 |
|
|
|
The Effectiveness of Extension Methods
The 1994 CPE for Bangladesh which reviewed 12 projects, commented that "In many cropping situations improved technology is simply not available....." The CE for 166-NE pointed out that for the poor food-insecure households, the provision of extension and other services may be even more important than providing them with credit, whilst the MTE of the Sri Lanka credit project (219-SR) found that the beneficiaries were starved of needed technical training and supporting services in respect of their income generating activities. The problem is that technology appropriate to the specific target groups is either not available or the channelling/extension method is inadequate.
In project designs three methods have been specified to deliver extension messages, these are (i) leaving the task entirely to the existing government agencies (166-NE, 219-SR); (ii) arranging for the extension officers to be the group organisers, hence extension becomes an integral part of the project (215-ID); (iii) organising for relevant government officers to be seconded to the project for the period of implementation (240-IN). All of these methods did provide for coordination committees at various levels (including the relevant technical support agencies), but none of these arrangements have been effective. So much so that this has turned out to be the Achilles heel of this type of project. In 215-ID, although the group organizers are the agricultural extension workers, (whose parent agency is the Agricultural Extension Agency, which is the Implementing Agency of the project) this has not proved to be of much relevance since the enterprises of the poor are mainly of a non-farm nature.
- The first need is to provide some minimum but appropriate training to the beneficiaries. For example, since around 47% of all the projects of the poor involve the keeping of small livestock, this would an obvious and relevant subject - with the costs being charged to the project.
- The second problem is to get the extension, veterinary or small industries officers to visit a number of scattered individual beneficiaries for needed assistance/advice on specific problems. This is partly a logistical problem. One solution would be to have all the beneficiaries assemble on a specific day each month, in a central location. Since the individual groups are probably too small to attract the visit of the relevant Officer, such visits could possibly be undertaken in conjunction with monthly meetings of the Associations or Group Centres where these exist. By these means, the extension workers will interact with the beneficiaries and would (hopefully) in the future, respond to calls for their services -if a suitable system of incentives is provided to such officers.
- The third problem is providing adequate incentives to these officers to undertake these services. Evaluations (of the Sri Lanka, Indonesian and Nepal projects) have concluded that there was no option but to pay additional allowances to the technical officers for their services to the groups/beneficiaries. This need be only a small incentive allowance - even a modest transport allowance. In Nepal (166-NE) the evaluation suggested that the project groups should be enabled to buy such services through a system of vouchers.
- The fourth question relates to the suitability and dedication of government officers to provide these services to individual, scattered members of the rural poor. The MTE of the Indonesia project recommended that specialized NGOs be contracted with project funds to provide the needed technical servicing - especially in the areas of non-farm activities, rural industries and marketing.
References:
1. Bangladesh Country Portfolio Evaluation, CPE94 CESBA94E, IFAD 1994.
2. India - Tamil Nadu Women's Development Project, 240-IN R240INAE, Mid-Term Evaluation, 1995.
3. Indonesia - Income-generating Project for Marginal Farmers and Landless, 215-ID%R215IDAE, Mid-Term Evaluation, 1994.
4. Nepal - Second Small Farmer Development Project, 166-NE R166NPCE, Completion Evaluation, 1993.
5. Pakistan Country Portfolio Evaluation, CPE95 CESPA95E, IFAD 1995.
6. Sri Lanka - Kegalle Rural Development Project, 179-SR, Mid-Term Evaluation, 1992.
7. Sri Lanka - Small Farmers and Landless Credit Project, 219-SR, Mid-Term Evaluation, 1994.
