What makes the difference in Extension Program Implementation- lessons from India?

Are there good models of extension that one could emulate in their own context? This is a question often asked by the policy makers when they receive advice that their extension system should be improved to more effectively reach smallholders. Systems are often criticized for the inefficiency of their delivery system, the inability of the system to adequately meet the information needs of smallholders and the uncertain impact of research and knowledge delivered through the system on the productivity of the farmers.

To answer the central question that seeks examples of extension that can be emulated, we can look at broad set of issues that address why certain countries develop faster than others and why some countries fail to take off on their development path (See Acemoglu and Johnson, 2012). Typically, all the fundamental factors that define the differences between the general implementation of programs in countries should also be relevant to extension services as well. However, the implementation of extension services has some special characteristics in the levels of implementation even when the policy making environment and the political economy of policy making have been accounted for. The case of India is helpful to illustrate an example where the country has an extension policy at the national level and the states implement the policies with various degrees of success.

Why do some Indian states fare better than others in implementing extension services? In a recent paper, we explore these issues by studying 4 states with varying agro-ecological environments and natural resource bases (Babu et al, 2013). These states also differ in their main agricultural enterprises. It was particularly helpful to see how the extension systems in various states are organized to meet the unique knowledge and information needs of farmers.

The highlights of our research indicate the following:

1. Leadership at the state level matters: we find that where the leaders of the state have taken a keen interest in promoting agricultural development, the extension systems function better. In states like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh where the Chief Minister (Head of the State) has been involved in the decision making and following up on implementation, there is improved delivery of the extension and advisory services. This is true also for the states that the study does not focus on. For example, the success story of Gujarat agriculture in the last several years has been largely attributed to the leadership of Gujarat’s Chief Minister, who with the same policies and programs designed at the central level and same allocation of resources has been able to mobilize the agricultural extension functionaries to deliver the inputs and messages at the right time to the farmers. The campaigns that he launched before the planting season have been the driver for increasing the effectiveness of the extension system. In Tamil Nadu, the Chief Minister is directly involved in the decision making related to agriculture and this translates into results based monitoring of the progress in various production systems and keeps the extension delivery mechanism on their toes. This is true for the states such as Bihar that has shown improved progress in agriculture in the recent years. Thus extension system delivery depends on leadership at the implementation level in addition to the policy making process.
2. Better Monitoring and Evaluation Systems for Learning: In states where extension services are delivered better, the monitoring and evaluation systems are effective in not only recording the inputs of the delivery system but also the process and the outcomes. In addition, the monitoring systems are used as a learning process and to provide corrective actions on the ground. This is deviation from the normal use of simply recording the number of visits to the fields and the number of training sessions conducted for the farmers and has been fundamental in helping extension workers see themselves as the change agents of the farming community. This further empowers them to see how they could be in constant touch with the farmers and make corrective actions as the agriculture season progresses. Evaluating the delivery systems though regular interaction with field staff and sharing knowledge from one production zone to others has been instrumental in energizing extension workers where they feel that they drive the information exchange process between the researchers and the farmers. States that have implemented monitoring systems in an effective manner have managed to improve their extension system functions.
3. Improved Research – Extension Linkages: Research communication with the extension system has a critical role to play in problem solving before, during and after the crop production season. One of the remnants of the training and extension system in India is the bi-monthly workshops between the extension functionaries and the research leaders in each of the crop zones. These zonal workshops are the main conduit for the exchange of information between farmers and researchers. In states where such workshops continue to happen, the relevance of research and hence the extension systems is higher. This is not surprising since if the researchers have no way of connecting to the farmers problems, they tend to invest their time and efforts on issues that are interesting to the scientific community but may not have high relevance to the farmers. Thus, not all was bad with the previous extension systems. Incorporating these meetings with the changing environment and new approaches to extension is important for harnessing the investments made in the research system. This is the development part of the R&D investment which are often neglected by the extension systems. States in India that maintain mechanisms for improved communications between researchers and farmers using the extension system as a “knowledge broker” tend to reach farmers more effectively with new knowledge. 
4. Decentralized Farm Education and Training:  Opportunities for farmers to observe new technologies and the advance in sciences are an important tool for translating research results into the farmers’ fields. The demonstration of the high yielding varieties on the roadsides of national highways were highly successful during the green revolution era. Such “seeing is believing” models are still effective in improving farmers adoption of new innovations. Farmer Science Centers called Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK) which conduct adoptive research at the decentralized levels and demonstrate such results to the farmers through field demonstrations and farmer training sessions have been the critical mechanisms for knowledge transfer. Yet the functioning of the KVKS depend on their close working with the State universities, Central agriculture research stations and the extension functionaries of the state. Extension systems seem to perform well in states where the KVKs and their functions are better integrated with the needs of the extension systems. Again such integration depends on the effective leadership that bring these entities together at the district level, the operational boundary of the KVK. Implementation of the extension services becomes a better informed process at the district level when such integration is enabled by the decision making process at the decentralized levels.
5. Pressure from and collaboration with Civil Society Organizations: Civil Society Organizations play and increasing role in extension. In addition to the commodity associations of the farmers which demand better services for the farmers from the extension systems, CSOs have also been suggesting changes the farming practices and have exerted pressure on the information acquisition and dissemination by the extension system. The System of Rice Intensification is an example. Although adopted for its improved agronomic practices, the civil society organizations have been able to refine it to the needs of the farmers. In states where the civil society has been actively engaged in extension, there is increased awareness of the farmers needs and pressure on the public extension system to perform better. The CSOs also play an important role in the district level decision making on the nature and conduct of the extension systems; playing the role of the watch dog in their delivery. This has kept the pressure on public extension system to deliver more or match CSO’s level of commitment. In states where civil societies are active in extension and are not captured by the local political systems, the effectiveness of extension delivery is likely to better.
6. Private extension systems are increasing in several states of India. Although private extension systems have shown mixed results in terms of their contribution to the farmer productivity, they tend to focus on selective commodities which aggregating or processing companies buy back from the farmers. In some of these areas where private sector is active and well received by the farmers the public extension system has retracted. However, even in these areas the interaction between the public and private extension systems can result in improved service delivery, if the private extension could guide the farmers to receive the benefits of the public extension systems by better organizing them.
7. Extension system is often seen as the vehicle of the delivery of the popular schemes of the government which could be politically motivated. After the demise of the Training and Extension System, in the early nighties in Indian extension system has been used for delivering the special subsidies that the state government design and implement to keep the farmers “happy” and to keep them on their side for the next elections. These captures of farmers by the political party in power has one of the main cause for the deterioration of the extension systems. The extension officers were asked to work with the local politicians of the ruling party to identify the farmers who can benefit from the schemes. To be fair, although they involve high level of rent seeking, some of these schemes have been useful to increase the adoption of specific technologies such as micro-irrigation schemes. However, this approach has taken the extension services far from delivering the messages that are needed to address season to season farming and inter-seasonal problems that farmers face. In states where such intrusion of political motivations are limited the extension systems have been able to deliver better on the information needs of the farmers.

Understanding why some countries do better in delivery of the agricultural services to the farmers compared to others could be explained through various context specific factors. However, there is large agreement among the researchers that the extension systems in developing countries are likely to be successful when they are implemented free of politics, organized better with effective monitoring and evaluation systems, connected to research in a systematic manner, linked synergistically to the civil society and private sectors operations. More research is needed to understand the specific roles of these factors in various country contexts.

References

Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J.A. (2012). Why Nations Fail? Crown Publishers, New York.

Babu, S.C., P.K. Joshi, C. J. Glendenning, K. Asenso-Okyere, and R. Sulaiman (2013). The State of Agricultural Extension Reforms in India: Strategic Priorities and Policy Options. Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 26(No.2) July-December 2013