority were sent to NATCC.

In practice, UAECC introduced this process and developed a good culture of inter-agency planning. But there was no sufficient fund to implement the activities of the Upazilla Plan. ASSP and ASIRP of DAE, provided a limited fund of Tk 75000.00 to each UAECC of the country annually upto 2003. UAECC could implement only a very few activities of crop, livestock and fisheries. This funding was not available after 2003.

During field investigation, it was observed that DLS and DOF contributed no fund for implementation of livestock and fisheries activities included in the Upazilla Plan. The Upazilla level officers of these two departments admitted that they received very little fund from their higher authority for any development activities.

The situation of joint planning and implementation of extension activities by DAE, DLS and DOF after 2003 has virtually stopped (Table- 13). Only 9.5% respondents reported that joint planning was done regularly.

35

Table 13: Inter Agency Coordination in joint planning of Extension Activities

Agency Status of Joint planning Intra-agency PlanningRegularly Irregular Not held Bottom-up Top-

downProject based

DAE 19(11.05)

79(45.93)

74(43.02)

52(30.23)

97(56.40)

13(7.56)

DLS 5(7.81)

19(29.69)

40(62.50)

13(20.31)

49(76.56)

0(0.00)

DOF 0(0.00)

21(50.00)

21(50.00)

5(11.90)

31(73.81)

4(9.52)

Research 4(25.00)

5(31.25)

7(43.75)

3(18.75)

11(68.75)

2(12.50)

Total 28(9.52)

124(42.18)

142(48.30)

73(24.83)

188(63.95)

19(6.46)

Figures in the parentheses indicate percentage of total respondent of each group

It was interesting to observe that the departments have moved from joint planning to intra-agency planning. Then again, each department in lieu of NAEP directives of ‘Decentralization of Extension’ to its field level has been practicing top-down approach of planning. Now Top down planning is the dominant practice as opposed to bottom up exercise.

Building partnership with other ESPs, GOs and NGOs by DAE in order to ensure sharing of resources, knowledge and skills for providing efficient, integrated and participatory extension to farmers was the agreed objective and goal of NAEP.

The learning of NAEP among ESPs is that there is an increasing diversity in institutions involved in providing extension services and the government policy encourages development of partnership between different extension service providers. However, there are few examples of working relationships where a set of activities have been planned and implemented through mutual sharing of resources, knowledge and experience between the public and the private organizations. Similarly, to promote coordination between the extension activities of different line departments a number of committees have been established at different levels in the government to move towards an integrated approach to extension covering crops, livestock, fisheries and agro-forestry. Despite these efforts, however, the inter-departmental coordination remains weak.

A positive aspect of the current situation seems to be the growing recognition by all the line departments that an integrated and decentralized extension approach involving all the stakeholders would be needed to effectively respond to varying needs of all categories of farmers.

3.5 Findings from Focus Group DiscussionsIn all 20 FGDs were conducted at district and Upazilla levels with more than 200 participants drawn from across different organizations; DAE, DLS DOF and NGOs. Discussions regarding NAEP implementation weaknesses and strengths were held on a few pre-designed talking points to keep participants on track. The outcome of such discussions is summarized as below:

3.5.1. Perceived WeaknessesNAEP Design NAEP 11 (Eleven) components are discrete and mostly for increasing efficiency of extension

services; little focus given on core policy issues of crops, livestock and fisheries. Cross-cutting issues related to food production and availability, rural poverty and

mainstreaming gender in agriculture not recognized. Commercialization of agriculture into agribusiness, processing and marketing not recognized.

36

Awareness / Capacity Building NEAP foundation of orientation at the inception was not held properly. There were isolated

efforts, no collective and pre-scheduled program was followed

Implementation Design TORs too vast, should have been more specific and limited

Monitoring No regular follow-up monitoring to assess implementation constraints was made from HQs of

DAE, DLS and DOF. During field investigations, the major weaknesses in monitoring of NAEP implementations and performances was no or little consistence among NAEP committees actions was observed. A good number of periodic meeting outcomes of UAECCs and DEPC of the same district and also of the same region were reviewed. In most cases it was observed that DEPC of a district did not take into account the issues of its UAECCs forwarded to it for either solution of technical problems or management problems rather DEPC had its own agenda of discussion and made recommendations to its ATC. ATC also had little feedback from its DEPCs on ATC recommendations. Every committee worked in its own way. This happened due to lack of a set code of monitoring and reporting system.

Ownership There was ‘ego’ problem as to ownership and leadership of NAEP. Ownership problem exists

still now.

Funding Funding was a big problem of implementing collaborative extension activities. ASIRP provided

limited fund till its closure in 2003. Since 2003, there was no funding from any source. Importance of comprehensive and balanced growths of the sub-sectors not-recognized and

addressed.

Coordination/Partnerships Importance of public-private role recognized, but no GO-NGOs partnership mechanism in

practice.

3.5.2 StrengthsCoordination/Partnerships NAEP has been very successful in developing relationships among officers of DAE, DLS and

DOF at personal levels as well as for working together at Upazilla and district levels. The importance of joint planning and implementation of extension activities highly recognized. Techniques like PRA tools for joint planning introduced and learnt. Recognized the importance of resource and knowledge sharing. The importance of public-private partnership for efficient extension services recognized.

3.6 Opinions and Suggestions of District Level Officers.In Open Group Discussions held with district level officers of 7 districts, the observations of field investigations were discussed for their comments and additional observations from their ends. With broad agreements on the FGD observations, they made a few recommendations summarized as follows (Table-14):

37

Table 14: Talking Points/Issues and Suggestions

Talking Point/Issues SuggestionsImportance of NAEP Undoubtedly NAEP is a mechanism for setting work relationship among

officers of Upazilla extension and district levels.Bottom-up and Participatory Planning of extension activities

Considering one stop approach for farmers, there is a strong need for joint planning of extension activities

Sharing of common resources for enhancing efficiency of extension

During 1996-2003 stakeholders shared their resources of training facilities and venues attended each other’s extension activities, even planned and implemented joint activities, this happened to cease after 2003.

Knowledge sharing for better extension

Poultry farmers for example, are also crop farmers. Mutual sharing of Knowledge and participation in each other’s programs improve quality of extension services

Participator and demand-led extension is cost effective

For removing duplication of services participatory and demand-led extension is a need of the day.

3.6.1 Results from Open Group DiscussionsIn order to verify the observations and results of field investigations and also to be include further recommendations. 10 open Group Discussions were arranged with senior HQ officers of DAE, DLS and DOF and middle level officers working at district levels.Results of discussions with senior officers are separately produced below (Table- 15, 16, 17):

Table 15: Recommendations of DAE HQ Officers on improving NAEP implementationTalking Points Recommendations

NAEP 11 (Eleven) components

Proposed restructuring of NAEP components as follows: Decentralization of extension services Demand-led and Participator ExtensionGroup Approach ExtensionKnowledge sharing and skills improvement of Extension Personnel’sFarmers TrainingsMore Focus on Ultra poor and pro-poor households.Strengthening DLS and DOF Services at Village levelsMainstreaming Project ActivitiesFocus on sub-sectoral growth issuesStrengthening Public-Private Partnership.Mainstreaming Gender in agriculture.Promoting Commercialization of agriculture.Wide use of media for technology transfer.Integrated Environment Support.Climate change and Risk Management.

NAEP concept NAEP in its present form is inadequate and should be readdressed to reflect food and agricultural policies and should be renamed as National Agricultural Extension Policy ascertaining ownership of all stakeholders.

Compositions and TORs of Committees

Should be thoroughly readdressed. UAECC and DEPC should be made more active. There are members in these two committees not concerned with extension. They should be excluded.

Guideline for implementation of NAEP

DGs of DAE, DLS and D0F develop a common guideline for implementation of NAEP.

Memorandum of under standing (MOU)

For fixing responsibilities of line department officers, DAE, DLS and DOF develop and sign a MOU

Funding for NAEP DAE, DLS and DOF should ensure regular funding for NAEP activities from revenue as from well as projects budget.

38

Table 16: Recommendations of DLS HQ Officers on improving NAEP implementation

Talking Points Recommendations Livestock Policy and NAEP

National Livestock Policy issues be reflected in NAEP.

NAEP Ownership Confusion about NAEP ownership be removed through official documents.

Signing of an MOU MOU specifying equal share and responsibility, accountability and transparency be developed.

NAEP components Be addressed. Issues like development of poultry, breed, feed and treatment be included.

Public-private partnership Public-private partnership for promotion of poultry farms, breeds, feeds etc be encouraged.

Strengthening of livestock research

Need based research-extension-farmer linkage be emphasized.

Table 17: Recommendations of DOF HQ Officers on improving NAEP implementation

Talking Points Recommendations NAEP concept Be readdressed reflecting National Fisheries Policy.NAEP ownership Confused. Be removed ensuring equal right and responsibility.NAEP 11 (Eleven) components

Mainly concerned with increasing efficiency of extension services. Should reflect priority fisheries policy issues like capture or pond fish culture, improvement of brood, feeds etc.

Research-Extension Linkage Mechanism be developed for quick transfer of fisheries technologies.Public private Partnership Be strengthened Environment Promotion and Risk Management

Be included as components of NAEP.

3.7 Extension-Research Linkage and Technology Adoption: Role of NAEP Committees.The New Agriculture Extension Policy sets a new agenda for both extension service and the research institutes. Technologies developed through research should be location- specific and farmers’ demands-driven. Extension service for their part should work with all categories of farmers with improved targeting and efficiency, greater responsiveness of farmers’ need and in better coordination with research scientists. This calls for closer interaction between agriculture research and extension at all levels that ensures a two-way feedback about constrains and opportunities. Such interaction also minimizes the risk of on-acceptance of technologies at the field level.

Reviewing a few sample committees’ functions, an attempt was made to see how information flew among NAEP Committees and to what extent consistency was maintained on technology diffusion and problem shootings. It was observed that there was little consistency in information flow among UAECC, DEPC and ATC. Every committee discussed its own agenda set for a particular meeting and made little reference to its line committees’ proceedings and actions.

Reviewing BARC documents on recently released agricultural technologies, a list of 45 technologies, 25 on crops, 10 on livestock and 10 on fisheries was prepared by the research team. Information collected from farmers indicates that knowledge and adoption of crop technologies by farmers are somehow satisfactory, but unsatisfactory for livestock and Fisheries. This was mainly due to lack of DLS and DOF effective extension service delivery at the village levels. DLS and DOF don’t have extension agents at union or village levels resulting in a vacuum in technology

39

transfer. This problem of technology transfer to farmers by DLS and DOF is being addressed through World Bank funded ‘National Agricultural Technology Project (NAEP)’. Community Extension Agent for Livestock (CEAL) and Local Extension Agent for Fisheries (LEAP), one for each union are being trained by DLS and DOF.

3.8 Impact of NAEP on Food ProductionMany food commodities are produced in Bangladesh; these broadly include crops, fisheries and livestock. The primary objective of the New Agricultural Extension Policy is to facilitate and accelerate technological transformation with a view to becoming self-sufficient in food production and improving the nutritional status of the population. It is already discussed that the implementation status was very poor as revealed through FGD and questioner survey of different stakeholders.

There were some affords by the Ministry of Agriculture and DAE to implement the NAEP. But the understanding about NAEP and Knowledge of NAEP components was poor amongst all the field level staff of different public sector agencies. The staffs of the department of Livestock Services and the department of Fisheries were poorly informed about the implementation mechanism of the NAEP. This has resulted poor implementation of the NAEP in the field level. Under such situation it has not been possible to develop any model to demonstrate directly the impact of NAEP on food production. The food production status after NAEP is reviewed using BBS data/ reports to see whether there is any impact of it on food production. It is not possible to attribute production changes to the NAEP, all the more since it was not properly implemented; changes in production have occurred in spite of the NAEP

Crop productionBangladesh grows a large number of crops / varieties in different season of the year. Rice is the principal staple food crop, its production has increased from 18.8 million ton in 1997/98 to 27.3 million ton in 2006/07 (Fig. 3). But during the same period the wheat production has decreased to about 40% (Fig. 4).

18862 19905

2306725085 24299 25188

2619025157

26530 27318

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Pro

du

ctio

n in

'000

' m t

on

s

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

Fig. 3: Total rice production in Bangladesh from 1997/98 to 2006/07

40

1803 1908 1840 1673 1606 15071253

976

735 737

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Pro

du

ctio

n i

n '0

00' m

to

ns

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

Fig. 4: Wheat production in Bangladesh from 1997/98 to 2006/07

As noted in the Table-18, little land is used to grow nutritionally important crops such as vegetables, fruits, pulses and oilseeds. Pulses and oilseeds have declined markedly over recent years with pulse area declining from 696 000 ha in 1995-96 to337 247 ha in 2005-06. Production of pulses declined from 523 000 tons to 279 000 tons in eleven years. Oilseed area declined from 554 656 ha to 342 105 ha during the same period.

Table 18: Percentage of land area planted to different crops in 2006-07

Crop Land area percentageRice 79.4Wheat 4.09Pulses >2.80Oilseeds >2.37Potato >2.39Jute >2.86Fruits >1.36Sugar cane >1.15Tea >0.39Spices and condiments >2.21Spices and condiments 2>2.14Vegetable >2.14

Source: BBS, 2007Long term growth of the following crops remains unsatisfactory (Table-19). During recent years both production and area of wheat, oilseed and pulses have greatly reduced.

Table 19: the growth of non cereal commodities

Food Items Percent/Year (1971-2007)Pulses 0.3Oil crops 2.3Potatoes 3.0Vegetables 1.5Sugar -1.2Fish 2.5Meat 2.3Milk 2.3

Source: BBS (1971-2007)

41

The production of main staple rice has shown a long term growth trend of 2.8 percent per annum over the period from 1981/82 to 2006/07. The main contributor has been the irrigated Boro rice production, which showed about 6.3 percent annual growth during the same period. Currently, Boro rice accounts for about 60 percent of total food grain production. While Aus rice production declined over time, moderate growth in Aman rice amounting to about 30 percent of food grains was recorded.

The growth of rice is due to expansion of modern varieties and irrigation coverage along with increased use of fertilizer. The cherished goal of the government was to diversify agriculture for sustainable growth with more nutritious crops. The growth in the crops sector was imbalanced, diminishing the potential of more nutritious crops like pulses and oilseeds indicate poor extension approaches. The NAEP could not produce any positive impact on non-rice crops.

Livestock Production

Livestock Population in Bangladesh is currently estimated to comprise 22.87 million cattle, 1.21 million buffaloes, 20.74 million goats, 2.68 million sheep and 206.9 million chicken and 39.08 million ducks (Table-20). The annual growth rate of cattle population has been worked out at 0.03 per cent between 1983-84 and 1996. However, chicken population showed a significant increase over that period with an annual growth rate of 3.6 per cent.

Table 20: Bangladesh Livestock population (million)

Species 1996 1997 1987 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Cattle 22.02 22.09 22.16 22.23 22.31 22.38 22.46 22.53 22.60 22.67 22.80 22.87Buffalo 0.72 0.76 0.79 0.84 0.88 0.92 0.96 1.01 1.06 1.11 1.16 1.21Goat 13.19 13.76 14.35 14.96 15.60 16.96 16.96 17.68 18.41 19.16 19.94 20.74Sheep 1.71 1.78 1.86 1.94 2.02 2.10 2.20 2.29 2.38 2.47 2.57 2.68Chicken 103.2 109.9 117.0 124.6 132.7 142.7 152.2 162.4 172.6 183.5 194.8 206.9Duck 29.90 30.64 31.41 32.19 33.0 33.83 34.67 35.54 36.40 37.28 38.07 39.08

Source: Department of Livestock Services, Bangladesh

The growth in livestock sector was mainly due to positive contribution by the private sector. Policies adopted by the government in the earlier 1990s seemed to have encouraged the private sector to take part in livestock farming and a large number of farmers came forward for setting up cattle, goat, sheep, chicken and duck farms. As a result there had been a phenomenal increase in the number of live stock farms during the early nineties.

Fisheries

Fisheries sub-sector is vital for economy, livelihood and nutrition for the people of Bangladesh. The country has different types of fisheries resources but they are broadly inland aquaculture coastal aquaculture inland capture fisheries and coastal/marine capture fisheries. The production of fishes increased from 17.8 lac tons in 2000-01 to 24.4 lac tons in 2007-08. (Table-21), most of the increased production was from Floodplain areas.

42

Table 21: Production Trends of Fisheries

Fish Production (lac mton)

SectorArea

(lakh ha)2000-

01 2001-022002-

032003-

042004-

052006-

072007-

081. InlandA. CaptureRiver Estuaries 10.32 1.50 1.44 1.38 1.37 1.40 1.38 1.40Sunderban 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16Beel 1.14 0.75 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.78 0.80Kaptailake 0.69 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07Floodplain 28.33 4.45 4.50 4.75 4.98 6.21 7.18 7.60Sub-total 40.48 6.89 6.89 7.09 7.32 8.59 9.57 10.03(B) CulturePonds 2.42 6.16 6.85 7.52 7.95 7.57 7.60 7.90Baors 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04Shrimp farm 1.41 0.93 1.00 1.01 1.15 1.21 1.28 1.30Sub-total 3.88 7.14 7.89 8.57 9.14 8.82 8.92 9.24Total Inland 44.36 14.03 14.78 15.66 16.46 17.41 18.49 19.272. Marine 0.48A. Industrial sq. n.m. 0.24 0.30 0.28 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.46B. Artisanal 0.00 3.55 3.9 4.04 4.23 4.41 4.46 4.63Sub-total 3.79 4.20 4.32 4.55 4.75 4.80 5.09Grand total 0.00 17.82 18.98 19.98 21.01 22.16 23.29 24.36Source: DOF, MOFL Cited by Economic Review 2008

The growth in the Livestock and Fisheries sectors was mainly due to many departmental programs and projects. No initiative was found in the field for increasing production and productivity of these sub-sectors with NAEP approaches. Although the NAEP goal is to encourage the various partners and agencies within the national agricultural extension system to provide efficient and effective services which complement and reinforce each other, in an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of agriculture in Bangladesh.

Because of lack of joint planning, weak coordination and poor functioning of important implementing committees such as NATCC, ATC, DEPC and UAECC of NAEP, no tangible integrated initiative was found in the field to capture the large potential of crop, fisheries and livestock sub-sectors.

43

CHAPTER - 4

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Conclusion Since independence agricultural extension services have been delivered to farmers by different ESPs, e.g. GOs like DAE, DLS and DOF NGOs like RDRS, BRAC, CARE etc. and Agribusiness enterprises

Every organization has its own approach, although the ultimate clients were the farmers who received advice and services from different ESPs. Such independent line agency approach created confusions among farmers and resulted in wastage of scarce resources and understanding of advice.

The government MOA, MOFL and MOEF recognized the need of creating an enabling environment under which ESPs could provide efficient and effective services which would complement and reinforce each other in an effort to increase the efficiency and productivity of agriculture in Bangladesh. And with this goal, the government formulated and introduced NAEP in 1996.

NAEP was composed of 11 components to enable ESPs more collaborative and provide more efficient extension services to farmers as well as create congenial working atmosphere among them.

For proper implementation of NAEP, committees such as UAECC at Upazilla, DEPC at district level, ATC at region level and NATCC at national level were formed.

Since inception of NAEP in 1996 no systematic study was made to see the implementation status and effectiveness of NAEP. The present study was the first attempt to evaluate NAEP implementation status and its effectiveness. The evaluation study was conducted using pre-designed methodological tools and techniques that included both quantitative questionnaire surveys of stakeholders, GO and NGOs and qualitative assessments through FGDs, KIIs, OGDs and panel discussions. Results of field observations and review information of documents related to agriculture and NAEP were inter-weave to decide major findings and recommendations.

Major Findings: Analytical and qualitative assessment confirmed that foundation trainings for understanding and

implementation procedures by stakeholders were very informal and as such knowledge of DAE, DLS, DOF and NGOs about concept of NAEP goal and objectives, its composition and implementation strategy was very poor. This weakness remained as a major barrier in successful implementation of NAEP in later successive years.

Field investigation data indicate that the officers of DAE were better informed on different activities from reading of documents, attending awareness meeting and from official correspondences.

About 63% of the officers of DAE were aware from attending meetings while NGO representative and scientists were least informed. For other departments like DLS & DOF, awareness is poor. Awareness meetings seemed to be the most important tools of awareness building.

44

Knowledge of the officers of the research organizations about NAEP was found to be poor. It indicates that ownership of NAEP was not appropriately explained resulting poor participation of the inter-departmental officers during the processes of implementation.

It is noted that 87 officers out of 172 respondents of DAE did not know any component of the NAEP, only 24 officers of DAE knew about all the committees and their TORs. About 7% of the officers of DOF knew about UAECC which is the most vital grass root level implementing committee.

Knowledge about NATCC is poor in all organizations. Information about DEPC and ATC is also poor. The two most important committees, the UAECCs and DEPCs are somewhat defunct as revealed from the review of 20 committees of different levels

Implementation of NAEP was meant to be a collaborative task of the core GO agencies, DAE, DLS and DoF. Findings show that only 11% of DAE, 21% of DLS and 26% of DoF respondents knew about this institutional arrangement. But majority of DAE, DLS and DoF respondents said that it was a program of DAE only. Such perception of respondents was due to misconception and poor understanding about ownership of NAEP.

Stakeholders should have a clear idea about the eleven components of NAEP based on which extension activities were expected to be planned and implemented. But knowledge about the eleven components appeared to be poor among respondents. Only 3% of 172 DAE officers could correctly cite the name of all the components. About 56% of DAE, 5% of DLS and 7% of DoF officers correctly Knew about 1-4 components.

In practice, UAECC introduced this process of bottom-up planning and developed a good culture of inter-agency planning. UAECC officers of DAE, DLS and DOF were observed to show keen interest in the preparation of Upazilla plans. But mainly due to follow-up inter-agency cooperation and commitment the success attained eroded gradually later on. But there was no sufficient fund to implement the activities of the Upazilla Plan. ASSP and ASIRP of DAE provided a limited fund of Tk 75000.00 to each UAECC of the country annually up-to 2003. ASIRP ended up by June 2003 and funding for UAECCs stopped. With such annual funding of Tk 75000.00 an UAECC could implement only a very few activities of crop, livestock and fisheries.

The perception about all the committees was better than other participating agencies in DAE. Research organization is always lacking behind. Only 19% of the officers of DAE mentioned that they are regularly doing joint planning of extension program, but this is absent in other organizations. Top down planning is still the major practice of all departments where as bottom up planning is the cherished goal of NAEP planning process. This is because of poor inter agency coordination and lack of participation by all stakeholders.

A positive aspect of the current situation seems to be the growing recognition by all the line departments that an integrated and decentralized extension approach involving all the stakeholders would be needed to effectively respond to varying needs of all categories of farmers. In addition

Reviewing BARC documents on recently released agricultural technologies, a list of 45 technologies, 25 on crops, 10 on livestock and 10 on fisheries was prepared. Information collected from farmers indicates that knowledge and adoption of crop technologies by farmers

45

are somehow satisfactory, but unsatisfactory for livestock and fisheries. This was mainly due to lack of DLS and DOF effective extension service delivery at the village levels. DLS and DOF don’t have extension agents at union or village levels resulting in a vacuum in technology generation and transfer. Farmers also felt the need of integrated extension services from a ‘one stop centre’ preferably established at union level.

The learning of NAEP among ESPs is that there is an increasing diversity in institutions involved in providing extension services and the government policy encourages development of partnership between different extension service providers. However, there are few examples of working relationships where a set of activities have been planned and implemented through mutual sharing of resources, knowledge and experience between the public and the private organizations.

All the public sector extension departments depended largely on donor aided approach/project. No nation wide approach was practiced using Government funding. This was a general weakness of the mainstream extension approaches.

The perceptions of the mid career and senior officers of DAE, DLS and DOF varied widely. It

included amongst many other issues of restructuring of the 11 components of NAEP, development of common guide line for implementation and renaming of NAEP, etc.(Table-22).

Table 22: Stakeholders perceptions on what should be done to improve NAEP implementation

Talking Points Opinion NAEP 11 (Eleven) components

Proposed restructuring of NAEP components as follows: Decentralization of extension services Demand-led and Participator ExtensionGroup Approach ExtensionKnowledge sharing and skills improvement of Extension Personnel’sFarmers TrainingsMore Focus on Ultra poor and pro-poor households.Strengthening DLS and DOF Services at Village levelsMainstreaming Project ActivitiesFocus on sub-sectoral growth issuesStrengthening Public-Private Partnership.Mainstreaming Gender in agriculture.Promoting Commercialization of agriculture.Wide use of media for technology transfer.Integrated Environment Support.Climate change and Risk Management.

NAEP concept NAEP in its present form is inadequate and should be readdressed to reflect food and agricultural policies and should be renamed as National Agricultural Extension Policy ascertaining ownership of all stakeholders.

Compositions and TORs of Committees

Should be thoroughly readdressed. UAECC and DEPC should be made more active. There are members in these two committees not concerned with extension. They should be excluded.

Guideline for implementation of NAEP

DGs of DAE, DLS and D0F develop a common guideline for implementation of NAEP.

Memorandum of under standing (MOU)

For fixing responsibilities of line department officers, DAE, DLS and DOF develop and sign a MOU

Funding for NAEP DAE, DLS and DOF should ensure regular funding for NAEP activities from revenue as from well as projects budget.

46

The relationship between NAEP and food production could not be determined because of poor implementation of NAEP in all stages. The growth in rice production is due to increased coverage of irrigation in Boro season and better supply of inputs. Growth in livestock and fisheries sub-sectors is mainly by the contribution of private sector initiatives.

The production of nutritious crops like pulses, oil seeds etc. have declined over the period due to lack of comprehensive extension approaches in spite of government several projects and programs.

4.2. Policy Recommendations:

i) NAEP needs to be restructured in respect of its composition, renaming as “National” instead of “New” Agricultural Extension Policy and guidelines for implementation.

ii) Commitment of DAE, DLS and DOF senior management staff for implementation of NAEP should be made mandatory and EPICC should monitor its implementation regularly.

iii) The project-based approach would need to be replaced by a program-based approach to ensure greater coordination between the national extension services and the extension needs of different projects.

iv) To revive NAEP, a regular funding from revenue budget of the government to the field level implementing committees must be ensured.

v) For balanced nutrition only increased cereal production is not an adequate measure. Production of nutritious crops, fisheries and livestock should be increased through better technology generation and expansion. This calls for integrated approach as in NAEP. Food production for balanced nutrition must be emphasized in a holistic farming system approach. It would require more grass root level joint planning of extension packages for increased productivities with efficient use of local resources and greater interagency coordination.

vi) It is probably the right time to review the different departmental mandates and to reform institutes for greater coordination of extension services. Considering learning from this study, one may consider a Decentralized Extension Approach (DEA) centering the Upazilla. The model of Decentralized Extension Approach (DEA) under the World Bank funded ‘National Agricultural Technology Project (NATC)’ is an agreed extension approach for DAE, DLS and DOF. In DEA the idea of one stop extension service at union level by DAE, DLS and DOF is accepted but yet to be put into practice.

vii) The present UAECC may be renamed as Upazilla Extension Coordination Committee which would be the nucleus of the Extension system. DEPC, ATC and NATCC are each too big. Should be simplified with lesser number of members and clear TORs

viii) Strong monitoring about inflow of information among hierarchical committees of NAEP should be done on periodic basis so that there remain consistencies in feedback and follow-up actions among the NAEP committees.

47

ix) Technology flow should be rapid and precise. Extension and Research linkage must be revamped. NATCC should be revitalized with new clear mandates. The NATCC should also have supervisory role of implementation of extension programs.

x) Also, to cut down this time both for development as well as adoption of varieties, the NARS should be involved in participatory research with farmers. This will allow the system to understand better the demands of the farmers for particular desirable traits in the varieties in a given ecological setting. Another way to cut down on development is to have MoUs with suitable research stations outside Bangladesh for trials of varieties developed in the country. Such attempts have apparently been made earlier but could not be put in effect because of paucity of funds.

xi) Training Facilities at union, Upazilla and district levels be developed and equipped with training aid, and other media materials.

xii) Building public-private partnership with NGOs and Agribusiness Enterprises by GO ESPs should be strengthened in sharing resources, skills and to expand outreach capacity to disadvantaged farmers. Given that a fuller overhaul of the technology generation and the public extension system would take time even if begin from now on in all earnest, we need to look at the shorter tem options for the next 5 years or so. One area of immediate attention is agricultural extension. Note that the public extension system which is the largest suffers from several malaises as exemplified in Gill (2003). Removing them will need a look at systematic overhaul of the system including the work method, logistics, technical facilities, the hierarchy and responsibility system, human resource development and planning (including retirement age and compensation) and the like.

While this will take some time, possibly 5-6 years, the available system will have to reach all available knowledge and technological inventions and innovations to the farmer. Reaching information through all kinds of avenues thus become most important. Not only the public extension system, but the energies of the private and corporate bodies and non-government organizations involved in agriculture related activities needs to be harnessed. A public-private-NGO partnership is called for. How this may be fostered to the benefit of all needs to be investigated thoroughly and immediately.

48

Annex-1

49

Annex-1

50

Annex-2

51

Annex-2

52

Annex-3

53

Annex-3

54

Annex-3

55

References

1. Actionable Policy Briefs and Resource Implications: Agriculture Sector Review (Crop sub-sector) MoA 2004

2. Agricultural Extension Support: National Agricultural Technology Project (NATP) 2006, BARC/World Bank

3. Agricultural Services Innovation and Reform Project (ASIRP) 2003, Agricultural Extension in Bangladesh, DAE

4. Agricultural Extension with DAE: A Ten Year Review vol-1, 1992-2003

5. Bangladesh Economic Review 2006

6. DAE Strategic Plan 1999-2002 & 2002-2006

7. ECS by ASIRP (2003). Agricultural Extension in Bangladesh: An Enlightment of All Farmers?

8. Extension Operational Manual for NATP 2008, BARC/World Bank

9. Halim. A. and Kaida. Yoshihiro (2001). Agricultural Extension in Southeast Asia (Historical Review). Farming System and Environmental Studies. Bangladesh Agricultural University. Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh.

10. Kibria. A. (1987). Bangladesh Journal of Extension Education (vol.2), The Bangladesh Agricultural Extension Society, Mymensingh.

11. National Agricultural Policy 1999, amended Draft 2007, MoA

12. New Agricultural Extension Policy 1996, MoA

13. National Food Policy 2006, MoF & DM

14. National Fisheries Policy 1998, MoFL

15. National Livestock Policy 2007

16. Obaidullah. A. K. M. (1995). Rural Development in Bangladesh: Views and Reviews, Bangladesh Academy for Rural Development and Japan International Cooperation Agency (Joint study on rural development), Dhaka, Bangladesh.

17. Plan of Action on NAP 2004, MoA

18. Revitalizing the Agricultural Technology System in Bangladesh: Bangladesh Development Series: The World Bank, 2005

19. Strategy for Implementing the NAEP 1997, MoA.