Agricultural Extension Service Delivery Approaches

Over more than six decades of agricultural development endeavours, various initiatives had been
publicly financed with the support of international development partners. Several experiments were
also conducted with the different approaches specific to the donor-assisted projects that were
implemented throughout the country. These projects varied in terms of geographical coverage of
districts, the size of funding and the number of project components. However, they also had
commonalities such that all projects had agriculture and natural resources components, they tested the
approaches for services delivery, implemented income generating activities through knowledge and
skills development, had external advisors with varying experiences levels, were implemented for a time-
bound period, developed local infrastructures, and were aimed at raising the standards of living of the
beneficiaries. Different extension approaches for service delivery have been practiced in Nepali, with
varying degree of successes.

1) The Conventional System

This system was adopted in 1960s and 1970s, based on trickle-down strategy of diffusion theory. The
underlying assumption of this approach was that if innovation is introduced to small number of
“progressive farmer”, “contact farmer”, “leader farmers” and likes, the diffusion process with
automatically take place, and there will be multiplier impacts of the interventions. This approach met
with the limited success, mainly due to the limited resources in terms of technical advice, production
inputs and credit and service in remote areas. Adequate motivation and persuasion were lacking for the
poor famers to take the benefit of technology adoption. To overcome this problem, the need for
deliberate attempts to reach farmers was realized (Sharma and Bhandari, 2005).

i) Training and visit system (T and V)

This system was based on the principle of single line of command with continues training and contacts.
The World Bank assisted the GON for the introduction of this system. The approach was well accepted in
the beginning as a means to expand extension coverage, to train farmers and extension workers and to
pass on technical recommendations in a time-bound schedule of visits to contact farmers. As
implementation progressed, the extension service developed fatigue with this system. This was mainly
due to the problems like costly to sustain in terms of both financial and human resources; repetition of
messages regarding the technical recommendations only; emphasis on production aspect only but credit
and marketing; lack of motivation and regular supervision; and poor communication infrastructure in
hilly areas etc (FAO, 2010).

ii) Integrated rural development approach

The decades of the 1970s and 190s witnessed the inflow of Integrated Rural Development Projects
financed by development partners covering the entire country, some with larger coverage of district
than the others. All of these had, by and large, agricultural extension components. The concept was to
boost agricultural production and productivity with improved supply of inputs, better extension and
support services and infrastructural development to uplift the rural standards of living (FAO, 2010). The
existing conventional system was supported with the additional temporary manpower, supply of
production focused on the intensity to implement he extension interventions. Discrimination among the
manpower on allowance, conflicting and varying rules and working guidelines by different line ministries
and unclear line of command for reporting by extension infrastructures like ASC buildings, markets
yards, trails, rural roads and small irrigations schemes proved to be of worth and some of them are
useful. Also lack of the technology for all categories of farmers was realization (FAO, 2010; Dongol, 2004;
Thapa, 2005).

iii) Tuki approach

This approach had the thrust of utilizing trained local farmers based on self-motivation principle. The
approach was introduced was introduced in Dolakha and Sindhupalchok districts under a Swiss-assisted
Integrated Hill Development Project in 1977. The system did not generate new technologies relied on
technologies developed by commodity research programs and screened through the adaptive trails
(Thapa, 2005)

A package of seeds and fertilizers was also distributed to test their suitability in the local condition. Then
the researches met with the extension staff to relay the results of the trials conducted (Dongol, 2004).
Farmers’ training were conducted at quarterly basis with the involvement of researchers. Farmers’
training needs were addressed with regard to improved agricultural inputs; disseminate information and
training the neighbours; demonstrate new technology; and understand his/her own capacity and those
of the agencies helping the farmers were some of the specified activities of the extension workers. The
system was implemented with the recruitment of volunteers (the Tukis) after an intensive 15 days long
progressive farmers training. They received four trainings in a year before the agriculture seasons,
maintain their own model farms, and distributed agriculture inputs to farmers and who were also
interested to interact with neighbours regarding modern farming complementary with the conventional
extension system by the Department of Agriculture in providing inputs which was often a missing
component in the conventional work (FAO, 2010; Thapa, 2005). The system, however, did not expand
beyond the two projects districts, and the operations, if linked to the modern input suppliers, in the
partnership with extension and research organizations, some of the volunteers could perform as a
private sector inputs providers with a successful enterprise to support effective extension services
delivery (FAO, 2010).

iv) Farming system research and extension approach

This approach viewed research and extension in the whole farming system perspective, so that cropping
system research could be done. Farmers would know the interdependencies between components and
could relate to physical, biological, and socio-economic factors. It was initiated in a Farming Systems
Research and Extension (FSRE), project under a single the participation of farmers to avail inputs locally
and to expand the adoption of proven agriculture technologies within the extension command area. The
integrated approach, however, confined itself within the project for inputs delivery and not much
attention was paid to the existence of private stakeholders for the future sustainability in marketing and
enterprise development. At the later stage, the project extended partnership with the T and V System in
the hills of the western region, but the coordination and linkage was weak due to differences in
management aspects in separate projects funded by different donors. Though the extension service
under the project established good contact with farmers, the high extension cost could not be sustained
by the government

v) Block production programme

This programme was based on the principle that intensive use of resources consolidated together in an
area called “Block” could increase the productivity. This approach of extension services has its root from
the concept of Green Revolution. In 1982, the approach was tested in two Terai districts of Chitwan and
Parsa under a USAID supported Integrated Cereals Projects (ICP). Later it was expanded to the entire
Terai and to some hill districts with the government funding. This approach did not consider the
participation of private of private sectors in inputs and services delivery. However, the programme
relied heavily on public sector support for inputs, credit, irrigation, technical recommendations, and
marketing. Later networks and linkage among stakeholders (such as input and credit suppliers, etc) were
found to be weak because of the lack of the organizational resources to match with the required
extension coverage. The approach was also biased towards large and resource rich farmers who had
large farm sizes with irrigation facilities and afforded purchased inputs was highly criticized by farmers
who were devoid of services. The approach was costly in terms of financial and human resources
compared to the nationwide conventional approach (FAO’ 2010; Thapa, 2005)

2) Present Approaches

i) Conventional education approach

Besides the group members, the key farmers are involved in the process of motivation and education to
others. The farmers themselves in a wider area disseminate the knowledge and skill taught to them. This
approach has been effective to facilitate the adoption of new innovation by interested farmer, which
eventually radiated demonstrated effect to neighbouring farmers.

ii) Pocket package approach

Pocket package approach refers to the production strategy on pocket area basis. The feasible pockets
for a certain commodity are selected and then a project is developed through bottom up process.
“Packaging the priorities in the pocket areas” was the operational modality of Agriculture Perspective
Plan. This approach assumes that there are complementarities among the majority of production
factors. Therefore, agricultural production efforts should be concentrated in a geographically defined
pocket where critical services needed to boost production are made available to farmers. This has been
positive to introduce the package of technologies as demanded by pockets. It also helped commercial
production of crops, livestock and other commodities (Dongol, 2004; Thapa, 2005).

iii) Farmers’ group approach

The principle is to put the farmers of the same interest together and carry out the activities on group
basis. This has been a dominant approach of extension since 1990. It builds on the notion that most
farmers are economically and socially weak s individuals and so cannot bargain for limited resources, but
when they form a group, they become powerful. This approach has been adopted by the GON for the
service delivery due to its cost effectiveness, group learning and joint decision making. To access
government services, farmers are required to be organized into such groups having persons of similar
interest in enterprise types. Agriculture and livestock farmers’ groups are generally in separate
groupings. They are advised by extension workers regular monthly meetings and to raise welfare funds.
The JT/ JTAs contact FGs to select candidates from among farmers to make use of available external
trainings, to conduct demonstrations, to participate in agricultural tours and in other activities offered
under government funding. These groups ultimately graduate into cooperatives as formal institutions
and get operated following business- like operation and for purposes of accessing benefits provided to
cooperatives from the government.

iv) Projection approach

Every commodity based production program has been implemented on the basis of the basis of project-
designed within the framework of time duration, budget expenditure and expected output. Package of
activities which are required to achieve the output are identifies and included in the Project. This
approach has been adopted in all the districted with a priority in the production pockets.

v) Farmers Field School (FFS) approach

This is based on the principle of adult learning. This has been very effective approach in reaching farmers
and helping them to have an access to the knowledge and skills required for crop/commodity
management. FFS is a group-based learning process that has been used by a number of governments,
NGOs and international agencies initially to promote Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The FFS
approach is an innovative, participatory and interactive learning approach that emphasizes problems
solving and discovering based learning. FFS can also provide an opportunity for farmers to practice and
test/evaluate sustainable land us technologies developed with their own tradition and culture. This
approach has been adopted in various crops, commodities, nutrients management, pest management
etc.

vi) Partnership approach

The practice of partnership and collaboration logically leads us to acknowledge pluralism in agriculture
extension and service delivery. In reality there are a broad variety of institutions providing agricultural
extension services. There has been a realization that farmers are best served by the broadest possible
array of information sources and structures. The complexity of rural development demands a plurality to
many services such as input supply, credit, and even emergency response to diseases/pest infections.
Considering this need, government organizations are undertaking partnership approach with other
organizations. This may be in the form of public (DOA with Department of Irrigation), Public-private
(MOAD with AEC/ FNCCI in OVOP), Public-private-community (DOA/DLS0 NGOs/ CBOs- Agrovets) etc.
This strategy has encouraged relevant stakeholders to join hands in development. The emergence of the
value-chain approach to address agricultural development also points to the comparative advantage of
public and private partners in the delivery of services and in creating an enabling environment for
agricultural development.