Making Rural Services Work for the Poor and Women: An Institutional Analysis of Agricultural Extension and Drinking Water in Four Districts in Ethiopia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Like this? Share it with your network


Making Rural Services Work for the Poor and Women: An Institutional Analysis of Agricultural Extension and Drinking Water in Four Districts in Ethiopia

Uploaded on

Ethiopian Development Research Institute(EDRI) and IFPRI Ethiopia Strategy Support Program 2 (IFPRI-ESSP2) Seminar Series ...

Ethiopian Development Research Institute(EDRI) and IFPRI Ethiopia Strategy Support Program 2 (IFPRI-ESSP2) Seminar Series
November 12, 2009

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 1 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Making Rural Services Work for the Poor and Women: An Institutional Analysis of Agricultural Extension and Drinking Water in Four Districts in Ethiopia Marc J. Cohen, Oxfam America Mamusha Lemma, Consultant
  • 2. Rationale of Research Project • Agriculture is back on the international development agenda • Providing agricultural and rural services has remained a major challenge • How to reach millions of farmers even in remote areas? • Governance reforms • Decentralization – involving local communities in service delivery – public sector reforms • What works where and why? • What works for the rural poor and for women?
  • 3. Project Background • Part of three-country research project • Implemented by International Food Policy Research Institute • Funded by World Bank • Research in Ethiopia, India, and Ghana • Focus on agricultural extension and drinking water • Q-squared approach – quantitative and qualitative • Ethiopia study carried out in collaboration with Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute
  • 4. Ethiopia Research Design • Research in 8 woredas in Afar, Amhara, Beneshangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Oromia, SNNPR, Tigray • Four pairs of adjoining woredas • In three pairs, one woreda in a ―leading‖ region • Woreda government responsible for service provision • Neighboring woreda in an ―emerging‖ region • Service provision remains a regional responsibility • In one pair: Amhara and Tigray—de facto differences in history of local empowerment Page 4
  • 5. Qualitative Research • Carried out in four woredas (two pairs) • Amhara–Tigray • Beneshangul-Gumuz–Oromia • Methodology • Semi-structured key informant interviews • Focus group discussions • Semi-structured interviews • Social network mapping • 108 total interviews
  • 6. Persons Interviewed in Woreda Capitals • Administrator • Council Speaker • Budget, agriculture, water, women’s affairs officials • Cooperative union leader • Women’s Association leader • Party leader Only qualitative case studies at woreda level; no surveys conducted
  • 7. Kebele Interviews • Chairperson • Manager • Council Speaker • Cabinet members responsible for agriculture, water, and women’s affairs • Extension agents • Water committee members • Women’s Association leader • Cooperative leader • Party leader • Men and women farmers
  • 8. What are the Challenges of Rural Servcie Provision? • Challenges to make the market mechanism work • Public good – merit good – externalities • Challenges for the public sector • Transaction-intensive in terms of space and time • Requiring discretion – difficult to standardize (extension) • Challenges of involving local communities • Local elite capture, social exclusion • Capacity problems • Key to meeting the challenge: Creating accountability!
  • 9. National / State-level National / State-level Political Representatives (NP) Ministries (NM) Political Parties (PP) Local Political Development Representatives (LP) Agencies / Advocacy NGOs (DA) Community-Based Organizations (CO) Household Public Sector Members (HH) Service Providers (PS) NGO / Private service providers (NG) Services Accountability Framework based on World Bank (2004)
  • 10. Focus of Ethiopia Study • Access to agricultural extension • High policy attention to extension, and increasing adaptation of packages • Knowledge gap: How much outreach has been actually achieved so far in different regions? How well does the delivery mechanism work? • Gender dimension of agricultural extension • General government commitment to gender equality • Knowledge gap: To what extent do agricultural extension services address the needs of female farmers? • Drinking water supply • Government efforts to increase water supply through decentralized provision, led by community-based water committees • Knowledge gap: How do these delivery methods actually work on the ground?
  • 11. Decentralization: Bringing Government to the Community
  • 12. Decentralization in Theory and Practice • Theory: Woreda as the hub in which bottom-up kebele development planning is harmonized with regional and federal policy guidance But in practice: • Woreda decentralization only in four regions • Woredas remain dependent on regional and federal governments for funds, and planning guidance is more than indicative • Personnel costs absorb much of budget • Woreda governments say they lack discretion • Many kebeles see a breach of social contract
  • 13. Agricultural Extension
  • 14. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 30% 25% Extension visits farm/home Attend extensionist's community meetings Visit demonstration plots Visit demonstration homes Trained at Farmer Training Centre Service by cooperative Men Agricultural EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009 input credit Women Access to different forms of extension
  • 15. Access to extension by survey site (percent of respondents) 60 54 50 39 39 37 40 30 27 27 25 24 24 20 18 15 13 11 10 8 2 1 0 Visited by extension agent at farm or home Attended extension agent’s community meetings EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
  • 16. Satisfaction with agricultural extension (percent of respondents) 100 90 80 70 Very dissatisfied 60 50 Somewhat 92.5 95.4 dissatisfied 40 Somewhat 30 satisfied 20 Very satisfied 10 0 HH Heads Spouses
  • 17. Extension Agents’ Interaction with Farmers • Deployment of agents to kebeles increaseas awareness of community concerns and potential • Service provision remains top-down • Accountability is to woreda officials • Promotion and training depend on enrolling farmers in extension ―packages‖ • Extension training is technical • Also need training in community mobilization and gender issues • Farmers complain that agents focus mainly on mobilizing labor contributions • ―Stone-carrying participation‖
  • 18. Agents’ Interaction with Female Farmers • Perception bias: ―Women don’t farm in Ethiopia‖ • Therefore, don’t need extension services • Cultural barriers make it difficult for male agents to work with women • Women’s Associations and female political leaders may help overcome barriers, e.g. by organizing women’s extension groups • Extension agents tend to deal with household heads, so advise farm wives via their husbands • Even on women’s activities such as poultry raising and home gardening
  • 19. Evolution in Extension Services • Strong policy commitment to gender equality • Gender audits and focal points in woreda governments • Expansion of extension service means more women agents (10% in study woredas) • Packages are now more flexible, but ―women’s package‖ not tailored to female household heads • E.g., focus on poultry • Ignores that female household heads may spend much time providing weeding services to other farmers, making poultry raising impractical
  • 20. Conclusions and Policy Implications • Reducing regional disparities in access to extension • Federal support to emerging regions already ongoing • What additional strategies could be used? • Strategies to better target female farmers • Linking extension with women’s groups • Increasing female staff among extension agents and supervisors • Integrating community development and gender analysis into extension curriculum
  • 21. Conclusions and Policy Implications • Making extension more demand-driven • Trade-off • Better supervision in case of package approach • Allow adaptation to diverse local conditions and farmer demands • How to increase discretion of extension agents, while using other mechanisms to create accountability? • Recent policy changes (Implemented after this study) • Development of packages based on ―best practices‖ of local model farmers • Shifting of responsibility for monitoring from supervisors to more highly trained Subject Matter Specialists • Increased role for kebele councils/cabinets
  • 22. Drinking Water
  • 23. Access to drinking water (Primary water source) National average: 11% (2004, WDI 2008) EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
  • 24. Average time to get water from different water sources (in minutes) Water source Wet season Dry Season River, lake, spring, pond 58 91 Rainwater 6 – Well without pump 74 102 Well with pump 71 82 Public standpipe 30 29 Household’s private standpipe/ tap 3 3 Water vendor 63 80 Other 24 153 EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
  • 25. Identification of drinking water as greatest problem BY Region Afar- Amhara- Amhara- Benesh. G- Gambella- Oromia- SNNP- Tigray- D D2 D3 D D D D D Drinking water 65% 29% 25% 35% 28% 36% 19% 34% BY Gender Men Women 31% 34% EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
  • 26. Satisfaction with quantity and quality of drinking water supply EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
  • 27. Capacity of Water Committees • Water committees receive limited technical training on operations and maintenance • No training on getting community ―buy-in‖ on value of clean water, hygiene, maintenance, fees, etc. • Many users object to fees • Strong perceptions of unfairness • Often little support from woreda water offices • Limited capital budgets, spare parts, and vehicles • All water committees included women, but usually chaired by men • In Beneshangul-Gumuz, policy is that women chair committees
  • 28. Conclusions and Policy Implications • Access to safe drinking water sources is very low • 32% of study households—which is substantially higher than nation-wide rural access of 11% (2004, WDI 2008) • Weak accountability links may be a hindrance in translating rural residents’ priority concerns into policy priorities Placing access to safe drinking water higher on the priority list (noting that it also has implications for productivity) • Households identify drinking water as their main priority concern • Yet they report relatively high satisfaction rates and hardly take any action to complain Treat satisfaction data with care
  • 29. Conclusions and Policy Implications • Water committees, the lowest level service providers, are still insufficiently inclusive Women usually fetch the water – shouldn’t they chair the committees? Should councils pay more attention to drinking water? • Water committees not able to counteract top-down facility provision Draw on local knowledge and local considerations in selecting sites – more discretion • Water committees have high discretion in setting rules, fees, etc., but unable to effectively use this discretion due to nearly no training on community relations Train water committees on community relations Page 29