1.
By
Dr. Md. Safiul Islam Afrad
Professor
Bangabandhu Agricultural University, Bangladesh
&
Dr. Fatema Wadud, Deputy Director
Directorate of Agricultural Marketing, Bangladesh
1

2.
Agricultural Extension in Bangladesh
 Followed an evolutionary process of experimentation with
several recognized extension approaches.
 Training and visit (T&V) approach formed the backbone of
the agricultural extension practices.
 ASSP attempted to pave the path of participatory
extension service
 NAEP tried to include all categories of farmers with
coordinated and bottom-up approach
 DAE, the key Govt. extension agency, represents at
national, divisional, district, upazila and village levels.
 Insufficient information within DAE on how many farmers
are actually reached and serviced.
 Effective and efficient agricultural extension system
remains questionable till now. 2

3.
Objectives
i) Describe the recent extension reforms
strategies occurred in Bangladesh;
ii) Identify the various actors and players
engaged in the extension policy process
and program implementation;
iii) Assess the impact of innovative extension
approaches on farmers; and
iv) Offer suggestion formulating relevant, cost
effective and sustainable extension
systems in Bangladesh. 3

4.
Methodology
 Reviewed some journals, reports,
information available in internet
 Conducted FGD, personal interview and
case studies with farmers, field level
extension workers and some senior
officers
4

5.
5

6.
 The World Bank developed the T & V model of
extension was first experimentally introduced in 1978
and was then expanded throughout the country in
1983.
 Worked to rationalize the then traditional system.
 Educated the farmers about the use of technologies
for higher production and increased income.
 Integrated commodity-based extension organizations
with the DAE.
 Introduced standard for staffing and operational
procedures for training and field visits.
 Increased the number of staff three-fold.
6

7.
Weaknesses of T&V System
 Lack of participation of farmers and field EWs in the top
down planning process of the extension program.
 Extension programs mostly took care of the relatively big
farmers, with less care to the small / marginal farmers.
 The message did not ‘trickle-down’ from the contact to
the non-contact farmers as was envisaged in T&V system.
 Linkage among research-extension-education was
inadequate.
 Farmers’ ITKs were not taken care 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.
7

8.
2. Agricultural Support Services Project (ASSP)
 Aimed at decentralize and introduce the
participatory approach in the delivery of
extension services to the farmers;
 Changed in the operational procedures of
T&V and equipped the DAE with necessary
logistics; and
 Trained manpower to carry out more
comprehensive and effective agricultural
extension work.
8

9.
3. Agricultural Services Innovation and Reform
Project (ASIRP)
 Goal of ASIRP was to improve the capacity of
all categories of farmers, especially landless,
marginal and small farmers, to optimize their
use of resources on a sustainable basis under
NAEP.
 ASIRP was fundamentally "change
management" oriented, with attention to
process rather than product.
9

10.
1. Extension support to all categories of farmer
2. Efficient extension services
3. Decentralization
4. Demand-led extension
5. Working with groups of all kinds
6. Strengthened extension-research linkage
7. Training of extension personnel
8. Appropriate extension methodology
9. Integrated extension support to farmers
10. Co-ordinated extension activities
11. Integrated environmental support 10

11.
11

12.
1. Extension Approach Development
2. Develop Partnership
3. Mainstreaming Gender
4. Mainstreaming Environment
5. Human Resource Management
6. Information System Development
12

13.
T&V model (1978)
 Top-down
approach
 Education to the
farmers
 integrated
commodity-
based extension
organization
 introduced
unique
standards for
staffing and
operational
procedures; and
 Increased no. of
staff three-fold.
ASSP and ASIRP (1992-2010)
 Bottom-up approach
 Decentralize and
participatory approach
 Changed the operational
procedures
 Equipped DAE with logistics
 Trained manpower
 Focus all categories farmers,
 Attention to process rather
than product.
 Strengthened linkage
 Coordination
 Emphasis on environment
NATP (2010 to date)
 Component based:
agril research; agril
extension, supply
chain
development;
coordination and
management
 Organized CIGs and
POs
 Emphasizes
decentralized,
participatory and
knowledge-based
extension service
 One-stop services
via FIACs
Comparative focuses of recent major extension reforms
13

14.
14

15.
1. The private sector extension in Bangladesh can be
broadly categorized into NGOs, private companies and
individual consultants.
2. NGOs are broadly two types – the service motive NGOs
and business motive NGOs.
3. Private extension service providers are dealers of seed
companies, pesticides dealers, fertilizer dealers and
companies involved in contact farming.
4. Individual consultant provides suggestions to the farms
and households of agriculture, livestock and fisheries.
15

16.
NGOs in Agricultural Activities of Bangladesh
 BRAC
 PROSHIKA
 CARE Bangladesh
 Rangpur-Dinajpur Rural Services (RDRS)
 Thangamara Mohila Shobuj Sangho (TMSS)
 Helen Keller International
 Mennonite Central Committee (MCC)
 Gono Unnayan Prochestra, Gono-Kalyan Trust
(GKT) Voluntary Paribar Kalyan Association
(VPKA)
 World View International Foundation (WIF)
16

17.
Private Companies in Bangladesh
 Lal Teer Seed Limited
 Syngenta
 ACI
 Supreme Seed Company
 Mollika Seeds
 Aftab Bahumukhi Farm
 Agri Business Corporation
 McDonald (Bangladesh)
Ltd.
 Tinpata Seeds
 Petrochem Ltd.
 Duncan
 Kushtia Seed Stores
 A.R. Malik & Namdharee
Seeds
 Allied Agro Industries
 Masud Seed Company
 Blue Moon International
 Alpha Agro
 Agri Concern and
 PRAN Agro Ltd.
17

18.
Extension ownership
Evaluation of the extension system
Approach Type of
information
Type of extension
activities
Other service
provided
Top-down
Valuechainextensionsystem
Research-cum-extension
system
Farmingsystem
Environmentalconservation
Sustainablefoodsafety
Shorttrainingcourse
ExtensionWorkshop
RadioandTVbroadcast
Contractfarming
ICTapplication
TechnicalConsultingPlaces/
Point
Inputproviding-Output
Marketing
Credits
Post-harvestprocessing
Public DAE - - x x x x x x x x x x - - -
BADC x - - - - x - - - x - - x - x
Private
PRAN Agro Ltd. - x - - x x x - x x x x x x x
Lal Teer Seed
Company
- x x - x - x x x x - - x x x
BRAC - x x - x x x x - x x x x x -
Syngenta - x - - x x x x - x x x x - x18

19.
Figure 3. Public-private involvement in diffusion of agricultural innovation
Dealer (seed,
pesticide,
other inputs
Research
Institutions/
Universities
Abroad
Innovation
MLT
Demonstration
(Method/Result)
(Demonstration Farmers)
DAE/ DLS/ DOF/
Private Company
NGO
Direct
contact
(office
call, farm
& home
visit)
Field
day
CIGs
/PG IPM/
FFS
Mobile
FIAC
Common Farmers
Print &
Electric
Media
Private
Others
(Friends/Re
latives/
Neighbor)
19

20.
Public Extension Private Extension NGOs
Human Resource Development Transfer of Technology Development of Social Capital
Educational Program
• Natural resource
management
• Farm management
• Leadership training
• Coping strategy
Technical Programs
• Crop management
• Livestock management
• Framing system
• Fisheries management
• Plant nursery
Inputs and Services
• Machinery/
equipment
• Seeds/breeding stock
• Fertilizers/feeds
• Chemicals/drugs
Organizing, educating and
empowering
• Credit groups
• Self-help Groups
• Farmers’ associations
• Poverty alleviation
• Home management
• Fisheries/livestock cooperative
• Agro/social forestry
• Non-farm IGAs
Medium and big Big and medium commercial Small, marginal and women
Farm Families
Extension
20

21.
Impact of Innovative Extension Approach on
the Farmers
21

22.
Major Components of NAEP
Impact
Causes
CE* PE Sus
(i) Decentralization of
authority from the centre
to the districts and
thanas within the
Department of
Agricultural Extension
(DAE);
L
- -
 The SAAOs are available
 Extension worker from DLS and
DoF are not seen
- L -
 Local problems sometimes
identified but extension program
is not planned based on farmers’
needs
- - L
 Extension workers cannot keep
their words
(ii) Use of groups rather than
CFs in communications
with farming
communities;
H
- -
 More farmers are involved in
local problem identification
-
L
 It is difficult to bring all farmers
together
-
- L
 Farmers loss their interest if
commitments are not
maintained by the extension
workers
Table 1. Impact of NAEP components perceived by the farmers {FGD, n= 65(30+35)}
*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability
22

23.
Continued ………Table 1.
*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability
Major Components of NAEP
Impact
Causes
CE* PE Sus
(iii) Greater efforts to assess farmers'
needs and tailor messages to their
priorities for a wider range of
commodities and subjects;
M
- -
 Higher participation of
farmers but difficult to get
together
- H -
 It is easier to share ideas
and problems as well
-
- L
 Farmers' needs are
assessed but not tailored
message based on priority
(iv) Sharper focus on poor and
disadvantaged groups, including
women.
L  Difficult to organize
together for the poor
farmers’ greater
engagement in their works
H  Easy to convince poor
farmers
H  Once landless, small and
women are given their
commitment need to
maintain it
23

24.
*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability
Major Components of NAEP
Impact
Causes
CE* PE Sus
(i) Decentralization of authority
from the centre to the
districts and thanas within
the Department of
Agricultural Extension (DAE);
M
- -
 Extension worker him/
herself need to spend
 No additional cost involve
- L -
 Regional extension program
is not planned based on
locally made decisions
- - L
 Lack of keeping commitment
by the extension worker
(ii) Use of groups rather than CFs
in communications with
farming communities;
M
- -
 It is nearly impossible to
contact all farmers
-
H -
 Creates leadership among
the group members
-
- L
 Difficult to form new group
because of increasing
demand of the farmers
24

25.
Major Components of NAEP
Impact
Causes
CE* PE Sus
(iii) Greater efforts to assess farmers'
needs and tailor messages to their
priorities for a wider range of
commodities and subjects;
H
- -
 Higher participation of farmers
- L -
 Difficult to arrange the
members
-
- L
 Farmers' needs are assessed
but not tailored message
based on priority
(iv) Strengthening linkages with public
and private organizations
concerned with research, inputs
and marketing as well as
extension; and
L - -  Not functionally attended in
the meetings
- L -  Arranged meeting but not
functional
- - L  Decisions are not implemented
(v) Sharper focus on poor and
disadvantaged groups, including
women.
H  No additional fund required
for group formation
L  Members are envisaged for
cash/ incentives
H  Landless, small and women are
given importance
Continued ………Table 2.
*CE: Cost Effectiveness, PE: Program Efficiency, Sus: Sustainability
25

26.
 Receive little information from DAE including booklet, leaflet etc.
 Land less, marginal and small farmers discuss with their opinion
leaders whenever fall in problem
 Needs technical facilities (information, suggestions) from the
NGOs
 They are facing serious problem for storage of seeds.
 They face uncertainty of marketing of vegetables
 DAE form group with women but does not provide any facility
 Less access to get agriculture inputs from different stakeholders
 Land less, marginal and small farmers cannot use ICT facilities
 They rarely get information on new technology as leaf chart.
 Rich farmers don’t maintain the share cropping agreement.
 Need more facility for training on crop management.
 SAAOs need more technical training on crop protection
Box.1. Overall views of landless, marginal and small farmers’ on existing extension
services in Gazipur and Comilla districts {FGD, n= 45 (25+20)}
26

27.
Figure 4. Trend of budget allocation for DAE during last decade
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
Total Manpower =26042
TFEW =14556
Total FH = 14.72 Million
FEW: FH = 1:1010
Total Budget = 11828 MBDT
Cost for per FH = 804 BDT/annum
27

28.
28
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
CIG/PO Others
Direct
contact
Field day Agril Fair Mobile IPM club
/FFS
FIAC Dealer NGOs
55.00
7.38
3.43
5.71
4.29
9.71
3.50
6.02
1.79
4.21
Figure 5. Extent of farmers’ access to information sources perceived by field
extension workers

29.
 T & V system was found ineffective except formation of
backbone of DAE
 ASSP introduced bottom-up extension approach with people’s
participation
 NAEP focused on landless, marginal and women farmers,
coordinated and integrated extension approach with special
emphasis on environment.
 NATP introduced CIG and PO and established FIAC in pilot basis
 Theoretical and dysfunctional public-private-NGO partnership
exist
 More than half of the farmers are claimed to receive farm
information from DAE
 Farmers fail to harvest benefit from extension service due to
their illiteracy, reluctance and low technical competency of
extension people, lack or no cooperative societies existed in
the farmers’ level and inefficient bottom-up shift of
participatory extension approach. 29

30.
Suggestions for Relevant, Cost Effective Extension Systems and
Increase Program Efficiency & Sustainability in Bangladesh
 Demand-led, functional and efficient participatory extension
service delivery focusing all categories of farmers
 Expansion and institutionalization of CIGs, POs and FIAC
 Functional and group wise public-private-NGO partnership
need to be established
 More encouragement of agro-companies and NGOs in
agriculture with technical training
 Increasing practical literacy level of the farmers through
effective FFSs
 Increasing the number of extension workers especially
women extension workers
 Recognition and incentives to local extension agents
 Stringent monitoring and supervision of field extension
workers. 30

31.
31