Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

IFPRI - Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia Workshop - Md Safiul Afrad - Agri extension reforms in bangladesh

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Wird geladen in …3
×

Hier ansehen

1 von 31 Anzeige

IFPRI - Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia Workshop - Md Safiul Afrad - Agri extension reforms in bangladesh

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

IFPRI organized a two day workshop on “Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia – Status, Challenges, and Policy Options” to be organized at Committee Room 3, NASC, Pusa, New Delhi on February 17-18, 2015. IFPRI has been conducting research related to agricultural extension reforms in India and collaborating with researchers in other south Asian countries for the past five years through various projects. For understanding extension reforms in India, a major consultation was held in NAARM in 2009 during which policy makers called for development of evidence for spreading extension reform process in India. Since then several research papers have been produced on various aspects of Indian extension system. While they are presented in various forms including several discussion papers, there is a need to pull all the research result together to present it in form that could be used by the policy makers to further guide them in the reform process. South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka are going through similar challenges in getting knowledge to farmers. Several experiment shave been conducted to test new approaches to extension by the public, private and NGO sectors. Learning from each country experiences will bring collective understanding and knowledge for the policy makers who are attempting to bring changes in the reform process. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together a groups of researchers, analysts and policy makers to present the issues, constraints and challenges facing agricultural extension reforms that are being implemented in South Asian countries.

IFPRI organized a two day workshop on “Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia – Status, Challenges, and Policy Options” to be organized at Committee Room 3, NASC, Pusa, New Delhi on February 17-18, 2015. IFPRI has been conducting research related to agricultural extension reforms in India and collaborating with researchers in other south Asian countries for the past five years through various projects. For understanding extension reforms in India, a major consultation was held in NAARM in 2009 during which policy makers called for development of evidence for spreading extension reform process in India. Since then several research papers have been produced on various aspects of Indian extension system. While they are presented in various forms including several discussion papers, there is a need to pull all the research result together to present it in form that could be used by the policy makers to further guide them in the reform process. South Asian countries such as Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka are going through similar challenges in getting knowledge to farmers. Several experiment shave been conducted to test new approaches to extension by the public, private and NGO sectors. Learning from each country experiences will bring collective understanding and knowledge for the policy makers who are attempting to bring changes in the reform process. The purpose of this workshop is to bring together a groups of researchers, analysts and policy makers to present the issues, constraints and challenges facing agricultural extension reforms that are being implemented in South Asian countries.

Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Andere mochten auch (20)

Anzeige

Ähnlich wie IFPRI - Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia Workshop - Md Safiul Afrad - Agri extension reforms in bangladesh (20)

Weitere von International Food Policy Research Institute- South Asia Office (20)

Anzeige

Aktuellste (20)

IFPRI - Agricultural Extension Reforms in South Asia Workshop - Md Safiul Afrad - Agri extension reforms in bangladesh

  1. 1. By Dr. Md. Safiul Islam Afrad Professor Bangabandhu Agricultural University, Bangladesh & Dr. Fatema Wadud, Deputy Director Directorate of Agricultural Marketing, Bangladesh 1
  2. 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. 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. 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. 5
  6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 11
  12. 12. 1. Extension Approach Development 2. Develop Partnership 3. Mainstreaming Gender 4. Mainstreaming Environment 5. Human Resource Management 6. Information System Development 12
  13. 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. 14
  15. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 21. Impact of Innovative Extension Approach on the Farmers 21
  22. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 31

×