Master Degree Thesis

1. Thesis for the Degree of Master of Agriculture
The Quality of Extension Education Delivery Services amongst Livestock Farmers in
Guadalcanal Province, Solomon Islands:
A Case Study of the Guadalcanal Plain
Qwanafia Michael Bilau
Department of Food Security and Agricultural Development
The Graduate School
October 2015
The Graduate School
Kyungpook National University
I

2. The Quality of Extension Education Delivery Services amongst Livestock Farmers in
Guadalcanal Province, Solomon Islands:
(A Case Study of the Guadalcanal Plain)
Qwanafia Michael Bilau
Departments of Food Security and Agricultural Development,
The Graduate School
Supervised by Professor JANG, Woo_Whan
Approved as a qualified dissertation of Qwanafia Michael Bilau
For the Degree of the Master of Agriculture
By the evaluation committee
October 2015
Chairman___________________________
__________________________
__________________________
The Graduate School Council, Kyungpook National University
II

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To the Almighty God he is good all the time and all the he is good for his unconditional loving
kindness, care, tenderness and sufficient grace granted through the gift of life.
First and foremost, I express my profound and sincerest gratitude to professor Jang,Woo-Whan
who kindly accepted to supervise my thesis, and has supported me with his patience and
motivation, enthusiasm, and immense knowledge, whilst allowing me the space in the
Laboratory ( Rural developments Lab) to do my research. Without him, this thesis would not
have been completed or written. I fully attribute the level of my Master’s degree to his generous
encouragement and effort.
Beside my Supervisor, I would like to thank Professor Dong-Hyun Shin (Dean) of the College
of Agriculture and life Science and Professor Byung-Wook Yun (Head of departments), and
Members of the supervisory review committee for their insightful comments and remarks.
I extend my gratitude to all the Professors at the graduate school of Agriculture and life Science,
especially to those KOICA – KNU Teaching Professors for enlightening me with invaluable
knowledge, skills, values and encouragements. I would also like to thank the KNU Information
system office staff by provided the support and assistance needed for my study and thesis
through installing the SPSS software and basic steps to analyze all my data.
My special gratitude goes to two (2) former KOICA – KNU Master Degree program Coordinator
namely, Mr. Kang Hokyo, Ms. Hyejin Kim, Ms Jamie Kim and current Coordinator Ms.
Kyung-Jin Kim for their invaluable assistance.
My special thanks goes to my colleagues livestock extension field staff within the Ministry of
Agriculture and Livestock especially Guadalcanal field Extension officers & Livestock Officers
within division of Livestock and Kastom Gaden Association Livestock officer for conducting the
survey in and around the Guadalcanal plain by interviewing the livestock farmers.
A very special thanks goes to Dr. Michael Terry Brown, based in Ontario CANADA for the
Proofread and editing of my thesis.
I thank the governments of Republic of Korea, through their Cooperation agency KOICA, and
Kyungpook National University for the great and wonderful opportunity of coming to this very
wonderful and beautiful country to study this Master’s Program.
Finally, I thank the most basic source of my life energy: my family, relatives and friends whose
support in one way or the other has been unconditional during the period of the study program
III

4. ABSTRACT
The study examines the quality of Extension Education Delivery among Livestock Farmers in
the Province of Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands with particular reference to the Guadalcanal
Plain. Specifically, the thesis seeks to: (1) describe the socio-demographic and economic
characteristics of livestock farmers in terms of sex, age, and education level, source of income,
land information, herd and farming, and source of water; (2) examine the perception of livestock
farmers on extension educational delivery in the Guadalcanal Plain; (3) determine the
educational delivery method used in extension programs offered to livestock farmers; (4)
examine the preferred educational delivery methods for livestock farmers; and (5) determine felt
and educational needs for livestock farmers. In Solomon Islands, agricultural extension plays a
significant role and farmers perceive extension as a form of assistance to help them improve
their technological know-how, efficiency, productivity, profitability, and contribution to the good
of their family, and community as a way forward for sustainable agriculture that contributes to
food security. This study uses a survey design, quantitative and qualitative research
methodologies involving the use of questionnaire and interviews. A random sample of 70
farmers and 4 extension field officers representing each study area (wards) were selected for the
study. The main findings of this study is: (1) Livestock farmers are aware and had access to
extension services in their community; (2) livestock farmers were rarely invited for extension
education training; (3) farmers prefer farm visits as the best method for accessing and delivering
of extension programs; and (4) farmers were never contacted in planning and initiation of
extension programs.
IV

5. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………………………i
APPROVAL PAGE…………………………………………………………………………..ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….iii
ABSTRAC…………………………………………………………………………………...iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….v
LIST OF TABLES……………………………..…………………………………………….vi
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE DISSERTATION…………………………………viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study…………………………………………………………………1
1.2 Statement of problem…………………………………………………………………….2
1.3 Purpose of the study……………………………………………………………………..3
1.4 The Objectives of the study……………………………………………………………...4
1.4.1 The general objective……………………………………………………………….….4
1.4.2 The specific objectives………………………………………………………………...5
1.5 Research questions………………………………………………………………………5
1.6 Hypothesis of the study………………………………………………………………….5
1.7 Outline of the study……………………………………………………………………...6
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………7
2.2 Conceptual framework of the study……………………………………………………....7
2.3 Extension and Agricultural development………………………………………………...9
2.4 Extension services and challenges………………………………………………………13
2.5 Extension and Land reform……………………………………………………………...16
2.5.1 Extension and Post-settlement support………………………………………………...17
2.6 Extension and Poverty Alleviation……………………………………………………....19
V

6. 2.6.1 Extension and Sustainable Agricultural and…………………………………………..19
Rural Development [SARD]
2.7 Factors affecting the performance of extension………………………………………...20
2.8 Approaches to extension services……………………………………………………....24
2.8.1 Public Extension……………………………………………………………………...25
2.8.2 Training and Visit Extension………………………………………………………….28
2.8.3 Decentralization of Extension………………………………………………………...29
2.8.4 Privatization of Extension…………………………………………………………….33
2.8.5 Farmer-led Extension…………………………………………………………………34
2.8.6 Farmer-to-farmer Extension…………………………………………………………..35
2.8.7 Farmer field schools…………………………………………………………………..36
2.8.8 Non-Governmental Organization [NGO]……………………………………………..37
2.9 Delivery of Livestock Services………………………………………………………….39
2.10 Needs Assessments……………..……………………………………………………...40
2.11 Needs Assessments Techniques………………………………………………………..40
2.11.1 Individual Techniques……………………………………………………………….41
2.11.2 Group Techniques…………………………………………………………………...42
2.12 Secondary Sources…………………………………………………………………….44
2.12.1 Rapid Rural Appraisal……………………………………………………………….44
2.13 Overview of delivery methods used in extension……………………………………..44
2.14 Elements of quality extension delivery………………………………………………..47
CHAPTER 3: SOLOMON ISLANDS
3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..49
3.2 Background overview of Solomon Islands……………………………………………..49
3.2.1 Geographical………………………………………………………………………….50
3.2.2 Government…………………………………………………………………………...50
3.2.3 Population……………………………………………………………………………..51
3.2.4 Vegetation………………………………………………………………...…………..51
3.2.5 Climate………………………………………………………………………………..52
3.2.6 Humidity and Temperature………………………………………………...…………52
3.3 Specific location of study………………………………………………………………52
3.3.1 Location………………………………………………………………………………52

7. 3.3.2 Guadalcanal Province…………………………………………………………………52
3.4 General Overview of Solomon Islands Economy………….…………………………...53
3.4.1 Primary Industries………….……………………………………………………….…54
3.4.2 Agriculture Growth Sector………………………………………………………….…55
3.5 Overview of Agriculture and Livestock Sector…………………………………………56
3.5.1 Crops and plantation agriculture………………………………………………………58
3.5.2 Livestock Production farming in Solomon Islands……………………………………60
3.5.2.1 Raising of livestock……………………………………………………………….....61
3.5.2.2 Poultry industry…………………………………………………………………......62
3.5.2.3 Pig industry………………………………………………………………………….62
3.5.2.4 Cattle and Dairy industry……………………………………………………………63
3.5.2.4.1 Production systems………………………………………………………………..64
3.5.2.4.2 Potential of the beef cattle and dairy industry…………………………………......65
3.5.2.4.3 Breeding management……………………………………………………………..65
3.6 Employment within Agriculture and Livestock Sector……………………………….....66
3.7 Historic overview of Extension Support to agriculture………………………………….67
3.8 Conclusion………….……………………………………………………………………69
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction…………………………….………………………………………………..70
4.2 Selection and description of the study area……………………………………………...70
4.3 Sample of the study……………………………………………………………………...72
4.3.1 Sample procedure……………………………………………………………………...72
4.4 Instrument Used…………………………………………………………………………73
4.5 Method of gathering data………………………………………………………………..73
4.6 Data Analysis Method…………………………………………………………………...74
CHAPTER 6: RESULTS AND DICUSSIONS
5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………...75
5.2 Demographic characteristics of farmers……………………………………………...….75
5.2.1 Gender of livestock farmers in the study area…………………………………………75
5.2.2 Age of the livestock farmers in the study area………………………………………....76

8. 5.2.3 Level of education of livestock farmers in the study area………………………………76
5.2.4 Sources of income of livestock farmers in the study area……………………………....77
5.2.5 Land information of farmers in the study area………………………………………….78
5.2.6 Size of farm land for farmers in the study area……………………………………….…78
5.2.7 Farmers grazing land divided into camps…………………………………………....….79
5.2.8 Livestock owned by farmers in the study area…………..……………………….….…..80
5.2.9 Farming strategy of farmers in the study area………………………………....………..80
5.2.10 Farming activities in the study area……………………………………………………81
5.2.11 Participation of farmers in farming in the study area………..……………………...…81
5.2.12 Livestock farmers vision in farming……………………………………………..….…82
5.2.13 Farmer’s commitment that interfere with farming………………………………….….83
5.2.14 Farmer’s source of water in the study area…………………………………………….83
5.2.15 Farmer’s water source and sufficiency in the study area…………………………...….84
5.3 Farmer’s access to extension services in the study area………….……………………......85
5.3.1 Extension visit to livestock farmers in the study Area…………………………………..85
5.3.2 Farmers’ attendance of educational programed………………………………………....86
5.3.3 Availability of extension educational……………………………………………………87
5.3.4 Farmers’ avenues for advice………………….……………………………………..…..88
5.3.5 Farmers’ satisfaction with training offered by extension agents………………………..89
5.3.6 Farmer’s satisfaction with duration of training……………………………………….....89
5.3.7 Farmers training programs and relationship…………………………………………….90
5.3.8 Farmers’ rating the efficiency and performance of extension agent…………………….91
5.3.9 Farmers’ payment for consulting services……………………………………………….92
5.3.10 Farmers’ invitation to training programs……………………………………………….93
5.3.11 Educational training programed offered for 2014………………………………………94
5.3.12 Extension officers’ technical team response to first aid treatments………………...…..94
5.3.13 Method commonly used to deliver extension programs……………………………......95
5.3.14 Delivery method used by extension officers……………………………………………96
5.3.15 Farmers preferred method to access information…………………………………….....97
5.3.16 Farmers’ involvement in planning extension programs…………………………...……97
5.3.17 Training program priorities for livestock farmers………………………………………98
5.4 Interview section for Agriculture Extension Field officers.…………………………...…...99
5.4.1 Socio-Economic characteristics of extension officers…………………………...………99

9. 5.4.2 Age of the extension officers……………………………………………………………99
5.4.3 Level of education of extension officers………………………………………………..99
5.4.4 Services provided by extension agents to livestock farmers…...……………………….99
5.4.5 Educational programs offered by extension……………………………………………100
5.4.6 Networking with other organization…………………………………………………....100
5.4.7 Attendance of livestock farmers to programs…………………………………………..100
5.4.8 Extension agents’ satisfaction with duration of training………………………………..101
5.4.9 Methods commonly used by extension agents………………………………………….101
5.4.10 Expressed educational needs of farmers……………………………………………....102
5.4.11 Extension agents and community Meetings last 12 months……….……………….....102
5.4.12 Extension agent’s perception of the level of farmer’s participation.………………….103
5.4.13 Extension support provided to the farmers……………………………………………104
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….....105
6.2 Summary of the dissertation………………………………………………………...……105
6.2.1 Farmers’ Socio – demographic Characteristic…………………………………….........106
6.2.2 Perception of livestock farmers on extension education delivery……..……………......107
6.2.3 Educational delivery method in extension……………………………………………...108
6.2.4 Preferred educational delivery method……………………………………………...…..108
6.2.5 Educational needs of livestock farmers……………………………………………....…109
6.2.6 Extension officers’ socio-demographic characteristics………………………………...109
6.2.7 Services provided to livestock farmers………………………………………………....109
6.2.8 Educational programs offered for the year 2014………………………………………..109
6.2.9 Networking with other organizations…………………………………………………...110
6.2.10 Rating the attendance of livestock farmers to program…………………………….....110
6.2.11 Satisfaction with duration of training………………………………………………….110
6.2.12 Methods commonly used to deliver extension education…………………………......110
6.2.13 Expressed educational needs of farmers………………………………………………111
6.2.14 Community meetings held for the last twelve (12) months………..………………….111
6.2.15 Kind of support provided to farmers…………………………………………………..111
6.3 Policy Implication and Recommendation……………………………………………...…111
6.4 Future research direction……………………………………………………………....….113
6.4.1 The impact of extension education programs………………………………………......113

10. 6.4.2 Small holder agriculture and extension service delivery………….…………………..113
6.4.3 An investigation of needs assessment of livestock farmers…………………………...113
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………………114
ABSTRACT (Korean Language Version)………………………………………………......128

11. LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1: The Agricultural Extension landscape (summary)…….…………………………..10
Table 2.2 shows the different extension bands as………………………………………….....14
they are current conceptualized in Solomon Islands
Table 2.3 the number of extension staff employed per province……………………….…….15
Table 2.4 Typologies of Extension by various Scholars………………………………………25
Table 2.5 Delivery methods used in extension services………………………………………46
Table 3.1 Population growth rates……………………………………………………………51
Table 3.2 Real GDP sectoral growth rate………………………………………………….....56
Table: 3.3 Species and breeds of livestock in the Solomon Islands……….………………….60
Table 3.4 Agriculture and livestock sector Staff establishments…………..……….................67
Table 4.1: Total Population b wards in Guadalcanal plain……………..………………….....72
Table 5.1 Gender of livestock farmers in the study area……………………..……………....75
Table 5.2: Level of education of farmers in the study area……………….……………….….77
Table 5.3: Sources of income of farmers in the study area………..........................................77
Table 5.4: Land information of farmers in the study area………………….….……………..78
Table 5.5: Size of farm land for farmers in the study area……………....................................79
Table 5.6: Division of farm land into camps……………………………………………….....79
Table 5.7 Livestock owned by farmers in the study area……………………………………..80
Table 5.8 Farming strategy of farmers in the study area……………………………………...81
Table 5.9 Farming activities in the study area………………..………………………….........81
Table 5.10 Participation of farmers in farming in the study area………..…………………....82
Table 5.11 Livestock farmers’ vision in farming…………………………………………..…83
Table 5.12 Farmers’ commitment that interfere with farming……………………………..…83
Table 5.13 Farmers’ source of water in the study area…….……………………………….....84
Table 5.14 Farmers’ water source and sufficiency in the study area……………………….....84
Table 5.15 Farmers' attendance at extension educational programed…….………………......87
Table 5.16 Availability of extension educational……………………………………………..87
Table 5.17 Farmers‟ avenues for advice in the study area………….………………………..88
Table 5.18 Framers’ satisfaction with duration of training…………………………………90
VI

12. Table 5.19 Farmers’ training programs and relationship……………………………………...91
Table 5.20 framers’ payment for consulting services…..…………………………………..92
Table 5.21 Farmers invitation to training programs…….…………………………………….93
Table 5.22 Extension training programed attended during 2014…………,………………….93
Table 5.23 Educational training program offered to farmers………………………………....94
Table 5.24 Extension officers’ technical team response to first aid…………………………..95
Table 5.25 Delivery method used by extension officers………,……………………………..96
Table 5.26 Farmers’ preferred methods to access information……………………………......97
Table 5.27 Farmers’ involvement in extension planning……………………………………...98
Table 5.28 Services provided by extension staff to livestock farmers…….………………….99
Table 5.29 Extension rating the attendance of farmers…………….…………………...……100
Table 5.30 Satisfaction with duration of training………………………….………………....101
Table 5.31 Methods commonly used to deliver extension education…..….………………....102

13. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of the study……………………………………………….8
Figure 3.1 Map of Solomon Islands………………………………………………………….50
Figure 3.2 Solomon Islands domestic economic growth…………………………………….54
Figure 3.3 Industry contribution to National Provident fund………………………………...55
Figure 4.1 Geographical location of the study area………………………………………….71
Figure 5.1 Age of livestock farmers in the study area……………………………………..…76
Figure 5.2 Farmers access to extension services in the study area……………………….…..85
Figure 5.3 Extension officers visit to livestock farmers………………………………….…..86
Figure 5.4: Farmers’ satisfaction with training offered……………………………………....89
Figure 5.5 Farmers’ rating the efficiency and performance of extension…………………….92
Figure 5.6 Methods use to deliver extension program………………………………….........96
Figure 5.7 Training programs Priorities for livestock farmers………….…………………....98
Figure 5.8 Number of community Meetings held in the last 12 months…………………….103
Figure 5.9 Extension agents perception of the level of farmers……………………………..103
Figure 5.10 Extension support provided to farmers………………..………………………..104
VII

14. LIST OFACRONYMS USED IN THE DISSERTATION
AAS Agriculture Advisory Service
AIS Agriculture Information System
ADB Asian Development Bank
AGDP Agriculture Gross Domestic Product
CBSI Central Bank of Solomon Islands
CBO Community Based Organization
CATEC Country Agro – Technical Centre
FAO Food Agriculture Organization
FSG Farmer Support Group
FFS Farmer Field School
GDP Gross Domestic Products
GPPOL Guadalcanal Plantation Palm Oil Limited
MAL Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock
MDGs Millennium Developments Goals
NGO Non – Government Organization
RTC Rural Training Centre
SDG Sustainable development Goals
SIDT Solomon Islands Developments Trust
SIS Settlement Implemented Support
SARD Sustainable Agriculture Rural Developments
SIARDC Solomon Islands Agriculture Rural developments Strategy
SIG Solomon Islands Governments
SGB Standard Generating Body
TTF Taiwanese Technical Farm
WDR World Developments report
WB World Bank
VIII

16. 1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Agriculture is important for the provision of food, feed for animals, and raw materials
for industries, employment for able bodied men and women and foreign exchange earnings
for the country. Agriculture is the main stay to the Solomon Islands economy and remains the
principal occupation of the majority of the people in the rural community. Primary agriculture
remains an important sector in the economy and it includes all economic activities from
provisioning of farm inputs to farming and contributed up 50% to the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), Ministry of Agriculture Annual report (2014).
Solomon islands is one of the major stakeholders in the South Pacific region and the
third largest Islands in terms of the total land area endowed with natural resources but
stagnation in agriculture has led to an increasing incidence of poverty and food insecurity.
The entrance of poor rural farmers into mainstream agriculture is a government priority, but
practical empowerment remains rare. The use of agricultural and livestock sector and
extension education in reducing poverty and increasing farmer’s income to improve their
livelihood in the country is important given the enormous resources available in the sector
and the impressive agro ecological diversity of the country. A major way to the development
of agriculture and improvement of production in the livestock sector is the provision of
extension services. The focus of extension services have been poverty alleviation, food
security, employment creation, provision of raw materials and the sustainable management of
natural resources. The main potential to reduce rural poverty and inequality depends on the
strong development of overall frameworks for the provision of social security, education and
training, as well as health care, and in developing infrastructures in most rural areas Solomon
Islands Agriculture and rural developments strategy (ARDS 2007). For agricultural extension
education in our community to be meaningful, then the farmers‟ environment must be
explored, harnessed and identified with useful opportunities for proper extension education.
Livestock are an integral part of nearly all rural livelihood farming systems. Large numbers
of poor and marginalized farmers depend on livestock as their primary or secondary source of
income. Livestock are an important resource and act as a „bank‟ for poorer households. For

17. 2
many landless communities, livestock are the only productive asset. Livestock provide a
livelihood for 50% of the 700 million poorest households in the world (Livestock net, (2006).
According to Morton, and Mathewman (1996) livestock production extension is a
field neglected both by policy makers and by researchers despite the growing importance of
the sector. The Solomon Islands smallholder Agriculture study (2012) highlighted Village
livestock production has been a component of farming systems in Solomon Islands for
thousands of years and contributes to the food security, cash income and cultural status of the
rural population. In recent times, the smallholder sector has contributed significantly to the
country’s commercial requirements for pigs, poultry and honey, and to a lesser extent, beef
and dairy farm. The ethnic tension of 1998-2003 severely disrupted livestock production and
the sector has only recently started to rebuild. Before the ethnic tension, there were
approximately 53,000 rural families in Solomon Islands, of whom 60% owned 100 chickens
and more than 50% owned 15 pigs. Conservative estimates of total livestock populations
were 160 000 village chickens and 65 000 village pigs. In 2002, agriculture contributed
US$51.8 million to real gross domestic product (GDP), of which livestock contributed 30%
(Central Bank of Solomon Islands report (2003). Today, approximately 85% of the population
is involved in some form of livestock production. A substantial quantity of meat products is
currently being imported to satisfy demand in Honiara and in the provincial capitals. In 2003,
imports of beef, pork and chicken products into Honiara were estimated to be between 200 –
250 tonnes respectively, Solomon Islands Smallholder Agriculture (2012).Thus there is an
opportunity for smallholder and village-based farmers to significantly increase their
contribution to the country’s demand for livestock products through small to medium-scale
commercial, and improved, subsistence production systems. However, there is a need to
provide agricultural extension workers with capacity and skills to assist communities to deal
with the effects of rural change, MALAnnual report (2009)
1.2 Statement of problem
Success in agriculture depends on extension approach adopted and the community needs the
skill and guidance from extension education to become sustainable units of production
(Worth, 2002). The ability of the livestock sector to attain its full productive potential is
influenced by the availability and quality of livestock extension support services. Since
agricultural and livestock sector policy of Solomon Islands government is geared towards
empowering the rural farmers which includes both men and women, it becomes pertinent for
extension officers to identify the needs of the livestock farming community. The quality of

18. 3
extension programs has been extremely low in Solomon Islands and it has been difficult for
farmers to realize the benefits of extension, especially when programs offered come in the
form of short-term technical interventions. The attitudes of extension officers towards the
farmers are discouraging. The extension agent lacks the perception of the local structures for
participation and forming linkages with the farming community. Agricultural extension and
training by its nature is a service that relies on linkages and networks. An extension service
that is not linked to research, farmers or other service providers cannot be effective.
Unfortunately, the linkages between extension and research and extension and farmers in
Solomon Islands over the years have been very weak and need to be strengthen in order to
improve to another level of services. For extension to succeed, it must enhance its linkages
and networks with research, farmers, and among extension providers -public and private. In
this way the performance and capability of extension to transfer agricultural innovations to
farmers will be improved. Extension systems in Solomon Islands have been criticized for low
efficiency and lack of equity in service provision. There is a need for evaluation of extension
education delivery since little is known about the capacity, quality of service, and
performance of extensions systems in Solomon Islands.
1.3 Purpose of the study
The lack of relevance of extension programs to local needs and the limited interest
from farmers to participate provides clear evidence of the need for the study. This study will
help in understanding the perception of livestock farmers towards extension delivery in the
livestock sector. Extension education impacts positively on rural livelihood, but some doubts
arise over its effectiveness and efficiency. The feedback from participants of review reports,
and discussions with agricultural development workers, at different levels of the regions, and
farmers indicate that the outcomes of extension activities are unsatisfactory coupled with
inadequacies in the ways extension support services are designed, implemented, monitored,
and evaluated. However, these are not based on empirical evidences. Some argue that it is
difficult to judge the situation without any detailed study. Thus, this calls for further
investigation, hence the need of this study. Investigating the quality of extension services
offered has to be taken through assessment of the performances of livestock farmers and
change agents. It should be based on the performance evaluation that assesses the gap
between the work performances of an individual and desired level of competency. Hence,
evaluation of the effectiveness of the entire extension education delivery programs should be

19. 4
undertaken within broader context through investigation of livestock farmers‟ conditions. It
requires examining all areas of extension support and training process and the impact on
farmers‟ performances because the magnitude, the nature and conceptualization of the
problems are not distinctively known. The purpose of this study is also to investigate the
quality of extension education delivery among livestock farmers in Guadalcanal Plain of
Guadalcanal Province, Solomon Islands. Major changes have taken place at the national level
to increase farmers‟ participation in extension programed planning and development, such as
improve access to agriculture Support services - information, finance, inputs, regulatory
services, technical expertise, markets etc., but there is little evidence that farmers‟ needs are
being targeted and met accordingly. The study seeks to determine the felt and educational
needs of the livestock farmers. Livestock perform multiple roles and functions in a large
range of socio-economic settings. There is evidence of a direct link between improvement of
livestock production and poverty reduction. Worldwide there are multiple examples that
illustrate the potential of livestock in their contribution to achieving the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs). Despite this potential, livestock productivity is low. Livestock
owners are constrained by poor access to markets and extension support services, weak
institutions, and lack of appropriate technologies. This study therefore, seeks to unravel the
educational delivery method and the preferred method in livestock extension with a view to
contributing to the Millennium Development Goals that leads to sustainable development
Goals (SDG). However, the extension agents are at the forefront of agricultural development,
thus the study will assist in the provision of empirical data on the need for additional training
and up skilling of extension workers to be able to render services in the livestock sector. This
study is of importance because the findings will help government, non-governmental
organizations, private and persons involved in agricultural extension services provision to
address some of the inadequacies facing the delivering of quality extension services. Finally,
the study will provide data that can be translated into practical recommendations for
extension service providers- Government, private and NGOs.
1.4 The Objectives of the study
1.4.1 The general objective
The general objective of the dissertation was to determine the perceptions of livestock
farmers in Guadalcanal plain on extension educational delivery. A system of needs

20. 5
assessment of farmers was developed using information from the farmers in the livestock
sector.
1.4.2 The specific objectives
The specific objectives of the study were to:
1. Determine the perception of livestock farmers on extension educational delivery in
Guadalcanal plain.
2. Determine the educational delivery method used in extension programs offered to
livestock farmers.
3. Determine the preferred educational delivery methods for livestock farmers.
4. Determine felt and educational needs for livestock farmers.
1.5 Research questions
1. What are the perceptions of livestock farmers on extension educational delivery in
Guadalcanal plain, Solomon Islands?
2. What is the educational delivery methods used in extension programs offered to
Livestock farmers?
3. What are the preferred educational delivery methods for livestock farmers in
Guadalcanal plain?
4. What are the felt and educational needs of livestock farmers in Guadalcanal plain?
1.6 Hypothesis of the study
1. Livestock farmers are aware and had access to extension services in their community
2. Farmers were rarely invited for extension education training.
3. Livestock farmers preferred farm visit as the best method for delivering extension
programs.
4. Livestock farmers were never contacted in planning and initiation of extension programs
in the study area.

21. 6
1.7 Outline of the study
This dissertation is organized into six chapters. The first chapter lucidly gives the
background of the study, problem statement, purpose of the study, objectives of the study,
research questions, Hypothesis and the outline of the study. Chapter two contains the
literature review on Conceptual framework of the study, extension and agricultural
development, extension services and challenges, extension and land reform, extension post
settlement support, extension and poverty alleviation, factors affecting performance of
extension, approaches to extension services, delivery of livestock services, needs
assessments, needs assessments techniques, secondary sources, overview of delivery methods
used in extension and the elements of quality extension delivery. The third chapter provides
an overview background of Solomon Islands, location of the study area, its Economic
overview, agricultural sector and livestock farming, employments within Agriculture and
livestock sector with a historic overview of extension support to agriculture and conclusion.
The methodology adopted is discussed in chapter four. Chapter five discusses the results of
the study. Chapter six presents the summary, findings and recommendation.

22. 7
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 INTRODUCTION
According to Creswell (2003), the primary aim of literature review is to share with the
reader the findings and results of other studies that are similar to the one being studied.
Therefore, to gain an explicit understanding of agricultural extension education delivery in
the Plain of Guadalcanal Solomon Islands numerous sources of literature were examined. The
focus of this chapter is to identifying what has been done and reported in various literatures
on livestock extension education delivery. This chapter will provide an in-depth survey of the
available literature and research conducted on the topic: Livestock extension education
delivery with particular attention to conceptual framework of the study, extension and
agricultural development in the livestock sector, extension services and challenges, extension
and land reform, extension and post-settlement support, extension and poverty alleviation,
factors affecting the performance of extension, approaches to extension services, delivery of
extension livestock services, needs assessments, needs assessment techniques, secondary
sources, overview of delivery methods in extension and the elements of quality extension
delivery.
2.2 Conceptual framework of the study
The terms agricultural advisory services and agricultural extension refer to the entire
set of organizations that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural production to
solve problems and to obtain information, skills and technologies to improve their
livelihoods. An Agricultural advisory (extension) service is a very important factor in
enhancing and promoting agricultural development. According to the World Development
Report (WDR) 2008, the role of extension should be acknowledged as a vehicle for the
development of farmers.

23. 8
Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework of the study
Source: Birnner et.at (2006)
In assessing the performance of advisory services (extension services), Birner et.al
(2006) provided an approach to measure and explain quality of agricultural advisory services
based on content (driven by needs and opportunities), Targeting, feedback, timeliness,
relevance effectiveness and efficiency (Box I). This study adopted the conceptual framework
developed by Birnner et al. (2009), reproduced in (Figure 2.1) above.
The framework distinguishes between factors that constitute choice variables for
policy makers concerned with Agricultural Advisory (extension) Services (AAS) such as the
features of extension shown in (Box AAS) and variables that either are difficult for them to

24. 9
change or go beyond their area of influence (such as the contextual factors in Box CF),
including gender roles. The governance, capacity, management, and delivery methods
(advisory method) of the agricultural extension system in Box E, F, G, H and how it influence
the quality of agricultural extension delivery (Box I) will be discussed in the study. However,
the ultimate interest is how the quality of extension contributes or impact on outcomes related
to development and wellbeing of the farming community. Quality of extension impacts
agricultural productivity and incomes and overall household income or consumption, gender
equality, or empowerment (Box K). The quality of extension delivery will impact on farmers‟
agricultural practices by influencing their capacity, decision making, adoption of innovations,
and change of practices (production management, marketing, incentives, and knowledge
base) (Box J - Farm household). In the rest of the study, we will relate the empirical findings
back to this conceptual framework.
2.3 Extension and Agricultural development
Agriculture is the key sector for realizing the dream of economic growth and poverty
alleviation in the Pacific region. The agricultural sector provides 60% of all employment in
the Pacific region and constitutes the backbone of most countries economics (Eicher, 2003).
However, the World Bank Report on world poverty asserted that the number of people
malnourished and living in poverty in some part of the Pacific region have risen significantly
in recent decades (World Bank Report, 2000).
Agricultural extension roles include the transferring of innovation from researchers to
farmers, advising farmers in their decision making and educating farmers on how to make
and take better decisions, enabling farmers to clarify their own goals and possibilities, and
stimulating desirable agricultural developments (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1996).
According to Bembridge (1993) extension is a function pursuing many different
purposes: [i] assist farmers in adopting the right attitude and problem-solving, mirroring at
alternatives and identifying sources of information that will help individuals‟ farmers and
organization toward self-reliant [ii] the dissemination of research information to the farmers
and transfer of farmers‟ problems back to the research Centers [iii] assist farmers to access
managerial competences via training and guidance in conflict and decision making [iv] to
assist in the promotion and conservation of the endowed natural resources within the
environment of the farmers.

25. 10
Agricultural extension work is an important social innovation, a force in agricultural
change, which has developed over the centuries. Extension is also concerned with providing
information on other crucial issues such as food storage development, processing, farm
management, and marketing (Rivera et al. 2001). In addition, the effectiveness of extension
programs is the key to the development of agriculture and livestock sector. Terblanche (2008)
asserted that the explicit facts over many years is that Extension is all about the farmer and
the farmer remains the focal point of the extension officer priority thus leading to the
philosophy of Extension – “Helping farmers to help themselves”. In 2005 the Standard
Generating Body [SGB] for Agricultural Extension, developed an Agricultural Extension
Landscape. The landscape illustrated specific extension concepts, study fields and essential
skills, and knowledge areas that every extension officer needs to successfully and
professionally undertake so as to assist the farmers adequately. The Extension landscape has
the following concepts [a] Communication and interaction: the avenue where extension takes
place [b] Extension methodology: this entails implementing and managing the extension
process [c] Extension philosophy and practice: the science of Extension [d] Contextual
Extension: the context or environment of Extension practice [e] Upstream [f] Downstream.
Table 2.1: The Agricultural Extension landscape (summary)
CONCEPT STUDY FIELD
A) Communication and interaction a) Communication
b) Group facilitation
B) Extension methodology a) Approaches to Extension
b) Management in Extension
C) Extension philosophy and
practice
a) Behavioral change
b) Decision-making
D) Contextual Extension a) Community development
b) Extension policy
E) Upstream a) Agricultural extension research
b) Technical skills and knowledge in agricultural
developments
c) Knowledge support service
d) Entrepreneurial skills
e) Quality control

26. 11
f) Finance (budgeting)
F) Downstream a) Agricultural management
b) Land care
c) Land reform
d) Agricultural and marketing policy
e) Political expectations
Source: Terblanche (2008)
According to the Agricultural Extension Landscape concept, background knowledge
in agriculture is fundamental for extension practice; therefore a qualification in at least one
field of technical or vocational agriculture is a necessity for the Extension officer. Effective
Communication is vital in disseminating technical agricultural innovations to the farmers.
The expectation is that every extension agent must be an expert in at least one field of
technical agriculture so as to be successful in delivering impeccable service to the farmers.
According to Hess link (2003) communication is an activity in which a sender transmits a
message with or without the aid of media to one or more receivers and vice versa. It is a
dynamic process of exchanging meaningful message between two or more people. Interactive
communication establishes active dialogue with interest groups or community to fully
involve them in planning (CEPA, 2008).
The extension agent must be confident to exchange information and ideas in a clear
and eloquent manner appropriate to the audience in order to explain, persuade, convince and
influence the farmers in adopting an innovation. According to Stevens and Terblanche (2006)
farmer groups and associations are important for the development of agriculture. Farmers
groups and associations are capable of enhancing change at farm level through interactive
approach. Browns (1981) asserted that farmers‟ groupings or segmentation is part of
interactive approach to enhance or influence innovation adoption. This suggests that the
quality of facilitation and the attention required to the social processes of group development
are crucial for sustainable agricultural development. Group facilitation in the Extension
Landscape includes the following: Group dynamics and theories; Group forming and

27. 12
utilization; facilitation methods and techniques; leadership and leadership development; and
adult education (Terblanche, 2008).
Extension services have a major role to play in promoting production and, at the same
time, encouraging suppliers of seed, tools and production requirements and to devote more
attention to alleviating the neglected section of the agricultural sector and its main function is
to provide need and demand – based knowledge and skills to rural men, women, and youth in
a non – formal participatory manner with the objective of improving their quality of life
through the promotion of Agriculture – based developments. (SI National Agriculture and
livestock Sector policy (2009 – 2014).
Today's public extension services in Solomon Islands its roles and functions is
provision of Agriculture extension education and advisory services, facilitate the operation of
the agriculture training Centers in collaboration with Provincial authorities with respect to the
local governments and facilitate the community based trainings in the provinces with non –
governments Organizations (NGOs),rural training centers (RTC), community based
Organizations(CBO) and promotion of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) in the
developments of Extension education training programs (SI Ministry of Agriculture &
Livestock Annual report (2009). Extension and training have not really been effective in the
self-governing Provinces for a number of reasons, including an attempt to pattern extension
services on the system used in commercial farming, and inadequate training and support for
extension officers. However, extension is the biggest division within the Agriculture Ministry
in terms of Manpower and the presence of its staff throughout the provinces, continue to be
affected by the limited availability of fund for its activities, lack of housing for staff,
insufficient office space, and not enough logistic support to full meet the agriculture services
requirements of farmers needs in the rural areas (SIARDS, 2007).
Agricultural extension bridges the gap between available technology and farmers'
practices through the provision of technical advice, information and training. Without these,
farmers' ability to adopt new technologies which would benefit their agricultural production
and incomes would be limited (Pacific Extension summit report, (2009). Solomon Islands
farmers receive much of their advice and information from other farmers and/or private input
suppliers such as Local NOGs an international organization based on projects and many also
benefit from radio programmed and through local print media known as Solomon star and
Islands sun, agricultural monthly newsletter, Farmers field day shows, demonstrations and, of
course, sometimes internet services. For many small scale and resource-poor farmers, public
extension represents the main source of information on improved technology. It also provides

28. 13
access to other opportunities for agricultural progress through links to training, research,
sources of input supplies and, possibly, markets (SIARDS, 2007).
In a discussion paper on agricultural policy in Solomon Islands (MAL, 2009 - 2014),
stated that field-level Government extension staff are also an avenue for [i] information for
the Government itself, particularly its research field training centers, on the productive
performance and potential of farmers and the ways that research in particular should respond
to farmer requirements, [ii] assistance to smaller-scale farmers in organizing themselves into
groups, where appropriate, to access finance and other farm inputs requirements, and to
marketing of their produce through group integration [iii] assistance to rural communities
seeking better management of local agricultural resources via new forms of organization,
such as livestock associations, farmers group associations and small field farmers to farmer
groups.
2.4 Extension services and challenges
Solomon Islands (SI) is made up of hundreds of islands spread over a large area with
poor transport and communication infrastructure. Eighty-five per cent of the population (345
000 people) rely directly on subsistence farming for food. Servicing their agricultural
extension and training needs is an enormous challenge (SIG, 2012).
According to Ministry of Agriculture and livestock Annual report (2009) there were
152 extension officers, but many are in long-term, non - established posts, and restructuring is
currently taking place. Restructuring plans allow for a total of 100 established extension
officers, including about between 10 - 15 staff in each province, except with highly populated
provinces, which will have more than 20 staff, and with very low populated Province with
five. In many cases, extension officer are based or ‘stuck’ in the provincial capital. Extension
training division in the head office is headed by a director and 15 staff; five of whom are
attached to specific research projects. The ratio of extension staff to commercial and
subsistence farmers was estimated as follows: commercial farmers 1:21, subsistence farmers
1:857, combined 1:878. The strategy noted that these ratios are not too high compared to
global standards and that it was not the number of extension staff that matters but rather their
capacity to deliver.[ii] Distance between farmers [iii] geographic areas covered by extension
workers [iv] level of practical functioning of local farmers groups and associations.
According to the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock report on Extension conference
proceedings (2010) the concept of extension in Solomon Islands has moved from a
commodity based approach to a more general approach of problem solving; the idea is to

29. 14
assist the farmers. Local farmers who receive non formal education through extension
programed generally increase their productivity and efficiency (FAO, 1990). However,
Rivera, (1995) asserted that extension resources are available to only 1 out of every 5 farmers
in the developing regions of the world. In Pacific region research shows that 2 out of every 3
farmers have no contact with public extension services; in Asia 3 out of every 4; in Latin
America 6 out of 7 and 5 out of 6 in the Near East (Meatloaf et al., 1991).According to
Department of Agriculture (2009) report entitled “The Agriculture and rural developments
strategies: A Need for Recovery” noted that the ability and available resources at the
provincial level to deliver a quality extension service to farmers is already deteriorating.
Table 2.2 shows the different extension bands as they are currently conceptualized in
SOLOMON ISLANDS
JOB TITLE
MINIMUIM
REQUIREMENT LEVEL OF
EMPLOYMENT
Agricultural Extension
field Officer
Starting Standard Level 2:1 and 3/4
Rural training center skill training
with certificate or Field experience
worker
Provincial Agriculture farm
or Agriculture experimental
and research centers, &
NGOs Field worker.
Agricultural Senior field
officer (Extension)
Starting level 4/5 and 5/6
Diploma in Agriculture
Science/business or
Certificate in tropical Agriculture
with wide range of experience work
in the Field as Ext officer
Provincial Agriculture field
office, NGOs and Agriculture
farm Organizations and
Teaching in High Schools and
Vocational Schools in
Agriculture skills.
Agricultural Principal
Extension Field officer
B.Tech/ with Level 7/8 and 8/9
Bachelors/Honors
in Agriculture with experience in
Agriculture
Agricultural Chief Field
Officer
B.Tech/ with level 9/10 and 10/11
Bachelors/Honors in Agriculture
with wide range of Agriculture
work experience in the field
Provincial Agriculture Field
Office, NGOs, Vocational
Schools, Agricultural

30. 15
Colleges and Agricultural
farm Organization.
Agricultural Extension
Director
BSc (Hons) degree in Agriculture
or MSc (Hons) Agriculture &
Agricultural economics and etc.
With level 11/12 and 12/13
Ministry of Agriculture &
Livestock, International
NGOs, Agricultural Colleges,
Universities and Advisers.
Source: MALAnnual report (2009)
From Table 3.2 the minimum entry point for Agricultural Field Extension officers and
the standard level starting point plus in-service training in agricultural studies and
experiences in the field of Agriculture. While Agricultural extension senior field officers are
considered for employment with standard starting level plus 3 or more years of Experience
and Agricultural diploma in Science or business. The level of employment for both
Agricultural extension Principal Field officers and Chief Field extension officers are relevant
and can be a NGOs, Provincial Agriculture chief field officer, It follows also that the job titles
of Agricultural Advisors or Agriculture extension director and Subject Matter Specialist have
the minimum entry point of Bachelor‟s degree or honors degree and relevant MSc (Honors)
with similar level of employment at provincial and National level.
Table 2.3 The number of extension staff employed per province
(Unit: number, %)
PROVINCE Number TOTAL %
Malaita 25 16.4
Guadalcanal 18 11.8
Choiseul 13 8.5
Western Solomon 24 15.7
Makira/Ulawa 14 9.2
Renbel 4 2.6
Temotu 11 7.2
Isabel 14 9.2
Central Islands 12 7.8
Honiara Urban City 3 1.9

31. 16
MAL Extension HQ
Officers
14 9.2
Total 152 100
Source: MAL Annual report (2014) & extension conference, 14th
– 17th
June, (2015)
A breakdown of employed extension officers by provinces as at January 2009 shows
in (Table 2.3) Malaita province employed the largest number with 16.4% of the total followed
Western Province with 15.6% , Guadalcanal Province 11.8%, Makira Ulawa Province 9.2%,
Isabel Province 9.2% and followed by MAL extension HQ Office 9.2 % respectively, Central
Islands Province 7.8%,Temotu Province 7.2%, Renbel Province 2.6% and finally Honiara
urban city have the smallest number of employed extension officers with only 1.9% in each
case. Out of the 152 personnel employed only (20%) obtained degree or higher qualification
while about (80%) of the extension officers have a diploma qualification. In all 8 out of 10
are inadequately qualified to perform as Agricultural Advisors or Subject Matter Specialist.
Only Malaita and Western Provinces have a good percentage of officials with degree
qualifications. With respect to gender qualification, female extension officials are less
educated in 6 out of 9 Provinces than their male counterpart. However, in all the nine
Provinces including the Ministry of Agriculture Extension Headquarter office where males
are more educated than the females (Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (2009).The report
also asserted that few extension officials are aware of the formal skills programs which are
deemed important to the delivery of innovations and services to farmers. It noted that only 26
out 152 representing 9% had completed training in communication, 32 out of 152 had
completed project management, 46 out of 152 had completed basic computer training and 43
out 152 had completed basic training human management and empowerment. A total of 53 of
the 152 were exposed to technical training programs since joining the public service
(Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock Annual report (2014).
2.5 Extension and Land reform
According to Rural development Program (RDP) Impact Evaluation report (2012), a
public extension service has failed to provide adequate settlement and implementation
support to many projects. This lends credence to the problems associated with extension
services delivery as discussed above. In a review of rural development projects funded by
World Bank, ADB, Ausaid and SIG in all provinces in Solomon Islands, it was highlighted

32. 17
that many projects received minimal advice and support from Provincial Agriculture Field
offices. The department via extension services provided „advice‟ to 47% of projects and „
support‟ to 5%, whilst 49% did not receive any form of help from the department.
An in depth study of ten projects show that there is a decline in land that is under dry
land cultivation. The study further reveals that many projects that require irrigation had
problems with infrastructures. Forty nine percent of projects were producing products that
have no market value and only 7% had standing contracts for the marketing of their produce.
The review also stated that 72% of project participants have not receive any training in
marketing related issues while 87% are of the opinion that there is need for skills
developments in marketing of Agricultural products (RDP impact evaluation report
(2012).There is a mismatch between land acquisition targets and available capacity to settle
and implement support to farmers after they have acquired land. At moment available post-
land acquisition support is often equated with the provision of infrastructures through
Solomon Islands Governments as opposed to the day to day technical, management and
economic support that is required.
2.5.1 Extension and Post-settlement support
Project failures in agriculture and land reform have been attributed to lack of
extension services or lack of skills within extension, but the departments of extension and
training whose primary objective is to achieve transformation and restructuring of
Agricultural sector failed to prioritize the total review of extension services (MAL Report
proceeding on the Senior Agriculture extension Conference (2009). Insufficient support to
land reform beneficiaries has been the major problem since the takeoff of the programed.
Studies by HRSC 2003; Hall 2004b;Bradstock 2005; and Lahiff 2007a; revealed that
beneficiaries encountered severe hiccups accessing services such as credit facilities, training,
extension advice, transportation and ploughing operations, veterinary services, and access to
farm input and produce markets. According to Edward (2008), services provided to Land
Reform beneficiaries covers only few projects and such services are supplied by Provincial
Department of Agriculture and a few NGOs. In 2005, the then minister for Agriculture and
Livestock in his address to the parliament stated that 70% of land reform projects in Solomon
Islands were not working properly and he attributed the failure to lack of post settlement
support. The dismal failure of the land reform projects was not only due to post-settlement

33. 18
support but also the lack of coordination between relevant departments such as the
Department of Lands and Forestry and the lower tier of governments.
The Agriculture and rural developments strategy (ARDS, 2012) was also instituted
which led to the development of a post-settlement support strategy known as the Settlement
and Implementation Support (SIS) strategy. According to the ARDS (2012), the key elements
of the conceptual frame work of the SIS includes:[i] reframing land reforms as a joint
programed with the active involvement of land reform participants, civil society and the
private sector; [ii] measures to secure effective alignment of government actors in different
spheres using the Ministry for Provincial and Local Government’s daft guidelines for
managing joint programs ,[iii] utilizing area-based plans to locate planning and support needs
in a clear spatial and fiscal framework within Provincial governments;[iv] measures to
determine, secure and manage land rights and ensure on-going land rights management
support from the Provinces; [v] measures to provide appropriate project-based training and
learning, and strengthen capacity and institutional development; [vi] measures to improve
access to social development benefits – health care, education, reasonable levels of service,
and mitigate impacts of HIV/Aids; [vii] measures to ensure integrated natural resource
management and sustainable human settlements; and [viii] comprehensive „front-end‟
services to enhance individual household livelihoods, development enterprises, and ensure
access to finance, technical and business support. The MAL report on proceedings on Senior
Agriculture extension conference (2009) stated that agricultural improvement in Solomon
Islands requires a concerted effort to improve the quality of extension services available to
farmers. According to the Departments of Extension and training this effort will consist of
four main components. Firstly, the nature of demand for extension services should be
reviewed and current training of extension officers to meet such demands will be reassessed.
A programed for retraining extension staff will also be initiated. Particular attention will be
paid to the need for more specialized extension staff in areas such as irrigation, agronomy,
small-livestock production and agricultural business development. Secondly, initiatives
should be taken to improve the linkage between research institutions and field level extension
staff, with researchers becoming more involved in updating extension staff and allowing
extension agents to be contributing to the design of research programs. Thirdly, priority
should be given to investigating more effective ways of delivering extension education under
varying circumstances. Emphasis should be placed on farmer participation, linking extension
to farming systems research and coordinating training with farm visit schedules. Fourthly,

34. 19
steps should be taken to ensure that Government-support measures to improve farmers'
access to knowledge through direct contact extension, publications, the mass media,
agricultural shows, and field days, are cost effective and properly coordinated. Particular
attention will be paid to the potential of the mass media given the growing availability of
radio and video in the rural areas. Comprehensive support for both agricultural production
and group administration is a very important requirement for most land reform programs and
projects. The birth of new strategies such as (ARDS) and (SIS) portrays the importance
attached to comprehensive and coordinated support at the national level. The only obstacle
envisaged is to identify ways of removing bureaucratic huddles both at the local, provincial
and national levels and ensure that the intended support to the beneficiaries are accomplished.
2.6 Extension and Poverty Alleviation
Livestock farming either large or small stocks is a major part of Asia - Pacific region
agricultural production and consumption systems. It plays an important role in poverty
alleviation, food security and nutrition through providing meat, milk, draught power, manure,
fiber etc. Animals and animal products also occupy a very special place in poverty reduction
programs in many Asia - Pacific countries. Livestock contributes significantly to agricultural
Gross Domestic Product (on average 20% of agricultural GDP in Asia - Pacific region). It
also plays a crucial role in social relations within communities and in inter-state trade.
Around 10% of the human population of Pacific Islands is primarily dependent on livestock,
while another 58% at least partially depend on livestock (FAO, 2002). About 60% of the
value of edible livestock products is obtained from cattle in the form of meat and milk, while
small ruminants (meat and milk) and poultry (meat and eggs) generate around 20% each
(FAO, 2002). On the continent as a whole, pigs only play a minor role in food production.
Meat, milk and eggs constitute around 65%, 27% and 8%, respectively, of the value of edible
livestock products (FAO, 2002).
2.6.1 Extension and Sustainable Agricultural and Rural Development [SARD]
The SARD concept has been defined by FAO as "the management and conservation
of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in
such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for
present and future generations. Such sustainable development (in agriculture, forestry and
fisheries sectors) conserves land, water, plant and animal genetic resources; is
environmentally non - degrading; technically appropriate; economically viable; and socially

35. 20
acceptable" (FAO, den Bosch Declaration, 1991). According to Contado (1997) farmers
perceive extension as a form of assistance to help improve their technological know-how,
efficiency, productivity, profitability, and contribution to the good of their family, community,
and society. While politicians, planners, and policy makers in many developing countries
views extension as a policy instrument to increase agricultural production, to achieve national
food security, and, at the same time, help alleviate rural poverty. Contado further asserted that
economists view extension as a policy instrument that will contribute to human capital
development and economic growth; therefore, resources allocated to extension are viewed as
an economic investment which must produce returns. To the practitioner, agricultural
extension assists and increases the adoption of useful technological know-how to rural people
and that these activities are supposed to lead to increased and sustained productivity,
increased income and well-being of farm people, food security and economic growth.
These objectives are to be achieved through non formal education and training
programs for farmers and extension has an important contribution to make to agriculture and
rural development. With the increase in human population and global environmental issues,
agricultural and rural development is no longer hinged on increasing food production but
points to the need for more education and technical support to farming communities and
households, to increase productivity and to preserve natural resources because of increase
pressure on fragmented and marginal lands (Contado 1997). Alexandratos (1995) stated that
population pressure and the demand for increased food output are associated with the
degradation, depletion, and pollution of soil, water, and other natural resources. It becomes
imperative for the society to conserve, protect, rehabilitate, and manage its land, water, and
other natural resources. Therefore, extension has a central and a very crucial role to play in
disseminating appropriate information to the farming communities.
2.7 Factors affecting the performance of extension
Since the 1980s, funding of research and extension has become an important policy
issue that has given way to a gradual decline in financial support for extension. According to
Swanson (1990) the funding of extension has been grossly inadequate. FAO 1991 study on
funding of extension involving 114 member countries, showed that in most developing
countries government support to extension is generally low when compared to Agriculture
Gross Domestic Product [AGDP] of about 0.5% of AGDP. The Global Consultation on
Agricultural Extension recommended that "in countries where more than 60% of the
economically active population are engaged in agricultural production, approximately 1 to

36. 21
2 % of the AGDP (depending on the size of the country and factor costs) should be
considered the minimum level of financial investment to achieve both human resource
development and technology transfer goals of a public sector agricultural extension system"
(Swanson, 1990). Agricultural extension policy encompasses national development policy,
and also agricultural and rural development. Agricultural extension is one of the policy
instruments which governments can use to stimulate agricultural development (Van Den Ban
in Jones, 1986). The challenge of extension is the absence of formalized extension policies as
most developing countries adopts provisional or ad hoc extension policies. The Global
Consultation on Agricultural Extension concluded that agricultural extension policy should be
consistent with and supportive of national agricultural development policy and goals
(Swanson, 1990). Roling (1986) posited that extension is a weak instrument when it stands
alone, but that it becomes powerful when combined with price incentives, input supply,
credit, seed multiplication, and so on. According to the Global Consultation on Agricultural
Extension many developing countries can expect the extension system to contribute to
increasing agricultural productivity and farm income, and to improving the quality of life of
most rural farm households in pursuit of the general goal of growth with equity when good
extension policy initiatives‟ are put in place. It further stated that such a policy will also help
maintain and conserve the natural resource base for sustained agricultural development and
enhance food security. Another challenge to extension is the adjustment of the mission and
goals of extension.
Extension has a universal meaning, its mission and goals may need to be adjusted
according to national objectives. Then these extension missions should be reflected in the
extension policy and in the law governing the country's extension system and should be
periodically reviewed by policy makers (Contado, 1997). The subject matter of extension
which is usually reflected in the mission statement and even in the title of the extension
service is another challenge. According to Contado (1997), the difference between
agricultural extension and rural extension is the subject matter that the extension service will
include in its programs and the target groups to be served among the rural population. He
asserted that narrow subject-matter coverage such as promotion of food and cash crops and
animal production may cause uncoordinated extension initiatives. However, this challenge
will be overcome with the inclusion of broader subject-matter coverage such as promoting
the entire farming system, sustain-able agricultural and rural development that will leads to a
more unified agricultural extension system. Geographical coverage is an important policy

37. 22
issue that has both political and cost implications. Most political leaders want their
constituency to be covered by an effective extension service; therefore, they must explore
ways or means to access funds for extension Programmed. If extension funding is to be
provided by different levels of government then the structure of extension must reflect these
different sources of funding. Extension personnel will tend to be more responsive to those
levels of government that provides extension funding. For example, if local district provides
some extension funding, then extension personnel will tend to be more responsive to the
needs of farmers and political leaders within these local districts than they are if all funding
comes from the national government. In short, having multiple sources of funding, especially
from different levels of government, will result to an extension system that has a broader base
of support and more responsive to famers at the local level. A good proportion of small scale
farmers, are women but the majority of public extension officers are men. Women farmers are
less often visited by extension staff than men farmers. A common criticism of extension
services in developing countries is their neglect of the vast number of small-scale farmers in
favor of fewer numbers of large farmers [DOA, 2008].The inclusion of women in agricultural
extension programs is generally recognized in terms of their numbers and contribution to
farming. In Pacific region about 31% of the active populations in agriculture are women and
women participation in food production is as high as 76% in some areas (FAO, 1990). The
way extension is organized affects the performances of extension delivery. The extension
organization encompasses different aspects of an extension system, and it provides the
management framework for the extension service. The way extension is organized affects the
scope, magnitude, and structure of the extension system, including factors such as control,
cost-effectiveness, and the impact of the extension service. Contado (1997) discussed four
different forms of extension organization as follows: 1. Centralized organization. In this form
of extension organization, the national extension office manages and controls extension
programed activities and resources at the regional, district, local, and village level. Clientele
participation and feed back in programed planning are generally limited. Examples include
the Department of Agricultural Extension in Thailand and Bangladesh, the Agricultural
Extension Bureau of South Korea, and AGRITEX in Zimbabwe. 2. Decentralized
organization. This system has National or Federal extension office. Extension programming,
management, and the control of activities and resources are in the hands of the state or
provincial governments. Examples of this form of extension organization are the agricultural
extension systems in Brazil, Canada, India, Nigeria, and the Philippines. 3. Cooperative
Extension organization. The feature of this form of extension organization is the cooperation

38. 23
or partnership between the National, State or Provincial, and local governments in funding,
programming, and managing the activities and resources of extension (Kelsey & Hearne
1963). In the United States, for example extension is a joint undertaking of the States
Department of Agriculture (Federal Extension Service), the State Land Grant universities
(Federal Extension Service (FES) 1974). In Japan, extension is a joint undertaking of the
National government and the Local government (Agricultural Extension Service Japan,
1978).In China, agricultural extension is a cooperative undertaking of the central, Provincial
and National government. Cooperative programming, management, and support are
demonstrated at the County Agro-Technical Extension Centre (CATEC), where normally
20% of funding comes from the Local government, 30% from the Provincial government,
and 50% from National government (Chung, Yong-Bok, & Dong, Youl-Mo. 1984). 4.
Pluralistic form of Extension system. This is an emerging form of extension organization in
many countries, but it is not yet reflected in National extension policy. This form of extension
occurs in those countries where the need for extension services is widespread and/or where
the public agricultural extension organization can no longer satisfy its clientele because of
resource and management problems. As a consequence, many publicly and/or privately
funded organizations; including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) conduct
agricultural extension programs. Generally, the geographical, subject-matter, and clientele
coverage and the quality of work for each of these different organizations are not properly
defined and coordinated. The worth of extension system to society is largely reflected by the
quality and number of the technical and professional staff engaged in the organization
(Contado, 1997). Policy makers and extension managers are confronted with challenges of
human resources. Given the mission, scope of the work, and available resources, there is
mirage of questions like: what type of qualifications and how many extension staff should be
employed by the extension system? How many male and female [gender issue], what should
be the proportion of subject-matter specialists to field extension workers? What should be the
proportion or ratio of field extension personnel to the number of farmers, farm households, or
other target groups? How should extension staff be deployed, how often should they be
transferred, and what incentives should be provided in order to ensure that they work closely
with all groups of farmers. A good extension policy promotes extension system stability, yet
allows sufficient flexibility to reflect the dynamic nature of the agricultural sector. Extension
should not be rigid; rather, it should be responsive to all major groups of farming
communities and allow public, private, and non-governmental organizations to contribute
fully to the agricultural development goals of a country (Swanson, 1990). However, frequent

39. 24
organizational changes within extension, such as being transferred from one government
agency to another, directly impact the organization’s effectiveness. Extension policies in
some countries have been successful in preventing disruptive and destabilizing change. For
more than 80 years, the U.S. has followed, with some flexibility, the 1914 Cooperative
Extension Service law. For almost 50 years, Japan has followed its extension policy; and
Thailand has successfully followed its extension policy for the past 40 years (FAO1991). In
these countries, agricultural extension is recognized as having contributed significantly to
increased agricultural productivity and development.
2.8 Approaches to extension services
The traditional concept of extension in Pacific region which including Solomon
Islands was very much focused on raising the level of production, improving outputs, training
farmers, and the transfer of technology. Today‟s concept of extension goes beyond
technology transfer to facilitation; beyond training to learning, and includes assisting farmer
groups to form, dealing with marketing issues, and partnering with a broad range of service
providers and other agencies ( Davis, 2008).Agricultural extension can be defined as the
entire set of organizations that support and facilitate people engaged in agricultural
production to solve problems and to obtain information, skills, and technologies to improve
their livelihoods and well-being (Birner, Davis, Pender, Nkonya, Anandajayasekeram,
Ekboir, et al., (2006). This can include different governmental agencies (formerly the main
actors in extension), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), producer organizations and
other farmer organizations, and private sector actors including input suppliers, purchasers of
agricultural products, training organizations, and media groups (Neuchatel Group, 1999). The
goal of extension organizations is the transfer of technology and human resource
development, though with varying emphasis. Within each organizational set up, there is a
combination or a mix of objectives and within countries there is also a combination of
organizational patterns (Nagel, 1997). The goals of extension may vary, within the overall
system as well as between different extension organizations. In addition, specific objectives
may sometimes contradict each other. While smaller systems may come close to pursuing a
consistent set of objectives or reconciling conflicting interests. Axinn (1998) asserted that the
success of an agricultural extension programed is directly related to the extent to which its
approach fits the programed goals for which it was established. According to Eicher (2007)
there are six basic categories of extension approaches or models in various stages of

40. 25
development and implementation in developing countries. These includes: National extension
model, commodity extension and research model, Training and Visit (T&V) extension model,
The NGO extension model, private extension model and Farmer Field School (FFS)
approach. However, it is not possible to identify a single approach to extension because; the
reality is that a combination of models is being used in most countries in Asia and Africa
(Davis 2006; Birner and Anderson 2007 and Birner et al 2006).Almost every developing
country now has a mixture of public, NGO and private firms delivering extension services to
farming more than 50 communities. There are many models and types of extension activities
around the world, and, and several authors have given typologies of extension as shown in
(Table 2.4) below. According to Davis (2008) Extension approaches generally fall into three
broad categories: diffusion or government-driven; participatory or demand-driven; and
private or supply driven, with the different systems or models falling under these three overall
types. Many extension systems in Asia – Pacific region today are combinations of these
broad categories.
2.8.1 Public Extension
The national public extension model has been historically the dominant extension
model throughout the world and it has usually been a key institution that usually reports to
the Ministry of Agriculture. Organizing agricultural extension work under the wings of the
ministry of agriculture seemed to be an ideal solution for many African, Asian and Pacific -
governments; and all options for reaching large numbers of clients and serving their needs in
terms of quality information and assistance appeared to be open (Nagel, 1997).
Table 2.4 Typologies of Extension by various Scholars
Rivera (1988) Axinn (1998) Gemo et al (2005)
Top-down Conventional General Public
Training and visit Training and visit Commodity
University Commodity Training and visit
Technical innovation Agriculture Participatory
Approach
NGO
Integrated Agricultural
development program
Project Approach Private Sector

41. 26
Participatory Farmer information and
dissemination system
Farming system research
extension (FSR/E)
Farmer Field School
(FFS)
Farming system and
Research – Extension
Cost sharing
Contract
Farming
Commodity
developments
Educational Institution
Approached
Commodity focus
Rural
developments
Community
development
Integrated rural
development program
Animation Rural
Source: Davis.K, (2008)
However, public sector extension worldwide had been criticized for not performing
enough, not doing it well, and for not being relevant to the needs of the farmers. Critics
emphasized that there is insufficient impact in effectiveness, in efficiency, and the general
lack of programs that fostered equity (Rivera et al. 1991). According to Nagel (1997) priority
areas for research is rarely based on extension field evaluations because the system does not
allow critical upward communication. Nagel (1997) argued that the transformation of
technical and other innovative findings into field messages are usually distorted and outdated.
In addition, Benor and Harrison (1977), in their extension publications found that the poor
performance of ministry-based extension system was related to four major causes. These
causes included: inadequate internal organizational structures, inefficiency of extension
personnel, inappropriateness or irrelevance of extension content and lack of extension impact.
Ministry-based extension has been unable to reach a majority of its potential clientele for
economic, socio-psychological, and technical reasons despite increases in personnel that have
not produced manageable client-to agent ratios (Nagel, 1997). In addition, many extension
workers go for the more responsive section of their clientele and may be prejudiced against
certain groups of farmers. In his own criticism, Rivera (2003) asserted that inadequate
infrastructure, lack of institutional support and insufficient training contributed to the failure

42. 27
of the public extension system. One of the recurring criticisms of national public extension
systems is that they are highly centralized and they inhibit the feedback from clients to
extension specialists, researchers, policy makers and donors (Eicher 2001). According to
Nagel (1997) these criticisms came both from within and outside the extension institution. A
well-organized feedback from clientele was also not possible. Farmers may show their
dissatisfaction by refusing to cooperate with extension, but they have virtually no way of
influencing institutional reforms.
Extension worldwide has large numbers of staff and the recurrent costs of extension
were enormous. FAO 1990 report of the Global Consultation on Agricultural Extension stated
that there were about 600,000 agricultural extension personnel worldwide, with 95% of these
extension staff working with public agricultural extension. In the United States, for example
there are about 9,000 extension agents, 4,000 subject-matter specialists, and 1,000 directors
and administrative support personnel (USDA, 1993 data). Against this background, the public
sector has been [i] moving its services to the private sector sometimes through
commercialization as in the case of New Zealand - adopting the user-pay commercialization
(Hercus, 1991); Mexico adopting a fee-based system (Wilson,1991), England and Wales
(Bunney and Bawaitt 1991, Harter, 1992);or [ii] Voucher system as in the case of Chile and
Colombia (Rivera et al. 1991); or [iii] partial privatization as in the case of Netherlands (Le
Gouis, 1991, Proost & Roling 1991), Dutch government (Proost& Rooling 1991); or [iv]
outsourcing as in the case of Australia (Cary, 1996) and Mozambique – Nampula and
Zambezia provinces (Gemo and Rivera 2001). However, the relevance of privatization
concept in extension services delivery cannot be over-emphasized thus the private extension
and its modalities will be discussed later in this chapter. However, irrespective of these
criticisms, public sector extension is primarily important for its public good attributes.
Kalambokidis (2005) posited that public value is created when a service benefits society as a
whole. When a service is noted as possessing significant public value, even citizens who do
not directly access benefit from the service will endorse its public funding. The perception of
agricultural information as a public good has provided the major argument in policy debates
since the 1960s for the continued provision of government extension services (Marsh and
Pannell 1999). In developed and developing countries governments are being pressurised to
reform and reprioritize public sector agricultural programmes and deal with issues, such as
the management of natural resources, rural development, the environment, and health.
Extension institutions are important actors in effort to respond to these issues. According to
Rivera and Zijp (2002), only governments can ensure that extension services work for the

43. 28
public good, even if extension services are provided by contracting with private sector
providers. For the purpose of this study, some of the most important reforms to public
extension that took place in the past three decades are discussed below.
2.8.2 Training and Visit Extension
The Training and Visit (T&V) extension model was launched in Turkey in the early
1970s and it later spread to India and Africa under World Bank sponsorship in the late 1970s
and 1980s. The T&V model was to improve organizational structures of public sector
extension and decentralization of extension (Rivera, 1998). The idea of the model was that
locally available research information and technology was awaiting adoption by farmers.
Therefore, subject matter extension specialists would meet with a group of farmers from
surrounding villages every fortnight and train them to take innovative agricultural messages
such as improved farming practices back to farmers in their respective communities (Eicher,
2007). Since the T&V model turned out to cost about 25% more than the public sector
extension systems that it replaced in Ministries of Agriculture, the extension debate shifted in
the late eighties and nineties to a new model called Farmer Field School (FFS) (Anderson, et.
al. 2006). T&V in Rwanda and Côte D‟Ivoire was deemed unsatisfactory and public
extension systems in general, came under severe criticism in the 1980s due to the cost of
financing, irrelevance, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and lack of equity (Rivera, 1988). In
Ethiopia, for example Dejene (1989) found that the communication system from contact
farmers to the rest of the community did not work as expected, and up to 25% of contact
farmers did not have the necessary knowledge and skills. In Nigeria, extension agents under
the T&V lacked communication skills, transportation, and were faced with cultural barriers
(Asiabaka & Bamisile, 1992).Despite the criticisms levied on the T& V model, it has some
useful impact on the development of extension and farmers improvement. In practice, the
T&V system was effective in disseminating Green Revolution technology, especially in the
irrigated areas in Asia (Eicher 2007). Close to 50 developing countries utilized some form of
T&V extension during the period from 1975-1995. However, the World Bank withdrew its
support for the T&V model following a report that its high recurrent costs could not be
reduced (Purcell and Anderson 1997). In India, for example, the acceptance of T&V
extension greatly expanded the number of Village Extension Workers (VEWs) in the State
Departments of Agriculture, resulting in long term financial obligations for state governments
(Eicher 2007).But some important lessons have been learned from the T&V experience in the
area of analysing the cost of new models, implications of an expanded scale, the level of

44. 29
reliance on external funding and the chances of domestic support to pay the recurrent costs of
scaling up new models over time (Anderson, et.al 2006).
2.8.3 Decentralization of Extension
To alleviate the weaknesses and shortcomings inherent in the (T&V) system as
mentioned above, the concept of decentralization of agricultural extension was introduced.
Decentralization is the transfer of authority and responsibility for government functions from
central government to intermediate and local governments, and often to communities and the
private sector (Khodamoradi and Abedi 2011). According to Johnson (2000) the concept of
Decentralization is analyzed from one of two different perspectives as follows: [1] From the
democratic perspective decentralization emphasizes the aspect of empowering local people to
control and direct their own public programs; and [2] The administrative perspective
emphasizes the efficiency gains resulting from improved administration and effectiveness of
public programmes due to local control. Decentralization is generally expected to: enhance
local financing and ownership of programs, result in more efficient and equitable allocation
of government resources, provide incentives for production and service delivery, ensure
lower-cost service delivery, build local capacity, and respond more effectively to local needs
(Khan, 2002). According to Swanson and Samy (2002) there are three areas involved in the
decentralization process: 1) transferring specific decision-making functions to local people,
starting with managerial functions such as programme planning and implementation to
priority setting and fund allocation, and ending with a set of functions like accountability and
co-financing; 2) public participation factor, reflecting the degree of authority that is
transferred to rural people starting with advisory capacity in program planning and
implementation, and ending with the taking over of total control of selected financial
planning and the accountability functions; and 3) local government involvement, which
shows the level of government or local institutions, including private firms and NGOs, that
assume control over specific functions, starting with provincial and regional levels, and
ending with district, regions and municipal levels. The term “decentralization” encompasses:
deconcentration, delegation, devolution, and transfer to private firms and NGOs (Smith,
2001).
1] Deconcentration – this is an institutional arrangement were selected managerial
functions, such as program planning and implementation, are assigned to sub-national levels
within the national agricultural extension system. The deconcentration extension system
exists at local levels, including state or province, district or at municipal level. The T&V