The document summarizes a research project studying agricultural extension and rural water supply in Ethiopia. It aims to understand how well services are reaching farmers, particularly women, and the challenges in providing these services. The study uses surveys of households, local leaders, and service providers in 8 districts across Ethiopia to examine access to extension services and drinking water. Qualitative case studies in 4 districts will provide additional context on service delivery and governance arrangements. Key research questions include the level of outreach achieved by extension services, their responsiveness to gender needs, and how decentralized drinking water supply systems function in practice.

1. ESSP-II Policy Conference
22-24 October, 2009
Hilton Hotel, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia
The Governance of Service Delivery for
the Poor and Women:
A Study of Agricultural Extension and Rural
Water Supply in Ethiopia
Regina Birner, Mamusha Lemma,
Tewodaj Mogues, Fanaye Tadesse

2. Rationale of the research project
• Agriculture is back on the international development
agenda,
• but providing agricultural and rural services has remained
a major challenge!
• How to reach millions of farmers even in the most remote
areas?
• Governance reforms worldwide
• Decentralization – involving local communities in service
delivery – public sector reforms
• What works where and why?
• What works for the rural poor and for women?
Three-country research project: Ethiopia, India and Ghana

3. Social and economic services
and infrastructure in rural areas
Health and
education
Rural roads
Electricity
Drinking water
Agricultural
extension
Agricultural
input
supply
Page 3

4. What are the challenges of providing
rural services?
• Challenges to make the market mechanism work
• Public good – merit good – externalities
• Challenges for the public sector
• Transaction-intensive in terms of space and time
• Requiring discretion – difficult to standardize (extension)
• Challenges of involving local communities
• Local elite capture, social exclusion
• Capacity problems
• Special challenges to reach women with agricultural services
• Perception bias: ―Women don’t farm.‖
• Key to meeting the challenge: Creating accountability!

5. Oliver Williamson’s cost-effectiveness approach
to identify the efficient governance structure
TCA
$ Extension provided
Total costs with adjusted
incurred for packages
achieving a TCP
defined Extension provided
TCD
under standardized
outcome Extension
package approach
provided with
discretion of
extension agent
Difficulties
of
supervision
a1 a2
Attributes
Diversity of agricultural conditions
Page 5

6. Oliver Williamson’s cost-effectiveness approach
to identify the efficient governance structure
TCA
$ Extension provided
Total costs with adjusted
incurred for packages
achieving a TCP
defined Extension provided
TCD
under standardized
outcome Extension
package approach
provided with
discretion of
extension agent
Difficulties
with increased
of accountability
supervision
a1 a2
Attributes
Diversity of agricultural conditions
Page 6

7. National / State-level National / State-level
Political Representatives (NP) Ministries (NM)
Political
Parties (PP)
Local Political Development
Representatives (LP) Agencies / Advocacy
NGOs (DA)
Community-Based
Organizations (CO)
Household Public Sector
Members (HH) Service Providers (PS)
NGO / Private
service providers (NG)
Services
Accountability Framework based on World Bank (2004)

8. Focus of the study in Ethiopia
• Access to agricultural extension
• High policy attention to extension, and increasing adaptation of
packages
• Knowledge gap: How much outreach has been actually achieved so
far in different regions? How well does the delivery mechanism work?
• Gender dimension of agricultural extension
• General government commitment to gender equality
• Knowledge gap: To what extent do agricultural extension services
address the needs of female farmers?
• Drinking water supply
• Government efforts to increase water supply through decentralized
provision, and water committees
• Knowledge gap: How do these delivery methods actually work on the
ground?

9. Study Design and Research
Methods

10. Local Political
Representatives (LP)
Household Public Sector
Members (HH) Service Providers (PS)
NGO / Private
service providers (NG)
Services
Page 10

11. Survey Design
Kebele level survey
Local Political Representatives
- Kebele chair (156)
- Kebele council member (312)
- Kebele council speaker (156)
- Wereda council member (156)
Household survey Kebele level survey
Household Members Service Providers
- Both HH head and spouse - Development agents (312)
separately (1,761 respondents: - Agricultural cooperative head (156)
843 men, 238 female-hh- - Water committee head (156)
heads, 680 female spouses)

12. Survey Design
 8 weredas total, in 7 regions: Afar, Amhara, Beneshangul-
Gumuz, Gambella, Oromia, SNNP, Tigray
 Four paired weredas (in proximity to each other): One wereda
of a pair in “leading” locally decentralised region, one in an
“emerging” region.
 In the case of one pair: Amhara and Tigray—de facto differences in
history of local empowerment
Page 12

13. Survey Design
 Household survey (quantitative):
– in 4 randomly drawn kebeles of each of the 8 weredas
– 35 randomly drawn households in each selected kebele
– total of planned 1120 households, with up to two respondents in each household
 Kebele-level surveys (quantitative):
– in all kebeles of each selected wereda
– total of planned 156 kebeles
 Case studies (qualitative):
– in one kebele in each of four weredas (in Amhara, Beneshangul-Gumuz, Oromia,
Tigray); ie weredas are subset of the above 8 weredas
– interviews at the wereda and kebele level in these four weredas
 In this first set of studies:
 We mostly take a descriptive-analytical approach
Page 13

14. Agricultural Extension

15. 5%
0%
10%
15%
20%
30%
25%
Extension visits
farm/home
Attend
extensionist's
community meetings
Visit
demonstration
plots
Visit
demonstration
homes
Trained at
Farmer Training
Centre
Service by
cooperative
Men
Agricultural
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
input credit
Women
Access to different forms of extension

16. 0%
5%
10%
20%
25%
30%
15%
Extensionist at
farm/home
Extensionst's
community
meetings
Demonstration
plots
Demonstration
homes
education
Farmer
Training
Centre
Service by
cooperative
Poor
Access to extension, by poverty and
Literate
Illiterate
Agricultural
Non-poor
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
input credit

17. Access to extension by survey site
(percent of respondents)
60
54
50
39 39 37
40
30 27 27 25 24 24
20 18
15 13
11
10 8
2 1
0
Visited by extension agent at farm or home
Attended extension agent’s community meetings
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

18. Access to extension and livestock services in India
(Percent households with contract during past year)
80
70 67.8
60
Male-headed
50 households (owning
land/livestock,
40 respectively)
30 27.2
Female-headed
20 households (owning
land/livestock,
10 4.4 respectively)
1.0
0
Agricultural Livestock services
extension
ISEC-IFPRI Survey, 2006

19. Access to agricultural extension in Ghana
(Percent households visited by agent during the past year)
20%
18%
16%
14% 12.3%
11.7%
12% 10.9%
10%
8%
6%
4%
1.8% 2.1%
2% 1.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.5%
0%
Forest Zone Transition Zone Savannah Zone
Male-Headed Households Female-Headed Households
Female Spouses
ISSER-IFPRI Survey, 2008Page 19

20. Gender composition of extension staff
(Percentage in sample)
ISEC / ISSER / EEPRI - IFPRISurveys

21. Satisfaction with agricultural extension
(percent of respondents)
100
90
80
70 Very dissatisfied
60
50
Somewhat
92.5 95.4 dissatisfied
40
Somewhat
30
satisfied
20
Very satisfied
10
0
HH Heads Spouses

22. Adoption of new technologies
During the past two years, did you start to use some farming
practice for the first time, such as a new variety, new crop, new
input, new cultivation technique, new breed, etc.?
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
89.7
50% 96.6
no
40% yes
30%
20%
10%
10.3
0% 3.5
Head Spouses

23. Variables associated with visit by extension
agent and uptake of new practices
Variable Visit by Started new
extension agricultural
agent practice
Gender (1=male) + ***
Education (1=literate)
Household status (1=head)
Wealth (consumer assets owned) + **
Household size + *** + ***
Male dependents
Female dependents -*
District dummies included included
Observations 1,753 1,740
Likelihood ratio chi-square test 250.69 *** 167.08 ***
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

24. Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Reducing regional disparity in access to extension
• Federal support to emerging regions already ongoing
• What additional strategies could be used?
• Strategies to better target female farmers
• Linking extension with women’s groups
• Increasing female staff among extension agents
• Evaluating agricultural extension services
• Challenges in measuring farmers’ satisfaction
• High satisfaction rates in spite of low adoption rates
• Need for further methodology development, especially if
satisfaction data are to be used for management purposes
• Measuring adoption rates and productivity
• Further research needed if goal is to establish causality

25. Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Making extension more demand-driven
• Trade-off
• Better supervision in case of package approach
• Limitation to adapt to diverse local conditions
• How to increase discretion of extension agents, while using
other mechanisms to create accountability?
• Recent policy changes (Implemented after this study)
• Development of packages based on ―best practices‖ of local
model farmers
• Shifting of responsibility for monitoring from supervisors to
Subject Matter Specialists
• Increased role for kebele councils/cabinets
• Assessment of new approaches topic for future research

26. Drinking Water

27. Access to drinking water
(Primary water source)
National
average:
11%
(2004, WDI 2008)
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

28. Primary water source is improved source
Gender -0.287 *
(1 = male) (0.169)
Education 0.017 Afar-D -0.334
(1 = literate) (0.133) (0.217)
Respondent status 0.119 Amhara-D2 0.239
(1 = head, 0 = spouse) (0.127) (0.182)
Wealth (No. of consumer 0.046 * Benesh. G.-D -0.088
asset types owned) (0.024) (0.173)
HH size (No. of -0.019 Gambella-D 0.437 ***
HH members) (0.018) (0.164)
Working age women -0.010 Oromia-D -1.579 ***
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.241)
Working age men -0.010 SNNP-D -1.193 ***
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.205)
Female dependents -0.011 Tigray-D 0.165
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.185)
Male dependents -0.009 constant 0.595
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.932)
No. of obs.: 960, LR χ2: 196.53***
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

29. Average time to get water from different
water sources (in minutes)
Water source Wet season Dry Season
River, lake, spring, pond 58 91
Rainwater 6 –
Well without pump 74 102
Well with pump 71 82 In Ghana:
Public standpipe 30 29 Less than
Household’s private 30 minutes
standpipe/ tap 3 3
Water vendor 63 80
Other 24 153
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

30. Identification of public services with greatest
problem, by socioeconomic status
Education status Wealth status
Public service/
infrastructure: Literate Illiterate Non-poor Poor
Drinking water 28% 34% 28% 36%
Sanitation/drainage 0% 0% 0% 0%
Small-scale
irrigation 1% 1% 1% 1%
Health 17% 19% 18% 15%
Education 6% 3% 7% 3%
Electricity 14% 8% 17% 13%
Roads 16% 6% 15% 11%
Livelihood
opportunities 2% 1% 3% 3%
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

31. Identification of public services with greatest
problem, by region
Afar- Amhara- Amhara- Benesh. G- Gambella- Oromia- SNNP- Tigray-
D D2 D3 D D D D D
Drinking water 65% 29% 25% 35% 28% 36% 19% 34%
Sanitation/
drainage 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Small irrigation 1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%
Health 21% 31% 22% 31% 8% 9% 11% 14%
Education 1% 8% 3% 3% 1% 9% 2% 5%
Electricity 0% 10% 21% 7% 6% 6% 16% 40%
Roads 0% 10% 22% 9% 6% 8% 33% 1%
Livelihood
opportunities 2% 4% 4% 1% 2% 1% 6% 3%
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

32. Identification of public services of greatest
concern, by gender
Public
Diff. sign.
service/Infrastructure: Men Women
Drinking water 31% 34%
Sanitation/drainage 0% 0%
Small-scale irrigation 1% 0% *
Health 17% 19%
Education 5% 3%
Electricity 16% 11% **
Roads 14% 12% **
Livelihood opportunities 2% 3% **
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

33. Particular concerns with drinking water supply
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% Not enough drinking
water supply
30.0%
Drinking water is of poor
quality
20.0%
Problems with collecting
fees for water use
10.0%
Other problems with
water
0.0%
Men Women Men Women
problem 7 years ago problem today
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

34. Satisfaction with quantity and quality of
drinking water supply
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

35. Tendency to complain when dissatisfied
with drinking water
Question: During the past 1 year, did you approach anyone when you
were dissatisfied with the water quantity or quality?
Male respondents Female respondents
5% 3%
6%
16%
77% 91%
Yes No Never been dissatisfied Ye s No Ne ve r be e n dissatisfie d
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

36. Capacity of Water Committees
• Water committees receive limited training on technical
issues concerning water facilities
• But receive no training on ―soft skills‖: Community
mobilisation to maintain water systems; community
education and persuasion to use improved sources; etc.
• In several of the sites, receive little technical and other
support from wereda water desks
• In all case study sites except for one, water committee
heads were men (although other water committee
members included women)

37. Accountability and consultation in water
provision
• Local knowledge and priorities in water service provision
• Sense of a lack of consultation with local water committees in siting and
construction of water facilities
• Found to be the case irrespective of facility provider (government or NGOs)
• Problematic relationship between water committees and
water users
• Water committees unable to persuade users to participate in maintenance
and pay fees
• Collapse of water facilities as well as water committees
• Fall-back to use of unimproved water sources when facilities don’t work,
rather than use complaint mechanism
• In Tigray, better ―short route‖ accountability mechanisms than elsewhere
• Though everywhere, much dissatisfaction about level of financial fees for
construction and maintenance of systems

38. Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Access to safe drinking water sources is very low
• 32% of study households—which is substantially higher
than nation-wide rural access of 11% (2004, WDI 2008)
• Weak accountability links may be a hindrance in translating
rural residents priority concerns into policy priorities
Placing access to safe drinking water higher on the priority
list (noting that it also has implications for productivity)
• Households identify drinking water as their main priority
concern
• yet they report relatively high satisfaction rates and hardly
take any action to complain.
Treat satisfaction data with care.

39. Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Water committees, the lowest level service providers, are
still insufficiently inclusive
Take measures to make committees inclusive – or
consider alternatives (Making it a responsibility of
councils?)
• Water committees not able to counter-act top-down
facility provision.
Draw on local knowledge and local considerations in
selecting sites – more discretion.
• Water committees have high discretion in setting rules,
fees, etc., but unable to effectively use this discretion due
to nearly no training on “soft skills”
Train water committees on community relations
Page 39

40. Conclusions

41. National / State-level National / State-level
Political Representatives (NP) Ministries (NM)
Political
Parties (PP)
Local Political Development
Representatives (LP) Agencies / Advocacy
NGOs (DA)
Community-Based
Organizations (CO)
Household Public Sector
Members (HH) Service Providers (PS)
NGO / Private
service providers (NG)
Services
Accountability Framework based on World Bank (2004)