A systems coalition approach to agricultural extension!!

1. AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION SYSTEMS
COALITION
Alternate models for agricultural and rural
extensions in developing world
Systems Coalition Approach to Agricultural
Extension & optimize Knowledge & Technology
diffusion
Mainstreaming small holder farmer as an
important stakeholder for bottom up
agricultural advisory
IKP
Center
for
Advancement
in
Agricultural
Prac6ce
(ICAAP)
Thanjavur,
India

2. A growing consensus has recognized that agricultural
extension systems must be pluralistic networks of
institutions providing varied information and innovation
services.
Such extension systems must be demand-driven with
closer linkages to clients, must become more efficient,
and must develop more sustainable sources of
financing. Increasingly, extension services should be
market driven integrated services that are tailor made
to meet the needs of the clients.
Adapted from World Bank center for agriculture and rural development
2

3. Contemporary agricultural extension models in developing
countries
The current agriculture and rural extension models are dominated by public systems.
It is estimated that approximately 95%1 of over 800,0002 official extension personnel globally.
Developing countries account for approximately 2/3 of the extension staff worlwide3. However,
despite decades of investments and experience with public extension programs, evidence of
their impact upon agricultural knowledge, adoption and production system development are
limited. Furthermore, the systems themselves have been criticized for high costs, problems of
scale and low levels of accountability4
To elaborate further, the contemporary models are
unprepared and stretched by ever increasing dynamics and
Extension models today are
complex situations the agricultural sector is facing today.
implemented mostly
The following illustration clearly elucidates the drawbacks of
by the public and NGO
current public system agricultural extension models in
settings in developing
developing countries. In addition the illustration also
countries with increase in
underlines the minimal participation by private entities in
private standalone models
agricultural knowledge system development unlike the
fast catching up.
developed countries
Illustration 1.0: Agricultural knowledge system chain and limitations of extension
models (Adapted from Swanson, Sands, & Peterson model
•
•
•
Technology development
Technology assessment
Technology testing
Technology
Generation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Message development
Training & backstopping
Delivery strategy
Technology distribution &
sales
Technology multiplication
•
•
•
Awareness information
trial
Farm level adaptation
Technology adoption
Technology
Transfer
Technology
Utilization
Output/
production
Agricultural macro policy
Feedback flow
Limitations of current public extension systems
Limitations of current public extension systems
1,3. FAO world agricultural report
2. The State of Agricultural Extension: An Overview and New Caveats for the Future, 2013 by Amanda Bensona & Tahseen Jafryb*
4. Jenny C. Aker (2011). Center for Global Development Working Paper 269, September. Forthcoming in Agricultural Economics.
3

4. To abstract the illustration 1.0, the public
Private sector participation in extension
sector extension has a legacy of working in
Private sector models can be classified as
isolation. Rigid hierarchy centralized modes
private not for profit delivered by NGOs and
of planning, tradition of assessing
private for profit (delivered by commercial
performance in terms of technology
production and marketing firms (such as
adoption, a history of rewarding only success
input manufacturers and distributors).
and thus a reluctance to report and analyze
Countries like the US, Canada, Australia,
reasons of failure; a history of working
and Denmark, which have very advanced
independently and a mistrust of other
agricultural sectors, have always enjoyed
agencies; and a tradition of up-ward
strong private extension services which are
accountability for resource utilization rather
lacking in developing countries. However, to
than output achievement and client
mitigate the limitations of the public sector
satisfaction are plaguing the knowledge
extension systems, private and business
dissemination in developing countries.1
entities started developing their own
Further the
public sector systems don’t
extension models off late which have
realize the importance of feedback flow
resulted in cost escalations, whilst ROI of
among the stakeholders. This often leads to
such models is yet to be ascertained as
development of innovations that are
specified in illustration 2.0.
irrelevant to the beneficiaries.
Illustration 2.0: Private extension systems that are independent and reinventions of models
Farm Inputs
Seed
Fertilizers
Farm machinery
Pesticides
Processing
Independent extension systems
built by private sector
Most of the systems are
recreations with multiple
investments in infrastructure,
human resources
The beneficiary is subjected to Information dump
and conflicting messages
Beneficiary
1. Citation from NABARD study on private role in agricultural systems
4

5. It is to be noted that varied agencies that are
It is evident that the conventional public
accountable for research (CGIAR consortium
and private extension models fail to
etc.) are getting in to creating own systems of
address the challenges of beneficiary
extension. In addition, developing world also
coverage, system duplications,
witnesses NGO operated extension models.
productivity and sustainability in
Irrespective of these diverse activities a huge
agricultural knowledge dissemination
hiatus is being experienced in knowledge
ecosystem; this prompts for the
dissemination and practical applicability. For
stakeholders especially
instance, it remains to be seen the extent of
the private players to look for alternative
penetration
models and lessons exist in food
medium farmers) of some of the best
system models in the form of ‘system
technologies developed by CGIAR consortium
coalitions’
in developing countries. To support this
and applicability (among small/
argument, a study conducted by the FAO the extent of services received by the medium and small scale commercial farmers do not receive
devoted extension services in developing countries. The study also highlights that one out of
every five economically active person in agriculture receives the extension services;
surprisingly only about one fourth of the extension agent’s time is dedicated to education and
training services in developing countries1. Hence it is clearly evident that irrespective of the
spurt of activities by research agencies, public systems, private businesses contemporary
models of extension systems the unmet needs i.e. diffusion of global agricultural knowledge to
the small holder farmer, reduction of duplication with emphasis on efficiency, cost mitigation in
extension systems and more importantly sustainability of the systems still remain.
Alternate models for agricultural extension: Lessons from food system coalitions
The search for the alternate models can borrow learning from allied sector, the food system
coalitions. The coalitions were able to bring varied stakeholders from Government to business
partners to civil society to academicians with the objective to enhance food security to
communities/counties they work for. These systems are coalition networks of varied
knowledge partners and create a sustainable social enterprises to execute the projects; the
coalition undertakes the mentoring, project and performance appraisals of the
promoted
social enterprises.
1.
FAO world agricultural report
5

6. SLO County food system coalition: Representative case study 1.0 1
The Concept:
The Food System Coalition was founded in June, 2011 by representatives from nonprofits,
businesses, and government agencies from the social services, producers (farming, ranching,
fishing), health, education, distribution, consumers, gardening, and retail. The FSC brings
together stakeholders from diverse sectors to generate changes that will strengthen the local
food system.
The Operating model:
The Food System Coalition, or FSC, is a collaborative network that brings together many
sectors, from consumer groups to County government agencies, the Farm Bureau to the
fishing community. Projects conducted by partner organizations are supported by the
Coalition, which also forms its own projects to strengthen the local food system. The FSC is
currently hosted by the Food Bank Coalition of San Luis Obispo County. Short-term and
long-term work groups are formed around key issues and can include both Coalition
members and other interested people. An elected Administrative Committee takes care of
administrative functions.
Key take away:
Coalition of varied stakeholders
Coalitions to gain mileage and mitigate
acting as mentor for social enterprise
duplication: The concept was able to build active
with an accountable administration
networks in the county within a short span of time1
fostered the programme mileage
Ability to reach majority of the beneficiaries:
case of the FSC at San Louis
Leverage networks to promote awareness and
Obsipo county. Moreover the
within two years the models was able to reach 82%
programme also highlights the need
of target beneficiaries2
to involve varied stakeholders in
Consistent feedback collection: The programme
planning and feedback process so
banked on surveys and inputs provided by the
as to ensure seamless movement of
beneficiaries across varied socio-economic class to
communication;
streamline the operational model3
1.
http://www.slofoodbank.org/board_of_directors.php
2.,3. Hunger free communities; characterizing the vulnerable
population in San Luis Obispo county 2012 report prepared by
Aydin Nazmi and Alexandra Lund
6

7. Centralized coalition committee:
To smoothen administrative and operational
functions thus striving for accountability and
transparency
Focused and collective approach
The programme involved diverse stakeholders who have been participating in the planning
process thus avoiding duplication of efforts while promoting a streamlined approach
to
strengthen the local food system
Community and regional food systems of Milwaukee, Chicao and Detroit:
Representative case study 2.0 1
The Concept:
The mission of this project is to integrate research, outreach, education and advocacy in order
to better understand, develop and sustain community and regional food systems (CRFS) as a
means of addressing food insecurity and related goals in American cities. The project partners
include the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Growing Power, the University of WisconsinExtension, Michigan State University, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, and Iowa State
University, in addition to community-based organizations in cities:
Milwaukee, Chicago,
Detroit, Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Cedar Rapids, IA and Madison, WI.
Framework for comprehensive food security system #
Project components include
research,
community engagement, out reach
efforts, education and advocacy. The
coalition aims to
promote
the
development
of
equitable,
sustainable,
and
inclusive
Community
and
Regional
Food
Systems.
1. http://www.community-food.org/overview/
# The framework represented is the extract in original from the website and is for information purposes only. Neither the author nor IKAAP
claims the thought ownership of the framework and acknowledging that the ownership of framework is with community and regional food
systems US.
7

8. Envisage the ‘System Coalition’ model in agricultural extension
The system coalition aims to build vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive extension systems. The
coalition model work integrates research, community engagement, outreach, education, and
advocacy. Research and dissemination of new models form the crux of the efforts. The
coalition model also aims to collect feedback and convey the same for stakeholders for
relevant actions and corrective measures.
We can envisage that these
coalition based models like
Illustration 3.0: Representative system coalition extension
platform
Businesses
Academicians
Government
Research groups
food organizations will lead to
the development of tools,
educational curriculum, and
training programs on
community, agricultural
Expert group coalition
practices, access to finance
etc. under the mentorship of
an expert group.
Community entrepreneurs
Illustration 4.0:Extension dynamics
ushered by the coalition system models
Programme administration
Project monitoring & appraisals
Research on new extension
models and systems
Qualified resources in the
community and
importantly proximal to
beneficiaries
1
2
Knowledge dissemination
• Input knowledge
• Farm practices
• Product handling
• Feedback delivery
• Equitable access
3
1
Participation of stakeholders
• Adoption of new technologies
• Community involvement
• Business involvement
Sustainability
• Comprehensive farm land protection
• Scope to monetize the knowledge
• Increased scope for interplay of agro
allied sectors
4
Prosperity
• Multiple level of sustainable livelihood
creation
• Accountable access to capital/finance
• Economic viability of farms
3
Participation
2
Knowledge
Dissemination
Sustainability
4
Prosperity
8

9. As shown in the illustration 4.0, the new system coalition model is likely to transform the
extension model from mere service delivery model to more of an enabler. In addition the
system also strives for increased participation from the communities thus creating an
environment of seamless exchange of knowledge, messages and thought processes.
The challenges the agricultural sector is facing are ever increasing and
becoming complex. Consequently developments have also increased manifold in
agricultural practices, technology platforms and approaches. The fast paced
demands and the complex agricultural ecosystems are stretching contemporary
extension service models, which otherwise have a crucial role to play in
promoting agricultural innovation to keep pace with the changing context and
improve livelihoods of the dependent poor.
To abstract, the model doesn’t stop at pushing through innovations and education based
services but also created more comprehensive thinking around livelihoods, inclusiveness
and more importantly sustainability of the rural enterprises thus providing a bigger bang
per buck spent on the programmes.
In current scenario, when certain standalone model innovations promoted by public
systems, NGOs and businesses are criticized of lacking prac6cal
reali6es
of
adop6on,
knowledge
fragmenta6on,
and
inherent
challenges
to
promote
pluralism
and
innova6on,
the
coali6on
extension
model
is
likely
to
benefit
from
synergies
shared
by
stakeholders
and
can
likely
present
more
solu6on
based
approaches
to
challenges
faced
by
conven6on
extension
models
9

10. Abdul Rahman Ilyas
Chief Executive Officer
IKP Centre for Advancement in Agricultural
Practice (ICAAP)
- IIT Research Park, Chennai 600113, Tamil Nadu, India.
- 7th Cross Arulananda Nagar, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu
- IKP Knowledge Park, Genome Valley, Turkapally, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Phone: +91 (44) 6668-7075 Mobile : +91-9840643774
Fax: +91 (44) 6668-7010
Email: abdulrahman.ilyas@icaap.org.in
© 2014 All Rights Reserved.
IKP Center for Advancement in Agricultural Practice