Problems and Challenges of Agricultural Extension

in Chencha Woreda (District), Gamo Gofa Zone, South

Ethiopiaa

By

Getachew Belay Beyene

Enrollment No. 099108779

A research Paper Submitted to IGNOU

For the Partial Fulfillment of Masters of Art in Rural

Development (MARD)

Advisor: Dr Mulugeta Taye

Acknowledgement

2
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................................................i

Table ofcontents...................................................................................................................................................ii

List of Table and Figures.....................................................................................................................................v

Acronyms ….........................................................................................................................................................vi

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................vii

CHAPTER ONE _______________________________________________________________7

1. Introduction ____________________________________________________________________7
1.1. Background of the Study ____________________________________________________________ 7
1.2. Statement of the Problem __________________________________________________________ 11
1.3. Objective of the Study ____________________________________________________________ 13
1.3.1. General Objective ____________________________________________________________ 13
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ____________________________________________________________ 13

1.4. Hypotheses: ____________________________________________________________________ 13

1.5. Research Questions _____________________________________________________________ 13

1.6. Significance of the Study _________________________________________________________ 14

1.7. Research Methodology __________________________________________________________ 14

1.7.1. Approaches and Orientations of the Study __________________________________________ 14
1.7.2. Source, Type of Data and Instruments of the Study ____________________________________ 15
1.7.3. Sampling Technique and Size ____________________________________________________ 15
1.7.3.1. Sampling- _______________________________________________________________ 15
a) Questionnaires _____________________________________________________________ 16
b) Interview _________________________________________________________________ 17
c) Focus Group Discussion ______________________________________________________ 17
d) Key Informants Interview _____________________________________________________ 17
1.7.4. Limitation of the Study _________________________________________________________ 17
1.7.5. Processing of data ____________________________________________________________ 18
1.7.6. Analysis and Interpretation of Data ________________________________________________ 18
1.7.6. Structure of the Thesis _________________________________________________________ 18

CHAPTER TWO __________________________________________________ 19

2. Review of Related Literature _________________________________ 19

2.1. Concepts and Dimensions of Agricultural Extension Program _______________________ 19

2.1.1. Conceptualization of Agricultural Extension Program ___________________________________ 19
2.1.2. The Evolution of Agricultural Extension Program ______________________________________ 20
3
 2.1.3. Scopes and Dimensions of Agricultural Extension Program _______________________________ 21

2.2. Roles, Opportunities and Challenges of Agricultural Extension Program in Ethiopia 25

2.2.1. The Roles of Agricultural Extension Program _________________________________________ 25
2.2.2. The Opportunities of Agricultural Extension Program __________________________________ 27
2.2.3. The Challenges of Agricultural Extension Program _____________________________________ 27

2.3. Agricultural Extension Program - Global and Regional Views _______________________ 29

2.3.1. The Global Understanding of Agricultural Extension Program _____________________________ 29
2.3.2. The African View in Agricultural Extension Program ___________________________________ 31
2.3.2.1. Opportunities and Challenges Raised by Globalization in Africa _______________________ 31
2.3.2.2. The Status of Agriculture in Africa ____________________________________________ 32
2.3.2.3. Domestic Resource Potentials of African Nations _________________________________ 32
2.3.2.4. African Nations‟ Experience in Agricultural Productivity ____________________________ 32

2.4. Agricultural Extension Program in SNNPRS: A Regional Experience ________________ 33

2.4.1. Components of Agricultural Extension Program in SNNPRS ______________________________ 34
2.4.2. Nature and Extent of Agricultural Extension Program in Chencha Woreda ___________________ 37

CHAPTER THREE ________________________________________________ 38

3. Data Analysis and Discussion ______________________________________________ 38

3.1. Introduction __________________________________________________________________ 38

3.2. Data on Rural Households – Analysis and Discussion ______________________________ 38

3.2.1. Socio-Demographic Data on the Sampled Rural Households ________________________________ 38
3.2.2. Respondents Family Size ___________________________________________________________ 40
3.2.3. Understanding of Rural Household to AEP and their Roles in its Implementation _________________ 41
3.2.4. Access and Training on Agricultural Extension Program for Rural Households ________________________ 42
3.2.5. Benefits and Challenges of Agricultural Extension Program for Rural Households _____________________ 47

3.3. Data on Agricultural Extension Workers – Analysis and Discussion __________________ 48

3.2.1. Socio-demographic Data on the Sampled Agricultural Extension Workers __________________________ 48
3.2.2. Roles and Perceptions of Agricultural Extension Workers on AEP ________________________________ 51
3.2.3. Benefits and Challenges of AEP for Agricultural Extension Workers _______________________________ 53

3.4. Rural Households and Agricultural Extension Workers (AEW) Interview Analysis ____ 56
3.4.1. Rural Household Interview Analysis__________________________________________________ 56
3.4.2. Agricultural Extension Workers (AEWs) Interview Analysis ________________________________ 60
3.4.3. Focus Group Discussion Analysis with Rural Households __________________________________ 62
3.4.4. Focus Group Discussion Analysis with Agricultural Extension Workers ________________________ 65
3.4.5. Focus Group Discussion Analysis with Agricultural and Rural Development Officials ______________ 67

3.5. Key Informants Interview Analysis ________________________________________________ 68

4
CHAPTER FOUR _________________________________________________ 72

4. Conclusions and Recommendations ______________________________________ 72

4.1. Conclusions ____________________________________________________________________ 72

4.2. Recommendations ______________________________________________________________ 73

5
 Abstract
Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopian economy and 85% of Ethiopian population is living in rural
areas based on agricultural economic activities. That is why the sector attracted the attention of
the Government of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and in general and agricultural
institutions in particular. As a result, agricultural extension program is one of the inputs for the
development of the agricultural sector. However, agricultural extension program faced various
problems and challenges in Chencha Woreda (District) in its implementation process. Hence, the
objective of this research is to explore the problems and challenges of the implementation of
agricultural extension program in SNNPRS, Gamo Gofa Zone Chencha Woreda. In doing this,
exploratory and explanatory approaches with qualitative and quantitative methods employed.
However, the research has involved more of qualitative than quantitative method. None-
probability purposive sampling technique is employed based on the judgment of the researcher
based on the availability of the units, personal experience and convenience in carrying out the
survey techniques are employed in order to select the study sites within Chencha Woreda and
study respondents respectively.

To collect the required primary source of data, instruments of data collection which includes;
questionnaire, interview, focus group discussion and practical site observation used. Secondary
source of data to strengthen the primary source of data also carefully examined. In the study, it is
revealed that lack of awareness, provision of education and training, absence of supervision and
coordination, insufficient daily per-diem, inadequate infrastructure, lack of credit service and
expensive nature of the price of agricultural inputs were the major problems and challenges of the
implementation of agricultural extension program in Chencha Woreda. Based on the findings of
the study; the researcher recommended that creating community awareness, providing
educational and training facilities, supportive supervision and coordination, establishing sufficient
infrastructural conditions such as; FTCs, provision of sufficient allowance to agricultural extension
workers and credit service to the rural households and the price of agricultural inputs should be
the focus of areas by the Government.

6
 CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction

1.1. Background of the Study

Ethiopia‟s economy is predominantly agrarian where Agriculture plays a key role in the social and
economic development. The sector employs more than 83% of the population, accounts for 46.3%
of the Nation‟s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is the source of over 90% of the export
revenues (MoFED, 2007). Smallholder agriculture is the dominant sub-sector of agriculture
accounting for 95% of the total cultivated land and production (CSA, 2008).

The nature of agriculture that has practiced in Ethiopia is similar to those Sub-Saharan Countries.
It is not modernized, rather traditional in the way people practice it. However, governments of
different regimes of the country were attempting to introduce different mechanisms that were
significant for agricultural development. Among these mechanisms, agricultural extension system is
one of the primary vehicles for diffusing technologies.

Agriculture in Ethiopia has been practiced for many centuries yet there had been no sources that
indicate the exact historical evolution of agricultural extension practices. The historical evolution
of agricultural extension practices were written by different authors in different ways. For
instance, FAO in 2008 reviewed the history of agricultural extension in Ethiopia covering the
period of 1900 to the present can be classified into four major epochs. They are I) early
modernization period 1900-1910, II) age of missed opportunities- 1910-1953, III) classical transfer
of technology approaches- 1954-1974, IV) quasi-participatory extension approaches- 1975 to the
present. This classification is based on: a) the time of introduction of each system, b) nature of the
introduced extension system and c) the degree of community participation (FAO, 2008).
Information as to the tasks accomplished in agricultural extension between the 1910 and 1930 is
scarce.

As FAO stated development programs initiated to transfer products of modern science and
technology from the West to the rest of the world characterized the period 1954-1975. It is a
development model that was implemented by America through the Marshal Plan to restore the
economies of war-ravaged countries in Western Europe.

7
However, the economies, institutional policy and cultural situations of African countries were
much different from those of Western Europe. Therefore, the blueprint provided for African
smallholder farmers could not be copied and did not work (FAO, 2006).
This was what happened in Ethiopia following the introduction of the Transfer of Technology
(ToT) models of extension. Policy situation such as the land tenure system, the feudal bureaucracy
and the remoteness of many rural communities did not allow technologies such as fertilizers,
improved crop varieties and exotic breeds to reach the vast majority of Ethiopian farmers (ibid).
According to the explanation of FAO, in 1953 the Imperial Ethiopian College of Agriculture and
Mechanical Arts (IECAMA) was established. In1963 following the revision of the Ethiopian
Constitution, 19 ministries including Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) was established in well-
organized manner with the mandate of providing Agricultural Extension Services (AESs) which
leads to conventional extension approach (1963-1968).

A short-lived success story in agriculture was also the turning point of Comprehensive Integrated
Package Projects (CIPPs) to develop peasant agriculture from 1968-1975. Under the umbrella of
the CIPPs only Chillalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU) and Wolayita Agricultural
Development Unit (WADU) were fully implemented whereas the others were either partially
implemented or not started at all (FAO,2008). In addition to this, in 1971 the Minimum-Package
Program (MPP) a two-phased program has launched; and the first phase MPP-1 served up to 1974.

The extension approaches introduced after MPP-1 have been categorized as quasi-participatory
extension approach because they all had some participatory element at least in theory before
being implemented. This quasi-participatory extension approach was been characterized by
different progress.

The fundamental progress were the land reform and cooperative (human resource dimension)
approach from 1975-1980, minimum-package program phase II from 1980-1985, the national
program for food self-sufficiency later modified as Training and Visit (T&V) extension approach
from 1986-1989, the Peasant Agricultural Development Extension Projects (PADEPs) from 1989-
1995 and the National Extension Intervention Program (NEIP) following the Extension
Management and Training Plot (EMTP) approach of Sasakawa Global 2000 (Ibid). The progress
phase, however, could not take place as planned. This five years development plan was different
from the other progress phases i.e. PASDEP has given agricultural marketing the highest priority.

8
The last but not the least extension program is the Participatory Demonstration and Training
Extension System (PADETES), (Ibid).

The above paragraphs show that some progress or developments of Agricultural Extension
Programs were been achieved in Ethiopia. SNNPR as one of the Regional States in Ethiopia it
attempted to implement the progress phases. Smallholder farmers predominantly dominate the
region, which creates good opportunity for the implementation of the progress phases. The study
area of Chencha Woreda is one of the Woreda in the Sothern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples
Regional State, which practices Agricultural Extension Program. The total land holding of Chencha
Woreda under different land using system estimated to be 654.85 square kilometres.

Most of the land holdings used for cultivation purposes, which require effective implementation of
Agricultural Extension Program. Therefore, this research attempted to assess the factors affecting
the implementation of Agricultural Extension Program in the Woreda. The study looks into the
problems encountered in practicing the program in particular and the implementation progress in
general.

1.2. Description of Study Area

1.2.1. The Physical Setting

The Gamo highland is located in the south western part of Ethiopia in Gamo Gofa zone, which is
one of the administrative Zones of Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional
State/SNNPRS/. The Gamo highland is the southernmost extension of the north- western block of
Ethiopian highlands. It rises from 1300 m above sea level to 3250 m above sea level.
Chencha Woreda situated in between 1,300 m and 3,250m above sea level. It forms the upper
rectangular landmass of the highland. Astronomically Chencha wereda is located between 37o 29‟
57” East to 37o 39 36 West and between 608 55” North and 60 25‟30” South. The Woreda is
bordered by Kucha and Boreda- Abaya weredas in the North, Arbamich zuria Woreda in the
South, Boreda Woreda in the East and Dita Dara malo in the West.

Due to a high altitudinal range, the area is characterized by diverse agro-climatic distribution and
vegetation cover. The Woreda is divided into two agro-ecological zones, namely, Dega and Woina
Dega, which account for about 82 and 18% of the total area respectively. Due to its rugged
topography the highland area is very vulnerable to soil eroding forces.

9
The rainfall regime in the Woreda is bimodal. The first round of rain occurs between March to
April. The second round of rain occurs from June to August. The rainfall distribution in Chencha
varies from year to year and across seasons. The annual rainfall distribution in the Woreda varies
between 900 mm to 1200mm. The minimum temperature in the Woreda varies from 11 to 13
degree centigrade, while the maximum temperature is in the range 18 to 23 degree centigrade.
This Wereda is located at about 320km North of Hawassa.
The Wereda is categorized into two agro climatic zones: Dega (high altitude) covers about 44%
of the area with an altitude of more than 2300 masl and Woinadega (mid altitude) ranging from
1900–2300 masl and encompasses about 56% of the area.
The mean temperature of Chencha Wereda is 220c. According to the meteorological report, the
mean annual rainfall is 1201-1600 mm. Rain usually starts in mid-March, but the effective rainy
season is from May to mid-September.

According to the Woreda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development, the total area of the
Wereda estimated to be 373.6km2 (37,360 hectare). From the total area 55.26% is cultivated
land, 8.51% used as grazing land, 15.47% covered with forest and shrubs and 20.76% is used for
settlement and other purposes.

The dominant crops grown in the Wereda are barley, wheat, bean, and root and tuber crops like
potato and sweet potato etc. From the total cultivated land in 2007, 4,831 ha covered with
barley, 4350 ha covered with wheat and 2,451ha with pea and bean. Concerning oxen ownership,
55.6% of farmers in Chencha Woreda have no oxen while 22.20 % of the farmers have one and
22.2% have two and more oxen.

There are 135 DAs working in all Kebeles to provide extension service for about 24,647 farm
households. The DA to farmers‟ ratio estimated to be 183 farm households per one DA (BoFED,
2006). To supplement the efforts of the governmental institutions, Kalehiwot church and WVE
were also involved in the provision and support of extension service, in addition to facilitating the
introduction of apple production technology to the study area.

This Woreda believed to be the place where apple fruit introduced by religious organization
known as Kalehiwot Church found in the Woreda. Due to market demand for the fruit, the
support from the church indicated and government attention, current evidence show that more

10
than 1000 farmers are getting benefit from multiplying and selling of apple seedlings to other
farmers.
The soils of the Woreda are primarily clay or clay loams, which have evolved from volcanic rocks
(basalt) and volcanic tuff in the higher altitudes of the study area. The dominant soil color is
reddish brown to dark brown. The principal soil types are Cambisols and Nitosols.
Lithosols specially confined severely erode steeper parts of the wereda. These soils are very
shallow and generally agriculturally unproductive (MoA/FAO, 1990). Many small rivers and streams
originate from Chencha highland. However, the main rivers of the highland are Kullufo, Zute,
Hare, Gina, Shaye, Basso, and Kulano. These rivers are not providing any economic value in the
highlands, except eroding away the vulnerable highland soils. Nevertheless, in their lower courses
some of the rivers like Kullufo, Hare and Basso provide the lifeline for irrigation forms of the low
land area around Arbaminch.

The current land use pattern in the Woreda consists of annual crops, perennial crops, forest and
shrubs. Out of the 45,000 ha of the Woreda‟s total area 24,420 is covered by annual crops, 3102
by perennial crops, 3446 by grazing land, 6185 by natural and artificial forest and the rest 7847 by
other crops, fallow land and marginal land.

Fig 1:- Map of Chencha Woreda

1.3. Statement of the Problem

Ethiopia, once expected to be the breadbasket of Africa is now suffering from a severe shortage of
food for its citizens and chronic poverty. The major reason behind is mainly the backwardness of

11
the dominant economic sector of the country, agriculture. Land, traditional tools, draft animals
and family labour are still the most important factors of production (Beyene, 2004). Compared to
global agricultural practice, the use of chemical fertilizers and improved seeds at national level is
negligible even by African standard. Looking at historical data of Ethiopian food crop production,
the improvements in production and land productivity are mainly the result of expansion of
cultivated area and ideal weather, especially rainfall.

There are two conventional, nonexclusive ways of increasing agricultural production. The first is
through expansion of resource use, particularly by bringing more land under cultivation and
making use of the abundant rural labour force. The second is through increasing the productivity
of farm resources through technological and efficiency improvements. Although the first option is
likely to be feasible only in the short term from the point of view of sustainability because of
scarcity of land, studies have shown that the latter option is encouraging and gains are enormous
(Shultz, 1964; Timmer, 1988).

Even in the years, that the Ethiopian Government adopted a new extension policy called
Participatory Demonstration and Extension Training System (PADETS) after 1995, except some
annual fluctuations, all the important indicators for the performance of the agricultural sector such
as yield, per capita production and agricultural incomes indicate that the sector did not show any
improved performance.
The first justification that attracted the researcher to do this study stems from the existing food
insufficiency and insecurity in Chencha Woreda. Thus, the practical driving force to this research
is related to the alarming prevalence of poverty in the Woreda and the occurrences of food
insecurity and food shortage happening repeatedly year after year in the Woreda due to
traditional way of farming practices (WBoA, unpublished data).

The second driving force that encouraged the researcher to do this thesis is the ineffective
implementation of agricultural extension program at the household level in Chencha Woreda. It
has facing problems such as; Low productivity, less motivation by DAs, low use of inputs, soil
acidity, in adequate natural resource conservation, fragile farming system, population density, in
adequate land holding, males out migration, the cost of agricultural inputs, lack of farmers‟
awareness, dependent on rain fade agriculture. Here, the researcher‟s opinion is that efficient
implementation of the agricultural extension program will help to attain food security at the

12
household level. Hence, the paper aims at identifying the major reasons, which affects the
extension service delivery in Chencha Woreda of Southern Ethiopia.

The third reason that attracted the researcher to conduct this paper is concerned with the little
attention given to the agricultural extension program by researchers in the study area though the
program has great contribution for the improvement of the agricultural productivity. However,
some studies were conducted which focused on the impacts and performances of the extension
package. For instance, the attention was not been given to presenting the farmers‟ perceptions or
responses towards the agricultural extension package.

Therefore, this research will focus on the investigation of the factors affecting the implementation
of the agricultural extension program in Chencha Woreda, Southern Regional State from 2007-
2011 G. C.

1.4. Objective of the Study

1.4.1. General Objective

The general objective of the study is to explore the current practices and challenges of the
sustainable implementation of agricultural extension program in Chencha Woreda.

1.4.2. Specific Objectives

1. To assess the overall achievements of the program from 2007-2011
2. To describe the nature and perceptions of the households towards agricultural extension
program and its effect
3. To identify the major challenges affecting the sustainable implementation of agricultural
extension program
4. To provide suggestion for the perceived challenges affecting the implementation process

1.5. Hypotheses:
The delivered extension programs are successful.

1.6. Research Questions

1. Does lack of awareness affect the overall achievement of agricultural extension program in
the Woreda?
2. What are the nature and perception of farmers‟ towards agricultural extension program and
its effect in the study area?

13
3. Does lack of credit service to farmers affect them to participate actively in the extension
program?
3. Is the delivered extension program acceptable by the users?

1.7. Significance of the Study

This study could serve as a guideline and benchmark for individuals who work on the
enhancement of agricultural productivity, especially, on its challenges. It may also assist those
agents who are working against poverty. The study will also help to familiarize agrarian societies
about the importance of extension program in their agricultural productivity.

In addition, it also helps to familiarize policy makers with the result of agricultural extension
program and attaining food security. This will enable them to design better and effective policy
measures for the program and promote enabling environment for the community.

The academic contribution of this study is that it provides new knowledge and solutions for the
problems or challenges affecting the agricultural extension program. It will also serve as a
springboard for further investigators in the agricultural extension programs in general and the
problems affecting the implementation process in particular.

1.8. Research Methodology

1.8.1. Approaches and Orientations of the Study

The challenges of the implementation of agricultural extension program which resulted in weak
achievement. It demands a multidisciplinary approach to overcome the challenges of agricultural
extension program.

This research has envisaged to be exploratory (what and how it is going on) and explanatory (why
it is happening) approaches. In order to achieve the objectives mentioned, the variables has been
described using simple statistical measurements like mean, standard deviations, ratios and some
statistical comparisons will be made on adopters. To minimize the limitation of a single method,
both qualitative and quantitative methods are used.

However, the researcher prefers more to use the qualitative approach to explain the factors
affecting the implementation of agricultural extension program. The selection of households from
Kebeles‟ was been based on availability of the units, personal experience and convenience in
carrying out the survey and farmers and participation status in the agricultural extension service.
14
The questionnaire was pre-tested and modified before the execution of the survey (See the
questionnaire in Appendix 1). Four Development Agents (DAs) were recruited and selected based
on their performance information obtained from the WoA and have a daylong training by the
researcher before they were engaged on primary data collection. The researcher at class level on
the data collection methods and tools was training them. The selection of Agricultural Extension
Workers (AEWs) as a primary data collector have been made based on their work performances,
their ability to local language and their interest to collect the data in the selected Kebeles.

The enumerators who stationed in the survey areas administered the structured questionnaires
under the continuous supervision of the researcher. The secondary data from governmental
organizations used as supplementary information. However, as most works in the social sciences,
which suffer from the problem of missing both primary and secondary data for different reasons,
this study, cannot be an exception.

1.8.2. Source, Type of Data and Instruments of the Study

Both primary and secondary information sources were considered and used. Primary sources
were captured via interview (structured and semi-structured interviews, and key informants
interview), questionnaire, and focus group discussion. The researcher‟s direct contact with the
informants was consolidated.

Secondary source data also gathered based on review of documents, survey of related literatures,
electronic databases, and analysis of reports and discussion on agricultural extension program. In
addition to the literature on agricultural extension program, institutional sources such as,
Regional, Zonal and Woreda statistics, Agriculture and Social Welfare Statistics from the Federal,
Regional and Local level of administration were taken into consideration. The secondary sources
were also reinforced through careful examination and investigation of both published and
unpublished documents.

1.8.3. Sampling Technique and Size

1.8.3.1. Sampling-
None-probability purposive sampling technique is employed based on the judgment of the
researcher based on the availability of the units, personal experience and convenience in carrying
out the survey (Dawson, 2007). To make it a representative for the whole sample framework,
among the 45 rural kebeles‟ which were grouped in five Village Service Centres (Agelgilots‟) or
15
clusters, only the four are selected namely Doko, Dorze, Ezo and Zozo-Zakota are selected. From
these selected Agelgilots, 40% of kebeles‟ has been chosen from each. Although, data have
collected from the various groups of respondents as it is obvious that the village population shall
form the most important source of information.

The total numbers of respondents were 60 households. The other 15 respondents were
agricultural extension workers and four other woreda level extension experts were being used as
a source of information for this study. It is shown in the table below.

Table1:- Sampling Design

S.N. Name of No of % given to The no of No. of respondents Total
the village Kebeles the villages to selected Farmers Local DAs Woreda Office
select Kebeles leaders of Agriculture
kebeles for FGD Experts

1 Doko 14 40% 5 20 5 5

2 Dorze 11 40% 4 16 4 4

3 Zozo- 7 40% 3 12 3 3
Zakota
4 Shama - - - - - - -
5 Ezo 7 40% 3 12 3 3
Total 42 15 60 15 15 4 94

Out of the total number of respondents for the study, 15 community leaders were used for Focus
Group Discussion (FGD). Out of the 60 questionnaires, that has been distributed to sample
households, about 57 (95%) of them has been filled and returned. From the other questionnaire
distributed to 15 DAs, 14 (93.3%) of them were responded. To avoid any biases in the discussion
process, the researcher have tried to participate both masculine and feminine gender. In addition,
Key informants interview and focus group discussions has also included in the study. All these
research instruments were conducted systemically and seriously. The instruments are briefly
explained here under.

a) Questionnaires
To capture perceptions of certain respondents, two types of questionnaires were prepared. The
first type of questionnaire was containing 25 questions, which were prepared for rural households
16
and community local leaders. Both the questionnaires was pre-tested in this study to ascertain the
validity of questions before the final administration has to be conducted.

The second type of questionnaire, which was prepared for the 15 agricultural extension workers,
contained 24 questions. In addition, another one questionnaire for woreda level extension experts
was employed.

b) Interview
An interview method was used in order to gather information regarding the research problems. In
this regard, two different kinds of structured interviews were prepared and employed for both the
rural households and agricultural extension workers.

c) Focus Group Discussion

In order to support the information captured from both questionnaires and interviews, focus
group discussion was also conducted. First, critical issues related to agricultural extension program
was raised and their responses have been discussed on the issues. The total participants in the
focus group discussion were 15 from rural community leaders, which were selected purposively
from four Keble administrations. Therefore, the focus group discussion was undertaken in three
groups‟ of five participants in each group.

d) Key Informants Interview

As it is necessary to crosscheck the information gathered from questionnaire, interview and focus
group discussion; conducting additional interview with key informants was made. Semi-structured
interviews were prepared for different officials at various levels. Although it was difficult to have
easy access to their offices because of their busy business, the necessary information was
gathered. The number of the key informant interviewees was two and have given their explanation
upon different issues. Five semi-structured interview questions were also prepared for two
officials.

1.7.4. Limitation of the Study

It is obvious that a given research has its own limitations. In this research, the researcher faced
limitation of adequate related literatures on agricultural extension program, budget and time in
general and less availability and interest of respondents in particular. Animal production, bee
keeping and other agricultural practices was not included and although, those who are using
organic fertilizer did not included.

17
 1.8.5. Processing of data
Simple statistical description, are used to answer the research questions, test hypothesis and
derive some conclusion on the farming system, wealth status, and other factors such as; cultural
constraints, education, age, access to credit and risk taking ability may affect farmers‟ access to and
benefit from extension services.

In order to achieve the objectives mentioned, the variables were described using simple statistical
measurements like mean, ratios and some statistical comparisons was made between adopters and
non-adopters. To minimize the limitation of a single method, both qualitative and quantitative
methods were used. However, the researcher prefers more to use the qualitative approach to
explain the problems and challenges affecting the implementation of agricultural extension
program in the study area.

1.8.6. Analysis and Interpretation of Data

The completed interview schedules was scrutinized, verified, edited and arranged serially. Three
master-code sheets was also prepared-one for the data collected from farmers, another for data
collected from the grass root-level leaders and the third for the data collected from DAs. The
data was computed or processed on computer using the Excel and by the latest version Statistical
Package for Social Scientists (SPSS, 20th Version). The processed data is presented in tables and
charts and then interpreted/analysed. The qualitative data is presented in narrative form.

1.8.7. Structure of the Thesis

The thesis is structured into four chapters. Chapter one deals with the introduction, background
of the study, objectives and hypotheses, and methodology of the research. Chapter two presents
the review of pertinent literature, which examines the theoretical and conceptual frameworks and
the overall historical development of the agricultural extension program. The third chapter
articulates the findings of the study regarding the problems and challenges of the agricultural
extension program implementation in Chencha Woreda. The last chapter dealt with conclusions
and recommendations based on the finding of the study on the problems and challenges of the
implementation of agricultural extension program in the study area.

The appendix at the end of the document includes the interview schedules and the extended
bibliography.

18
 CHAPTER TWO

2. Review of Related Literature

2.1. Concepts and Dimensions of Agricultural Extension Program

2.1.1. Conceptualization of Agricultural Extension Program

There are many definitions, philosophies, and approaches to agricultural extension, and the views
of what extension is all about have changed over time. Agricultural extension is a difficult concept
to define precisely. This means that, it has different meanings at different times, in different places,
to different peoples. Among the definitions attempted by various think tanks, some of them
mentioned here under.

„Extension as a suffix term has meant better homes and farms, which to feed, clothe the people,
strengthen the nation, and better organized and functioning communities‟ (Brunner and Yang,
1949). Another definition of extension was provided by; Savile, who defined as „a plan that
designed to advise the farmers in order to improving their farming techniques which would assist
them to implement a benevolent government‟s plan for the country‟s economy development‟
(Savile, 1965).

In addition to this, Cuba College of agriculture (1995) defined extension as „customer driven
service to agricultural producers, processors, marketers and associated businesses; which are
resource-oriented groups and state agencies'. Under this, the definition of the term is not limited
only to the above-mentioned scholars. Other think tanks also defined it in similar fashions. For
instance, Buford (1990) pointed out that „agricultural extension depends to a large extent on
information exchange between and among farmers on the one hand, and a broad range of other
actors on the other hand‟. „Extension, along with education and research is typically seen as both
public and private services, which respond to the needs of farmers and rural people for knowledge
that can help to improve their productivity, incomes and welfare, and to manage the natural
resources, in a sustainable way. It also brings information and new technologies to the agrarian
communities in order to improve their production, incomes and standards of living‟ (Deribe,
2007).

19
In addition to this, according to Davis (2008), „extension originally was conceived as a service to
“extend” research-based knowledge to the rural sector to improve the lives of farmers‟.
Furthermore, he assumed that „extension has variety components such as technology transfer,
broader rural development goals, management skills, and non-formal education‟ (ibid).
Nonetheless, the general definition that most scholars agreed upon as a working definition is that,
„agriculture extension is 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‟(Davis,2008). This study also acknowledges this
comprehensive conception, and operational blue print for the entry study on the factors affecting
agricultural extension program.

2.1.2. The Evolution of Agricultural Extension Program

Initially, the dissemination and use of improved agricultural technology and management practices
traced back thousands of years in different parts of the world, including China, Mesopotamia,
Egypt, and in the Americas. Agricultural extension has been contributing a lot to the dissemination,
applying of latest agricultural technology and exercising the management skills. The well-organized
and government-funded extension and advisory systems traced back to Ireland and the United
Kingdom during the middle of the nineteenth century. During the potato famine in Ireland (1845–
1851), agricultural advisors helped Irish potato farmers to diversify their agricultural products into
different food crops. Various European and North American governments observed this
development, and attempted to practice more through “travelling instructors” which started in
the second half of the nineteenth century by many countries (Swanson and Raja Lahti, 2010).

The term extension itself however first used to describe adult education programs organized by
Oxford and Cambridge universities in England in 1867; these educational programs helped extend
the work of universities beyond the campus and into the neighboring communities. The term was
been later formally adopted in the United States in conjunction with the land grant universities
that were originally established as teaching institutions during the 1860s. The United States and
Canada still use the term extension services to describe their non-formal education programs,
while many European countries still use the term as advisory services to describe their respective
extension programs and activities (ibid).

Research activities on agricultural extension added in the curriculum during 1887. Because of this,
well-organized and advanced extension activities started in the 1890s and then in 1914 it
considered as part of each university‟s official mandate. During the early twentieth century, the
20
United Kingdom announced that Ministry of Agriculture has the responsibility for agricultural
extension activities. These activities are then, officially called advisory services (Birner et al., 2006).
Later, in most developing countries, the terminology used to establish public agricultural extension
or advisory institutions commonly recommended by the donor agency that helped to create these
public agricultural extension or advisory systems. For example, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) played an active role in establishing agricultural universities as well as
research and extension systems in many developing countries during the 1960s and 1970s;
therefore, many of these public agricultural extension systems still carry the “extension” program
title. On the other hand, most ministries of agriculture, worldwide, administer their public
extension systems; therefore, an increasing number of countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa,
now use the term advisory service extensively (Jones and Garforth, 1997).

Moreover, 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 (Directorate of
Agricultural Extension Services of Gahana, 2006).

Extension has been recently defined as; systems that facilitate the access of farmers, their
organizations and other market actors to knowledge, information and technologies; facilitate their
interaction with partners in research, education, agribusiness, and other relevant institutions; and
assist them to develop their own technical, organizational and management skills and practices.
However, donors (World Bank) agree that services provided in a fundamentally different way than
in the past emphasizing on a framework for agricultural service provision that might be effective
under current circumstances in developing countries. This framework puts agricultural extension
into a much broader context of a demand-led service market. Hence the term “advisory services”
is used instead of “extension”, to include the many non-traditional tasks, such as market
information, micro-finance, and health issues (AIDS), farmers‟ self-organization and the like (ibid).

2.1.3. Scopes and Dimensions of Agricultural Extension Program

The dimensions of agricultural extension program as indicated by different scholars had been
highly restricted to some of its goals. Therefore, agricultural extension program vastly emphasized
on its fundamental goals which include the transferring of knowledge from researcher to farmers,
advising farmers in their decision making and educating farmers on how to make better decisions,
enabling farmers to clarify their own goals and possibilities, and stimulating desirable agricultural
developments (Ban and Hawkins, 1996). However, the scope of agricultural extension program is
21
not restricting to what that has already mentioned. Beyond transferring research-based
knowledge, advising and educating farmers, it covers the participation of farmers in doing research,
helping farmers in applying the result of the research and new technologies, providing farmers with
agricultural inputs, supervising extension workers, enabling farmers to be good in managing their
products, and assessing the overall performance of farmers.

Nevertheless, the supervisors, extension workers and farmers do not precisely know the goals of
agricultural extension. That is why, the terms extension and advisory services used somewhat
interchangeably and become confusing concepts. In addition to this, agricultural extension program
is highly focused on the farmers' needs rather than farmers being „‟targets‟‟ of extension.
Participatory extensions based on giving the farmers acknowledge and farmers should be involved
in planning and implementation of agricultural extensions programs. Pragmatically, the extension
becomes more responsive to the needs of different clients in the community (women, youth,
female-headed households as well as adult males). The participatory approach is therefore,
considered as essential, if extension is to be more client-oriented (Dejene, 2006; as cited in Kiros,
2007).

Thereby, concerning the scopes of agricultural extension program the following framework gives a
useful perspective on the different approaches being pursued by different countries and donors in
organizing and implementing effective extension systems. This framework puts side by side all
these different terms or approaches by reviewing how the delivery of educational programs and
information/communication services takes place and why it takes place. In this extent, the options
are whether extension workers want to convince farmers what to do (i.e., persuasive methods) or
whether they seek to inform and educate farmers about different market opportunities, technical
options, and/or management strategies, and then let them decide which option would work best
for them.

The classifications also illustrate different combinations that help to describe and highlight
important differences between these different dimensions or paradigms in organizing agricultural
extension and advisory services (Swanson, 2008). Out of the variety dimensions or models of
agricultural extension practices, that help to consolidate the program include:

a) Technology Transfer - this extension model was prevalent during colonial times and re-
emerged with intensity during the 1970s and 1980s when the Training and Visit (T&V) system was

22
established in many Asian and Sub-Saharan African countries. This “top-down” model primarily
delivers specific recommendations from research; especially for the staple food crops to all
categories farmers (large, medium, and small).
This approach generally uses persuasive methods for telling farmers which varieties and
production practices they should use to increase their agricultural productivity and thereby
maintain national food security for both the rural and urban populations in the country (Swanson,
2008). The primary goal of this extension model is to increase food production, which helps
reduce food costs.

b) Advisory Services - under this model, both public extension workers and private-sector
firms, in responding to specific farmer inquiries about particular production problems, still
commonly use the term advisory services. In most cases, farmers are “advised” to use a specific
practice or technology to solve an identified problem or production constraint. Public extension
organizations should also have validated information available from research about the
effectiveness of different inputs or methods in solving specific problems so that inquiring farmers
receive objective and valid information.

Most input supply firms use persuasive advisory techniques when recommending specific technical
inputs to farmers who want to solve a particular problem and/or maintain their productivity.
Although most firms use persuasive methods to sell more products and increase their profit, an
alternative private-sector model also considered to support out plans when export firms failed to
ensure that specific production inputs and practices (L. Gum and C. Blank, 1990).

c) Non-formal Education(NFE)- In earlier days of extension in Europe and North America,

this paradigm dominated when universities gave training to rural people who could not afford or
did not have access to formal training in different types of vocational and technical agriculture
training.

This approach continues to be useful in most extension systems, but the focus is shifting more
toward training farmers how to utilize specific management skills and/or technical knowledge to
increase their production efficiency and to utilize specific management practices, such as integrated
pest management (IPM), as taught through Farmer Field Schools (FFS). Both NFE and facilitation
extension (as described next) commonly helps farmers with similar resources and interests to
organize into different types of self-help groups, particularly if they want to learn how to diversify

23
or intensify their farming systems, especially in pursuing new, high-value crops or other products
(Ibid).

d) Facilitation Extension-This approach has evolved over time from participatory extension
methods used 20–30 years ago and now focuses on getting farmers with common interests to
work more closely together to achieve both individual and common objectives. An important
difference is that front-line extension agents primarily work as “knowledge brokers” that is
facilitating the teaching–learning process among all classes of farmers (including women) and rural
young people.

Moreover, under this extension model, the field staffs first work with different groups of farmers
first to identify their specific needs and interests. Once their specific needs and interests have
been determined, then the next step is to identify the best sources of expertise (e.g., innovative
farmers who are already producing and marketing specific products, subject matter specialists,
researchers, private-sector technicians, rural bank representatives) that can help these different
groups address specific issues and/or opportunities. For example, most changes in farming systems
that can be readily adopted by small-scale men and women farmers that are already been devised
by innovative farmers in other communities or districts (Abeje, 2009).

These innovative farmers have already worked out the necessary practices to successful
production and market of new crops or products. In short, innovative farmers are frequently the
starting point for extension workers who want to facilitate the intensification and diversification of
farming systems to increase farm household income. In many cases, these innovative farmers, if
properly approached, can be encouraged to become the leaders of these new producer groups,
which will both enhance their reputation within the community as well as increase profits for all
members by expanding their supply of high-value products to larger urban markets
(Anandajayasekeram, 2008).

Under this model of extension program, some farmers become interested in pursuing specific new
market opportunities, and then both research and extension will need to work in close
collaboration with these innovative farmers in advising the “start-up” farmers on the most
applicable practices and technologies. In the process, these front-line extension staff will have to
facilitate the training of these farmers during the first year or two in producing new crops,
livestock, or other enterprises.

24
When small-scale farmers become interested in pursuing these types of new economic
opportunities, they are ready to engage in an active learning process. Therefore, this innovative,
market-driven extension approach works best where men and/or women farmers are already
interested in intensifying and/or diversifying their respective farming systems with the goal of
increasing farm household income. This facilitation approach can also be used to train members of
landless households; especially rural women, how they may be able to use Common Property
Resources (CPR) to start new enterprises and thereby increase their household income (Hailu,
2002).

2.2. Roles, Opportunities and Challenges of Agricultural Extension Program in Ethiopia

2.2.1. The Roles of Agricultural Extension Program

Agricultural extension program has many roles such as creating awareness on supervisors,
extension workers and farmers, in increasing the farmers‟ capacity while producing the desired
products, ensuring national economy growth and bringing higher standard of life among the
community of the nation. Particularly, the four extension models or paradigms that are discussed
earlier have important roles to achieve different agricultural development objectives. However, to
increase farm income and improve rural livelihoods among the rural poor, it will be necessary for
most public extension organizations to transform toward greater use of facilitators and NFE
extension methods.

In particular, small-scale men and women farmers, including the landless, can begin organizing into
community or farmer groups and then learn the necessary technical, management, and marketing
skills, which are necessary to help them progressively diversify their practice into higher-value
crop, livestock, or other enterprises that will increase their farm household income. At the same
time, as the agricultural sector develops (i.e., becomes increasingly commercialized), technology
transfer and advisory services tend to be increasingly privatized. Therefore, in the process, it is
important to build strong public–private partnerships that will further enhance agricultural
productivity growth, as well as to increase the incomes and improve the livelihoods of small-scale
and landless farm households (Edmonds, 1998).

For instance, in Ethiopian agricultural development history and agricultural extension had become
apparent around 1996 that without integrating farmers into the market as well as sustained
growth in the agriculture sector did not realized.

25
Perhaps as a result, the government policy on agricultural development has recently started to
emphasize the transformation of subsistence agriculture into market orientation as a basis for
long-term development of the agricultural sector (Davis, 2008). This also reflects how much
agricultural productivity remains weak and insufficient, when there is no strong-networked
partnership between private and public sectors.
To change the subsistence agriculture into market orientation different stakeholders should be
involved. These include different governmental agencies (formerly the main actors in extension),
non-governmental organizations (NGOs), producer organizations and other farmer organizations,
and the private sector, which include input suppliers, purchasers of agricultural products, training
organizations, and media groups (Itana Ayana, 1985).

Whatever the case, according to Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD)
(1998), the following are some of the main roles of agricultural extension program to:
I. Improve the standard of living of the society through improving productivity;
II. Empower farmers to make them actively participate in the development process;
III. Increase the level of food self-sufficiency;
IV. Increase the supply of industrial and export crops; and
V. Ensure the rehabilitation and conservation of the natural resource base of agriculture.

In addition, agricultural extension program tried to realize through the core elements that are
SDPRP and PASDEP in order to improve research and extension packages for farmers, expanding
irrigation (mostly through the food security program), a major farmer-training exercise, and
fertilizer reform in most of the developing countries. Governments in developing countries are
strongly committed to private sector development of agricultural markets. They have endeavored
to create enabling environment for the private sector through increasing domestic credit and
subsequently ensuring functioning credit markets (MoFED, 2007).

The on-going land certification in Ethiopia has also helped to improve security of land tenure and
transport linkages. The major achievements of agricultural extension program in Ethiopia
summarized as follows:
I. Production of food grains increment;
II. Increment of some stable and market-oriented productivities like coffee;
III. Enhancing way of utilizations of fertilizer;
IV. Expanding farming households adoptive and improved extension packages;

26
V. Introducing new irrigation works to benefit households;
VI. Encouraging demands of improved seeds for sales (MoFED, 2005).

2.2.2. The Opportunities of Agricultural Extension Program

There are a number of opportunities for the development of agricultural extension program in
general and for increasing of productivity in particular; to bring an enabling environment for a
community to have luxuries life, in certain state attempted different activities, which had many
opportunities (EARO, 1998). Some of the many opportunities include the appearance of good
agricultural policy, the intensive expansion of education, the existence of media, willingness of the
farmers to participate in agricultural productivities and the presence of well-trained and
committed supervisors and extension workers.

The opportunities which are used to disseminate information to the intended target audience
through different mechanisms such as radio, printed materials, audiovisuals, person-to-person
communication, agricultural affairs, seminars, workshops, training, farm visits, field days, etc.
Institutions like farmers‟ associations; traditional social organizations and youth clubs are also used
as important channels of communication as integral opportunities for sustainable productivity.

Retired professionals, other volunteers and professional societies are encouraged to play an active
role in rural development. Unlike the top-down extension methods that exercised by different
regimes in many states, bottom-up approach is designed to ensure farmers participation (Davis,
2006). The farmers are also involved at all stages of activities, from planning to evaluation.

In the implementation of the extension program, the role of the government is mainly to assist in:
a. Timely delivery of production inputs;
b. The provision of credit;
c. The delivery of extension and training services;
d. Deploying development agents at the village level; and e. Facilitating logistics, (MoARD, 1998).

2.2.3. The Challenges of Agricultural Extension Program

There are several challenges which the agricultural extension program faced in many levels with
different approaches such as the promotion of inappropriate technology, inappropriate criteria for
making research and recruiting extension staff (i.e. not based on scientific publications and
professions), poor research and extension linkages and lack of „real‟ participation of framers
(Belay, 2003).

27
According to the new strategy, the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development at the federal level is to formulate agricultural policies, design packages, organize and
conduct training activities to upgrade the knowledge and skill of all partners in agricultural
development, coordinate interregional activities, render policy advice and technical backstop.
Nevertheless, this top-down approach considered as the main factor that hinder the execution of
the agricultural extension program at country level. These challenges mainly occurred in the
regional states during the planning, execution, monitoring and evaluation process of extension
programs. Because, the powers and duties of planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating of
the agricultural extension program has been under the regional agricultural bureaus next to the
federal government(Ibid).

The different regimes of Ethiopia introduced various systems that acknowledge package approach
as a means for enhancing the desired change in agricultural development. In the past regimes, the
supervisors, extension workers and farmers were not well aware about the outcome of the
program in the life of each community. That is why different intervention strategies involved in the
various package approaches; which geared towards three different farming systems, namely:
reliable moisture, moisture stress, and nomadic pastoralist areas.

The distinction made to be among areas exposed for the first time to extension where extension
messages should be simple focused at improving cultural practices (crops, livestock); areas where
there is already minimal extension and where improved agricultural practices combined with the
use of purchased inputs allocated. Finally, in the areas which are already involved in large-scale
production where moderate or high input technology may be appropriate. Even though,
supporting services and means of communication may also vary accordingly, the absence of the
aforementioned opportunities would remain as complicating challenges of agricultural extension
program in most communities (MoARD, 1998).

Linkage among researchers, extension agents and farmers play a vital role in the agricultural
development process. This linkage helps the extension services to transfer farmers‟ problems to
the researchers; and researcher‟s solutions to the farmers and extension workers. For many
reasons, this has not been working well in many African countries, including Ethiopia. Poor
extension research links are among the factors that hinder the level of technological adoption and
productivity (EARO, 1998).

28
Agricultural extension program intends to combine technology transfer and human resources
development, and promote the participation of farmers in the research process (Ibid). However,
these principles do not followed in the previous and current extension systems. The present
agricultural extension system acknowledges the participation of stakeholders in the package
implementation process, which plays a significant role. However, in practice there is no
participation of the stakeholders, which are critical challenge for the implementation of agricultural
extension program (Abeje, 2009).

Most of agricultural extension approaches in the previous governmental system was limited either
technology transfer or human resource development. In contrast to this, the new approach, which
adopted by the current government i.e. Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension
System (PADETES), gives equal emphasis to human resource development (organization,
mobilization and empowerment) along with its effort in promoting appropriate technologies to the
users.

Generally, smallholder peasants, who are agrarian, remain a pillar for poverty reduction and
economic growth in country with good agricultural extension experience. However, the sector
still may suffer from a set of constraints that result in both low and erratic agricultural growth. To
reduce such constraints reversing the situation through appropriate policy measures and well-
articulated development interventions are central to the improvement of agricultural productivity.
The assumption is that rural and agriculture centered development strategy could serve as a
means of ensuring rapid economic growth, enhancing benefits to the people, eliminating the
country‟s food aid dependency, and promoting the development of the market oriented
economy(Belay,2003).

2.3. Agricultural Extension Program - Global and Regional Views

2.3.1. The Global Understanding of Agricultural Extension Program

As it was already noted, farmers correctly view extension as a form of assistance to help improve
their know-how, efficiency, productivity, profitability, and contribution to the good of their family,
community, and society.

At the same time, politicians, planners, and policy makers in many countries of the world view
extension as a policy instrument to increase agricultural production, to achieve national food
security and help to alleviate rural poverty. In addition, some economists view extension as a
29
policy instrument that will contribute to human capital development and economic growth.
Therefore, the resources allocated to extension service viewed as an economic investment, which
must produce competitive economic returns (FAO, 1997).

The important global change which affects agricultural extension program either positively or
negatively is the shift from a more linear technology transfer model toward a more holistic
approach, in understanding how and where farmers get their information and technologies. For
example, at global level, the current move toward an agricultural innovation systems approach
arises through an interactive, inclusive process relying on multiple sources and actors (World
Bank, 2006).

Especially as long as the goal is to intensify and diversify farming systems, both innovative farmers
and extension should play a significant joint role in working together to introduce new market-
driven crop and/or livestock systems to small-scale men and women farmers. Therefore,
extension, in effect, serves as a facilitator or knowledge broker, this transition has also
implications for the technical, professional, and entrepreneurial skills that extension agents will
need to be effective in this new role (Assefa, 1995).

At its broad extent or global spectrum, agricultural extension enhances and accelerates the spread
of useful knowledge and technologies. These activities are supposed to lead to increased and
sustained productivity, increased income and well-being of farm people, and to the promotion of
national food security and economic growth. These objectives are to be achieved; through non-
formal education and training programs and two-way technology transfer and feedback systems.
Extension has also an important contribution to agricultural and rural development; especially in
these developing countries (Taye et al., 2008).

According to Nagel, J.V. (1997), on the behalf of FAO global consultation on agricultural extension
has stated that farm people who receive non-formal education through extension programs
generally increase their productivity and efficiency (Maalouf et al., 1991; as cited in Kiros, 2007).
Moreover, agricultural extension work is a significant social innovation, an important force in
agricultural change, which has been created and recreated, adopted and developed over a long
time, in increasing the quality, capability and performance of farmers in agriculture which are the
fundamental indicators of agricultural sector‟s efficiency, productivity, development and
sustainability (Ibid).

30
 2.3.2. The African View in Agricultural Extension Program
The traditional view of agricultural extension in Africa was very much focused on increasing
production, improving yields, training farmers, and transferring technology. Today‟s understanding
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.

Thus, many people are now using the phrase, “agricultural advisory services,” instead of extension
this can imply a top-down approach and may ignore multiple sources of knowledge (Davis, 2008).
Whereas, the other manifestations of agricultural extension are not as such odd in African
context, while compare and contrast with the extents of the program at its global arena.

2.3.2.1. Opportunities and Challenges Raised by Globalization in Africa

Although Globalization offers opportunities for growth and development in all parts of the world,
the hopes and promises attached to rapid liberalization of trade and finance have not so far been
fulfilled in many developing countries, and particularly so in Africa. Africa faces many difficulties,
both internal and external, in their efforts to develop their agriculture and to achieve their
objectives of poverty reduction through improving food security and increasing export earnings
through introducing the agricultural extension program from the western or developed nations.

The Internal difficulties Africa encountered includes low productivity, inflexible production and
trade structures, low skill capacity, low life expectancy and educational attainments, poor
infrastructure, and deficient institutional and policy frameworks. At the same time, with the
growing integration of markets due to Globalization and liberalization, their economies face a
more fiercely competitive external trading environment. They continue to export a limited range
of primary commodities those are highly vulnerable to instability in supply, demand and a decline
in terms of trade. Besides price volatility, agriculture in Africa is susceptible to weather conditions,
which determine the level of harvest, and therefore, with each country's domestic supply often
varying along with the weather. That is why, the nations of African rapidly characterized by deficit
than surplus situation. In addition, their external debt remains large. Their inability to compete in
world markets as well as in their home markets also reflected in their rising food import bills
(Edmonds, 1998).

31
 2.3.2.2. The Status of Agriculture in Africa
Agriculture in Africa has remained largely underdeveloped, despite its importance. Agriculture is
the backbone of the African nations. It served as the source of the gross domestic product (GDP),
employment that employs more people than any other sector, foreign exchange, supplies the bulk
of basic food and provides subsistence and other income to more than half of the African
population. The strong forward and backward linkages within the rural sector and with other
sectors of the economy provide added stimulus for growth and income generation. In contrast,
slow per capita and food production growth and sharp annual fluctuations in output remain major
and chronic problems for the African nations that considered as the major causes of their rising
poverty and food insecurity (Davis, 2006).

2.3.2.3. Domestic Resource Potentials of African Nations

African nations have abundant resource potential to expand agriculture. However, there are a
number of factors affecting agricultural production. The most fundamental factor influencing the
agricultural production potential of a country in Africa is the availability of arable land. Land is the
essential prior resource needed for crop, animal and forestry production. Africa has widely
diverse agro-ecological situations, with varying availability and quality of arable land and varying
climatic conditions. Prospects for agricultural development necessarily hinge on these
considerations. To enable a classification of countries in terms of their potential for agricultural
production, a ranking based on land resource availability and constraints were undertaken (FAO,
1997).

The ranking is broadly indicative of a country's relative land resource potential. Three types of
countries can be distinguished: i) those with a relatively large land balance, where extensive
agricultural expansion may still be possible, ii) those which are close to the limit of exploiting
actual arable land and iii) those which have exploited almost all their arable land and can probably
not expand much more. Thus, grouped the countries can respectively be considered as having a
high, medium and low agricultural potential (Ibid).

2.3.2.4. African Nations‟ Experience in Agricultural Productivity

The African nations experienced significant gains in agricultural production. However, the
contribution of increases in productivity to agricultural growth has been limited. Horizontal
expansion, i.e. bringing more land under cultivation, remains the dominant source of growth.
Given the increasing pressure on agricultural resources, however, faster agricultural growth,

32
particularly in countries with limited scope for land expansion, will require continuing increases in
agricultural productivity from its present relatively low level.

Available evidence shows that the potential productivity gains are considerable. However, in
comparison to other developing countries, the agricultural value added per worker in Africa
appears to be relatively low, suggesting that there is much room for improvement (IMF, 2006).
Moreover, much of the agricultural sector in Africa consists mostly of informal micro and small
enterprises, which face limitations of small market size, poor business conditions and lack of
regional integration, pointing to a need for a more effective policy for their development.

There is a growing concern that the expansion and intensification of agriculture in African nations
may lead to degradation of the natural resource base (soil, water, vegetation and biodiversity) and
consequently to a decrease in agricultural production. However, agricultural intensification
increasing the productivity of land already under cultivation and should not be a threat to the
degradation of the natural resource. In fact, properly managed intensification needed to meet
agricultural production needs and reduce the pressure of agricultural expansion in fragile and
marginal areas (Greenwich University, 2008). The lack of sound management practices and of
access to appropriate technology and inputs for agriculture, rather than intensification, is the most
serious cause of environmental degradation.

2.4. Agricultural Extension Program in SNNPRS: A Regional Experience

In addition to the Ethiopian Federal Government, the Regional Government of Southern Nations,
Nationalities and Peoples also intends to articulate plans to phase out the regional agricultural
extension program in a manner to be phase out with strengthening in parallel the capacity of
cooperatives and the private sector to cover these services. In addition, there was a major
institutional reorganization of the Ministries of Agriculture and Rural Development in the year
under review. This, together with the on-going implementation of the Public Service Delivery
Policy (PSDP) at the Ministry and related agencies anticipated to yield improvement in critical
services, although it is too early to judge results yet. Despite good information on inputs in the
system, there is little way of measuring the effectiveness of these interventions in increasing
farmers' output and incomes.

The regional government work have been focused on strengthening monitoring and evaluation
(M&E) systems to better capture the impact on farmers, although it needs to be realized that
measuring these effects is always difficult in any countries. Because, there are many factors that
33
affect agricultural outcomes apart from government programs, including weather and the behavior
of farmers (MoFED, 2005). The problem of the high price of fertilizer which many small farmers
could not afford, because they do not receive high enough prices for their cereal crops to cover
the cost of the fertilizer is compounded by a continual rise in the international price of fertilizer. In
addition, the distribution of the inputs hampered by logistical, organizational and managerial
limitations Berhanu Abegaz, (ed.) (1994), p143.

Cereal farmers of Ethiopia largely depend on rain-fed cultivation practices. Two period of rainfall,
Belg (the small rains) and Kremt (the big rains), are sources of water for cereal production. ….The
farmers‟ production decision and expectations about crop yields at harvest often influenced by the
rainfall conditions they observe early in these seasons Ibid.

It is clear that the process of agricultural transformation remains a significant challenge in the
SNNPRS. The government is addressing this not just through its agricultural and food security
programs, but also through major investments in education and in rural infrastructure, especially
roads and encouraging the development of robust private markets.

2.4.1. Components of Agricultural Extension Program in SNNPRS

Agricultural extension program has many components in Federal and Regional Government levels.
Therefore, the SNNPRS has the following main components of agricultural extension program:

a) Public Spending: high amount of budget to consolidate agricultural extension program has
recorded for agriculture and food security in the past years. As is evident this information does
not capture the broad rural development sector as it may fall in other related sectors and sub
sectors.

Note that it is difficult to clearly track spending, which falls under multiple levels of government
(for example much is spent out of block grants), different program instruments, and under a wide
variety of agencies and sub-sectors. As indicated, there is an obvious need for improving the M&E
system of Agriculture and Rural Development. A public expenditure review/analysis focused on
rural development (including the coverage and scope of rural development), including food
security expenditure is a recent phenomenon in the regional state of Southern Ethiopia (BoFED).

b) Rural Finance Strategy: The need for fostering and enhancing micro-finance institutions
highlighted in the Rural Development Strategy. That is why, during the past years the federal
34
government adopted a Micro-Finance Strategy, aimed at strengthening the legal and institutional
framework for Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs), and building their capacity.

Despite these developments, however, efforts have geared in a coordinated manner to strengthen
MFIs and rural credit and saving institutions with regard to their legal and institutional
arrangement as well as building their capacities. Among other elements, the strategy includes:
1. Establishment of a separate division in the National Bank of Ethiopia to supervise, regulate and
license MFIs, to ensure their soundness and development;
2. A Strategic Plan have been developed for MFIs, coordinated by Development Bank of Ethiopia
and run by Program Management Committees from various institutional stakeholders, to oversee
and coordinate activities related to MFIs development.
The program activities broadly involve two major categories, namely:
(i) Extension of credit to micro and rural financial institutions and equity participation; and
(ii) Build capacity for Stakeholders (MoFED, 2007).

In the past years, the regional state of SNNPRS also established a micro-finance institution which
is known as Omo Microfinance Institute based on the federal government micro-finance
institution‟s legal and institutional framework which operating throughout the region by serving
some clients keep aside its effectiveness and the capacity to meet the poorest of the poor small
holder farmers at large.

c) Food Security and Safety Nets: A major development in the past years has been the launch
of the new Coalition for Food Security. At the root of the program, transforming Ethiopia away
from reliance food aid to a more sustained combination of productive solutions to food insecurity,
combined with a systematic (productive) safety net program for the poorest. The program is
aimed at addressing the immediate needs of the larger number of chronically food insecure
households in the region on a continuous basis.

Significant achievements in the past years registered in the development of the Productive Safety
Nets Program. The plan represents a major shift from relief aid to a combination of productive
safety net transfers (for example by employment of the poor on labor-intensive works), and
unconditional transfers to those such as the elderly, disabled, or orphans who are unable to work.

35
It also represents a significant shift from food to cash transfers, and embodies an emphasis on
promoting productive behavior. A document outlining the main features of the plan was developed
in July, and a sub-budget line for the safety net program has been included in the federal budget.
Based on the federal plan, the SNNPRS has the responsibility to implement productive safety net
program within its own jurisdiction (Ibid).

d) The Food Security Program: A significant departure was made in the food security budget
line during the past years budget allocation. The food security budget from treasury was also
shows an increment both in Federal and Regional Government (i.e. SNNPRS). The budget are
released as grants to the Region and then Woredas to support a combination of measures,
including irrigation and water harvesting, promoting „food security packages‟ aimed at diversifying
income through small scale agricultural and commercial activities, promotion of seeds and
marketing for higher-valued crops, and voluntary resettlement from food insecure areas to more
productive ones (BoFED, 1995). Different Regions have tried different strategies, with some
relying more on the productivity packages and irrigation, and others more on resettlement. These
were also true in the regional state of South Nations Nationalities and Peoples.

e) The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Stage: it is designed; since the process of
Developing Agriculture and Rural development programs. With respect to different agricultural
and rural development programs, the social and environmental risks need carefully managed to
avoid the hardship of the programs. Social and environmental risk mitigation guidelines should
develop, and further work needed to make them operational according to the guidelines. The
guidelines should also universally apply. All these components of agricultural extension program
interlinked each other.

Particularly, the two programs i.e. the Food Security Program primarily targets on community
assets, while the Safety Net Program (SNP) primarily targets on household assets are
complementary. A major challenge for these all components of agricultural extension program are
the implementation capacity at local level as the programs rolls out. A final issue is that the level of
budgetary support for the new coalition for food security remains lower than expected. Generally,
regarding the speed of implementation, tracking finances and spending still requires additional
effort (MoFED, 2007).

36
 2.4.2. Nature and Extent of Agricultural Extension Program in Chencha Woreda
The agricultural commodity development plan in the study area identified different high value
marketable agricultural commodities, and to apply them under the diversification-based specialized
farming system to improve the livelihood of farmers and significantly contribute to the export
economy. Growth in agricultural incomes should not only be measured once in a year; rather
frequently and the data should become available for the next year assessment. However, the large
increase in output has also certainly increased consumption of most rural households in the past
years. Therefore, this research wants to study and analyzed the application of the factors affecting
agricultural extension program on production practices in Chencha Woreda in the SNNPRS
Gamo Gofa Zone.

37
 CHAPTER THREE

3. Data Analysis and Discussion

3.1. Introduction
This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of data, which is collected from
respondents using different data collection tools such as questionnaires, focus group discussion
and key informant interview. Through these tools, different ideas, perceptions and understanding
concerning the problems and challenges affecting the implementation of agricultural extension
program were gathered. The chapter primarily analysed the socio-demographic characteristics,
perception of respondents about Agricultural Extension Program, access and training for
Agricultural Extension Workers and Farmers. In the final section of this chapter, the major
benefits, problems and challenges of AEP is discussed in detail.

3.2. Data on Rural Households – Analysis and Discussion

3.2.1. Socio-Demographic Data on the Sampled Rural Households

The rural household‟s socio-demographic characteristics were looked at to see the connections in
the search for the problems and challenges of the implementation of agricultural extension
program in Chencha Woreda. These characteristics were age, sex, educational level, religion and
the family size of the sampled rural households.

Table 2:- Age and Sex of the Respondents

S.N. Questions raised Response Frequency Present

1 Age 18-32 12 21.2

33-45 22 38.5
46-60 15 26.3
61&above 8 14

2 Sex Male 46 80.7

Female 11 19.3
Source: - Own Field Survey, February 2013

38
A) Age
The age of the sampled rural households in Chencha Woreda ranges from 23-70 years. The age
groups were categorized into four; the first 18-32 years, the second 33-45 years, the third 46-60
and the forth age group was greater than or equal to 61 years. Therefore, out of 57 respondents
who completed filling the questionnaire 12(21.2%) of them were aged 18-32 years while 22
(38.5%) of them were aged 33-45 years, the others 15 (26.3%) were aged 46-60 years and the rest
8 (14%) of the rural household respondents were aged 61 and above.

Around 49 (86percentage) of the rural households were found at productive age between 18-60
years. The mean age is 44.4 and the most frequently occurring value (i.e. the mode) is 35, which
indicate that the age group of the respondent households‟ laid on productive age category. Only
eight (14%) were found at vulnerable dependent age group. The age category as a whole was
productive and helpful for the effective implementation of AEP.

B) Sex
The socio-demographic data have its own significance for the effective implementation of
Agricultural Extension Program in the study Woreda, since it demands the involvements of both
sexes for the success of its implementation. Out of 57 sampled household respondents, 46 (80.7%)
and 11 (19.3%) of them were male and female respectively. This implies that there has been
women participation in agriculture. Women participation obviously affects agricultural
development in general and AEP in particular. But, one can see from the above table that the
number of men is still greater than women, and this in turn may lead to the unrecognisable
involvement of the woman because of its good reason. Some of these could be due to their
engagement in routine household activities such as; child caring, cooking household food, fetching
water etc. are some of the burden of the women in the study area.

39
Table 3:- Education and Family Size of the Respondents

S.N. Questions raised Response Frequency Present

1 Education level Read and write 34 59.6

Primary School complete 14 24.6

Secondary school complete 4 7

Certificate and above 5 8.8

2 Family size 2-Jan 2 3.5

5-Mar 17 29.8
7-Jun 14 24.6
8 & above 22 38.6

Missing value 2 3.5

Source: - Own Field Survey, February 2013

C) Educational level
Out of 57 sampled household respondents 34 (59.6%) of them can read and write. Fourteen of
the respondents (24.6%), primary school complete while 4 (7%) of them are secondary school
complete. The rest 5 (8.8%) have certificate holders. Based on this data, it is possible to point out
that the farmers‟ education in the study area are ready to engage in training or technologies and
functional skill development and transfer for the implementation of agricultural extension program
to ensure agricultural productivity.

3.1.2. Respondents Family Size

When we see the family size of the sample HHs; the survey data shows 22 (38.6%) of which have
8 and above family members. While 14 (24.6%) of the respondents have 6-7 dependent families.
The rest 17 (29.6%) of households have 3-5 and only 2 (3.5%) have only 1-2 family members. From
this data it is possible to suggest that where the larger the family size might have to lead to higher
consumption and higher expenditure. This argument has had much significance if the members of
the households are children and has no labour contribution to agriculture.

40
 3.1.3. Understanding of Rural Household to AEP and their Roles in its Implementation

Table 4:- Rural Households understanding and their role in the implementation of AEP
S.N Questions Raised Response Frequency per cent
1 Level of understanding about AEP High 40 70.2
packages Low 17 29.8
2 *The role of AES according to its Increasing farmers awareness 25 43.9
benefit
Increasing productivities and 15 26.3
HHs income
Familiarize farmers with 17 29.8
agricultural skills
3 The role of government in improving Very good 32 56.2
productivity Good 24 42.1
Negligible 1 1.8
4 Whether AEWs are explained AEP Yes 40 70.2
to farmers or not No 17 29.8
5 Provision of necessary information Good 37 64.9
Low 17 29.8
No idea 3 5.3
*Indicates multiple responses are possible
Source: - Own Field Survey, February 2013

It is obvious that rural households have different levels of understandings and roles on the
implementation process of Agriculture Extension Program. Concerning the respondents‟ level of
understanding, as the table 4 reveals above; out of the total respondents, merely 40 (70.2%) of
them have high level of understanding about AEP. This means that, the majority of the farmers do
not have understanding problem on the program. The rest 17 (29.8%) of respondents have low
level of understanding on the program. The respondents also declared that the agricultural
extension workers did well explained what agricultural extension program is for the rural
households. In support of this, out of the total respondents, 40 (70.2%) agreed that agricultural
extension workers explained the core essences of AEP to the rural households. Whereas, only 17
(29.8%) of them mentioned that the agricultural extension workers had failed to explain the major
ideas of the AEP to them. This information indicates that the majority of the respondents have
understanding of the core values of program and seemingly there is no lack of orientation.

41
According to the Rural Development Policy and Strategies document of Ethiopia, the government
of Ethiopia is trying to increase the income and the productivity level of farmers through the
implementation of AEP (MoFED, 2003). In this regard, questions rose to the respondents
regarding the role of the government in improving agricultural productivity. Out of the total
respondents, 32 (56.2%) of them said that the government is playing very well to improve the
agricultural productivity. Similarly, 24 (42.1%) of the respondents also mentioned that the
government is performing well to improve their level of agricultural productivity. In sum, this
indicates that the government is giving priority for familiarizing the farmers with the agricultural
skills and the creation of awareness in implementation of Agricultural Extension Program; Even
though, only 1 (1.8%) of the respondent stated that the government‟s role as negligible.

Concerning the role of AES according to its benefit to the farmers, as shown in the table 4 above;
out of 57 respondents, 43% of them were stated that the program is helping them in improving
their awareness. While, 26.3% and 29.8% of them said that they were benefited from AES in
increasing productivity as well as HHs income and to be familiar with agricultural skills
respectively.

Furthermore, the response of the respondents on whether they were provided with adequate
information concerning AES, about 37 (65%) of them are suggested that they were provided with
adequate information. However, those respondents 17 (29.8%) said that the information they
acquired from extension workers are not satisfactory. This implies, even if the information
provided by AEWs is not satisfied few farmers; it shows that there is still an indication of the
provision of agricultural information to the farmers is not appropriately addressed. This reveals
that about more than 1/4th not negligible section of the farmers in Chencha Woreda seemingly are
not satisfied and needs due attention of the concerned agricultural expertise and AEWs.

The survey result is compatible with the idea of Swason and Rajalahti (2010) statements that there
should be a strong commitment from the agriculture extension agents in transferring the
knowledge of extension to the beneficiaries. Therefore, the researcher believes that there should
be a mechanism of correctly implement the core principles of agricultural extension program in
the study Woreda in particular and SNNPRS in general.

3.2.2. Access and Training on Agricultural Extension Program for Rural Households
Access to the credit services and training the beneficiary farmers on AEP are the key elements to
achieve the required results from the program implementation. With this regard the survey has
42
focussed to analyse the availability of credit service, the loan repayment practices of the farmers,
and the access of the service providers within the nearest distance, etc. are get addressed and
presented in the table 5 below and the analysis followed.

Table 5:- Access and Trainings on AEP for the Rural Households
S.N. Questions Raised Response Frequency Percent
1 The availability of credit services Available 24 42.1
Not available 32 56.1
Nil 1 1.8
2 Loan repayment practice Paying on time 20 35.1
Not paying on time 3 5.3
No response 34 59.6
3 The AEWs presence on work place Tabiya‟s for Present at any time 47 82.5
counselling service when needed by the farmers Not found as needed 8 14.0
Nil 2 3.5
4 Weather the farmers ever taken trainings from Yes 47 82.5
FTC‟s No 8 14.5
Nil 2 3.5
5 Effectiveness of the DAs in training provision Excellent 9 15.8
Very good 22 38.6
Good 19 33.3
Fair 4 7
Negligible 3 5.3
Source: Own Field Survey Data, Feb 2013

As it is acknowledged in many literatures that the availability of sufficient credit services to rural
farmers in improving agricultural productivity are significant. In the study it is also revealed that 24
(42.1%) of the rural households have access of credit service from financial institutions. On the
other hand, the majority 32 (56.1%) respondents explained that they have no access of credit
service from any financial institutions. Due to the fact that, they were faced problems in order to
purchase the basic agricultural inputs such as; fertilizer, High Yielding Variety Seeds (HYVS), pest-
sides and the like. A single individual 1 (1.8%) response was nil and it is considered as negligible
value.

43
With regard to repayment of the money that the farmers borrowed from financial institutions, out
of the total respondents, 20 (35.1%) of them indicated that they refunded the money they
borrowed without any delay and only 3 (5.3%) of the respondents said that they did not return
the money on time. The rest majorities 34 (59.6%) of the respondents didn‟t responded to show
the experience they have had about loan repayment. They kept quite because of the non-
availability of loan service in their locality as about 56.1% of them were confirmed earlier that
there was no credit access.

According to the few number of farmer respondents, the reasons that they failed to return the
money were numerous. Among them, backward and traditional perception of farmers in the use
of the credit services, absence of coordination between the farmers and financial institutions, the
repetition of crop failure and the lack of marketable surpluses as well as some of them used the
money they have borrowed for purchase of inputs for other purposes than for the objective
intended were the major reasons.

There have been many challenges that rural households faced in the efforts to implement the AEP
in proper manner. One of the challenges was the availability of the extension workers on duty
when the farmers need their help. However, the survey report reveals that out of the total
respondents, 47 (82.5%) them declared that they could find extension workers on duty on regular
working days. While 8 (18%) of them were responded that they could not find them on their
work place at the time needing support from them. This fact as the researcher believes, could
pose there was no significant challenge on the farmers in order to get the right knowledge at the
right time and place. But the challenge remains on the effectiveness of the delivered services.

On the other hand there have been many reasons given by the rural households for the absence
of extension workers on their duty in working days. Some of them were resides in town rather
than living in their work place, frequent movements of workers for personal enjoyment to towns,
enrolment of the workers in private colleges for further education and absence of supervisors (as
described in the interview the researcher had with the key informants). Therefore, for these few
absentees the Woreda agricultural office and the Kebeles‟ administration office should work
jointly on those few AEWs in order to make them to stay in their regular work places.

When the approaches used by the agricultural extension workers in the dissemination of
agricultural knowledge and skills of AEP to the farmers was considered, excellent 9 (15.8%) stated

44
that the way of transmitting the knowledge to the farmers were fruitful. However, the remaining
22 (38.6%) of the respondents indicated that the approaches used by the agricultural extension
workers to equip farmers with the very good required knowledge and skills, while 19 (33.3%)
were responded well the rest 4 (7%) and 3 (5.3%) were stated that fair and insufficient (negligible)
respectively.
Concerning the access of training to the farmers in the FTCs, out of 57 respondents, the majority
or 47 (82.5%) of them had had trainings concerning the application of agricultural technologies in
their Kebeles‟ FTCs. Contrary to this, some 8 (14%) of the respondents stated that they have
never had any training related to the application of the concepts of AEP especially on the
application of new agricultural technologies. This implies that most of the farmers have had
training opportunities in order to improve their farming skills, but still there are difficulties in using
the new agricultural technologies and skills. Why this is happened? As the researcher believed that
this posed the existence of challenge in the implementation of the program in the study area is
because of many reasons.

In connection to the above statement, the Kebeles‟ FTCs in Chencha Woreda are also been not
functioning well and not equipped well with all the necessary materials as per the standard of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. In addition to this, the information obtained from
the WoA reveals that all except 16 Kebeles‟ out of 45 rural Kebeles‟ have no any FTC facilities at
all. The information further stated that the Woreda administration is doing all its best to complete
the construction of FTCs in all the Kebeles. Besides the fact that, the researcher‟s personal
observation on two to three FTCs realized that even the training centres were not developed
themselves. They have no demonstration plots in their compounds. The methods that the AEWs
using to disseminate knowledge are through meetings and on the farmers own farms. With this
regards, the researcher believes that these bottlenecks identified in the study area could severely
limit the achievements of the AEP. Therefore, the researcher stressed the need to devise urgent
remedies in order to mitigate these challenges for the success of the program in the study
Woreda.

Wentling, 1992 as sited in the works of Burton E. Swanson, and et al, (1997) Improving Agricultural
Extension- a reference manual; stressed that a training program has a better chance of success when
its training methods are carefully selected. A training method is a strategy or tactic that a trainer
uses to deliver the content so that the trainees achieve the objective. He added that selecting an
appropriate training method is perhaps the most important step in training activity once the

45
training contents are identified. There are many training methods, but not all of these are equally
suitable for all topics and in all situations.

From this we can see that the farmers‟ satisfaction on the trainings received from their FTCs had
lack of something and not exists at the level of excellent and needing improvement. Therefore, the
AEWs and all concerned Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) and concerned Woreda Agriculture and
Rural Development Officials shall pay attention in selection of training methods in order to deliver
successful trainings to the needy farmers.

46
3.2.3. Benefits and Challenges of Agricultural Extension Program for Rural Households

Table 6:- Benefits and Challenges of AEP for Rural Households

S.N Questions Raised Response Frequency Percent
.
1 Nature of membership in extension package Own motivation 4 7

AEW persuasion 38 66.7

Observing its benefits 10 17.5
Forcing by the 5 8.8
government
2 Weather farmers ever taken rewards for Yes 6 10.5
encouragement No 51 89.5
Nil - -
3 Agricultural inputs availability when required Available 17 29.8
Not available 40 70.2
Source: - Own Field Survey, February 2013

Agricultural extension program have many benefits in SNNPRS in general and Chencha woreda in
particular. The farmers were motivated to apply the ideas of the program because of the
persistent persuasion of agricultural extension workers on one hand and through own motivation
on the other hand. Beside these, observing the benefits of the packages of the program and having
the encouragement from government, farmers were also practicing the packages of AEP in the
study area. In support of this, the above table 6 shows that out of the total respondents 4 (7%) of
them became a member of agricultural extension package through their own personal motivation
whereas 38 (66.7%) of them became member of the package through the agricultural extension
workers persuasion mechanism to be the beneficiary of AEP. In addition to this, 5 (8.8%) of the
respondents became member of the agricultural extension package by the encouragement of the
government organs while 10 (17.5%) became members of the agricultural extension package by
observing the benefit of the package from their neighbourhoods.

Besides this, 10 (10.5%) of farmer respondents indicated that there were rewards for better
accomplishments of farmers in the implementation of AEP packages while the majority or 51
(89.5%) showed the absence of rewards in the study Woreda. However, as it is discussed in many
literatures, absence of rewarding activities could be one factor that affects the implementation of
AEP. Therefore, as rewards the rural households get from the implementation of AEP played a
47
significant role in enhancing farmers‟ productivity and enable them to do more; there should be
rewards for better works of the farmers.

Furthermore, the survey report indicated that lack of agricultural inputs and lack of credit services
were identified as the major challenges of the implementation of the AEP in the study Woreda. In
support of this, 40 (70.2%) of the respondent explained that weak access to agricultural inputs was
the most difficult challenges of the respondents in the implementation of AEP. While the rest 17
(29.2%) were only confirmed that there was no problem of inputs in their localities as needed. The
reason behind for the weak access to agricultural inputs reported by the majority of the
respondents could be the problem faced in supply side, high price, inability to obtain the needed
quality and type‟s inputs.

From this report, we can see that there are different problems and challenges faced the
implementation of AEP in Chencha Woreda. Some of these are absence of provision of seeds,
alarming increase of the price of modern fertilizers, absence of provision of credit to the farmers,
lack of supervision and monitoring activities on the farm lands, inadequate agricultural extension
experts services, absence of regular provision of pesticides, absence of forest protection and
conservation activities resulted to the loss of soil fertility, lack of commitments from the political
leaders in handling the agricultural activities even if whatever they are trying their efforts had been
not sustainable because it has been shown in the form of campaign, bad weather conditions and
the weak community acceptance for the application of new agricultural technologies were the
challenges of AEP in the study area.

3.3. Data on Agricultural Extension Workers – Analysis and Discussion

3.3.1. Socio-demographic Data on the Sampled Agricultural Extension Workers

The study has also tried to analyse the socio-demographic nature of agricultural extension
workers in the study area. This was done because the researcher believed that socio-demographic
nature of respondents had an impact on the proper implementation of agricultural extension
program. Therefore, the researcher assessed the extension worker‟s socio-demographic nature
such as age, sex, religion and educational level. These socio-demographic natures of the
agricultural extension workers were elaborated as follows.

48
A) Age
Among fifteen respondents who were required to fill the distributed questionnaire, fourteen of
them responded and their age is in between 18 to 56 years. As shown in the chart 1 below; the
majority of them, about 71% are exists in the age group 18-32 years. According to Habtemariam,
(1996), age of the agricultural extension workers could have both positive and negative implication
on implementation of agricultural extension program.

Chart 1:- The age category of AEWs

Source: Own Survey, February 2013

With this regards, the researcher believed that since agricultural extension workers involved in
the study were young they might be energetic, committed and change-based that could be a major
cornerstone for the success of the program. On the other hand, they might not also be available
at the place they were been assigned because of the great interest of the young people for
enjoyment at the towns. Therefore, this has considered as one of the factors that might have both
positive and negative affect on the effective implementation of AEP in Chencha Woreda

B) Sex
According to the study report, the AEP implementation in the Woreda had unequal involvement
of male and female agricultural extension workers.

Chart 2: Gender of AEWs

Female Gender of AEWs Frequency

7%

Male
49
93%
In support of this, out of fourteen respondents, (93%) of them were male while the rest one
(7%) was female workers. This unequal gender representation in the implementation of the AEP
could limit the achievements of the program in the study Woreda.

C) Educational level
As we see the information provided above, out of the 14 respondents who filled the
questionnaire, all (92.9%) of them were at the level of 10+3 (diploma holders).

Chart 3:- AEWs Level of Education

The existence of diploma graduates in rural „Kebeles‟ may be considered as an advantage.

However, these diploma graduates as it was described in the community focus group discussion
lacked capacity and, therefore, they were required to take continuous training to build their
capacity.

In addition to this, since these diploma graduates want to up-grade their educational level, they
usually move to towns where there is access to higher education. Therefore, the AEP in Chencha
Woreda should provide educational scholarship for the agricultural extension workers to upgrade
their educational level. If it would not create in the right time, it may urge the workers to migrate
to towns and in turn increase the attrition rate of the agricultural extension workers. Because of
this, the implementation of the AEP may face limitations in the study Woreda.

D) Religion
Out of the six respondents who filled the questionnaire, 9 (64.3%) of them were followers of
Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the others 5 (35.7%) were followers of the protestant church
generally, the socio-demographic nature of the extension workers could be demonstrated in
following table.
50
 3.3.2. Roles and Perceptions of Agricultural Extension Workers on AEP
According to the study conducted by Hailu (2002) in Assosa and Bambasi Woredas of the
Benishangul Gumuz Regional State; has discovered that agricultural extension workers had
different roles and perceptions on AEP implementation. Similar to this finding, it has also found in
this study that there was a visible difference between and among the agricultural extension
workers working in Chencha Woreda. Due to this fact, the Woreda Agricultural office was
attempting to establish uniform roles and perceptions among the workers through providing on-
job training and many other training sessions have taken place every year by both the zonal and
regional rural development authorities. In addition, there was also regular training programs
launched and provide degree level education in different universities for those AEWs whose work
performance evaluation result found good.

Table 7:- Roles and Perceptions of Agricultural Extension Workers on AEP

S.N. Questions Raised Response Frequency Present
1 Level of satisfaction from training High 6 42.9
Medium 6 42.9
Low 2 14.3
2 The ability of farmers to apply new technological High 1 7.1
knowledge and skills they have learnt. Medium 8 57.1
Low 5 35.7
3 Roles of agricultural expertise at all level Increased 12 85.7
Decreased 2 14.3
Source: - Own Field Survey, February 2013

With this regards, whatever effort have been paid by the government; the study findings illustrated
in the table 7 above, reveals that the level of satisfaction of the extension workers on the training
was remarkable and out of the total respondents, equally 42.9% of the AEWs showed that they
have high and medium level of satisfaction from the training they got respectively. This shows that
the high level job satisfaction of the AEWs is still not yet achieved. In fact, the number of highly
satisfied and those who have medium satisfaction exists fifty-fifty and indicates that there is an
opportunity to improve the situation if the government continue its effort. In addition to this,
some (14.3%) of AEWs further mentioned that they were dissatisfied with the trainings they have
been taken.

51
According to sample AEWs, the farmers‟ ability to apply the new technological knowledge and
skills exists at different levels. From the total respondents‟, 57.1% of them were responded that
the farmers‟ technological adaptation ability is medium. Only 7.1% of them were stated high and
the rest 35.7% revealed that the ability of the farmers‟ to adapt what they have teaching them is
considerably low and challenging them to offer the new AEP. Concerning the expertise support by
the higher level professionals, the majority of AEWs (85.7%) of the respondents said that the role
of agricultural expertise at all level i.e. at Federal, Regional, Zonal, and Woreda level in the
implementation of AEP was increasing from time to time except an individual (14.3%) was rejected
the idea.

3.3.3. Access and Training on AEP for Agricultural Extension Workers

Table 8:- Access and Training on AEP for Agricultural Extension Workers
S.N. Question Response Frequency Percent
1 Comparing of agricultural inputs and credit service Agricultural input 14 100
Credit service - -
2 Access of transport Yes 7 50
No 7 50
Source: Own Field Survey, February 2013

Regarding to the access of agricultural inputs and credit services to farmers, table 8 above reveals
that all (100%) of the AEWs suggested that providing agricultural inputs was better than the supply
of credits for the farmer households. According to the respondents, farmers were interested to
use the money gained from credit associations to cover their other personal expenses than to
allocate the money for the intended purposes i.e. purchasing quality agricultural inputs such as
fertilizer, exotic seed, pest sides, water pumping motors and others.

In addition to this, the study findings also show that out of the total respondents, 50% of them had
transportation facilities in order to perform their day-to-day activities regularly. On the other
hand, the remaining half (50%) of the respondents indicated the absence of transportation facilities
as indicated on the table 8 above. This gap as the respondents‟ opinion could cause different
problems on their routine day-to-day activities. According to them, some of the problems caused
by transportation inaccessibility were wasting of agricultural inputs in the stores of the WoA;
delayed supply of agricultural inputs for the farmers and finally, the agricultural extension workers
were forced to supervise and monitor the activities of farmers by walking.

52
 3.3.4. Benefits and Challenges of AEP for Agricultural Extension Workers

Table 9:- Benefits and Challenges of AEP for Rural Households

S.N. Question Response Frequency Percent
1 Access of mini-hotels, reward and per-diem Yes 5 35.7
No 7 50
Nil 2 14.3
2 Improvement in the quality of life among the farmers Yes 6 42.9
Doubt 8 57.1
3 Participation of farmers in training Very good 5 35.7
Good 7 50
Slightly good 2 14.3
4 Satisfaction of AEW by their salary Satisfied 1 7.1
Dissatisfied 13 92.9
5 Level of acceptance of AEW on the farmers High 8 57.1
Medium 6 42.9
Low - -
6 Rejections the AEW ever faced Yes 6 42.9
No 8 57.1
7 Appreciation to the creative farmers High 10 71.4
Medium 2 14.3
Low 2 14.3
Nil - -
8 Challenges stemmed from government organs Yes 9 64.3
No 5 35.7
Source: Own Field Survey, February 2013

As Tesfaye (1996) illustrated in his article on the Review of Agricultural Extension Approaches and
Strategies in Ethiopia, agricultural extension workers should obtain sufficient benefits such as access
to mini- hotel, daily per-diem, means of transportation and reward for fruitful workers so that the
workers could perform their duties effectively and efficiently. In support of this, 5 (35.7%) of the
respondents explained that there is access of min-hotel, rewards and per-diem which encourages
them to perform their functions effectively. On the contrary, 9 (64.3%) of the respondents stated
that they did not have any benefits described above. Based on this result the researcher believes it
could limit the proper implementation of the AEP in the study Woreda.

53
As the rural development policy and strategies of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
(2003), clearly states that the farmers‟ quality of life shall be improve through the effective
implementation of AEP. Related questions forwarded to AEWs and, their responses shows that 6
(42.9%) of them confirmed that the program can bring significant improvement on the livelihood
of the farmers. On the other hand, 8 (57.1%) of the respondents stated that they have doubt in
the program that able to change the farmers life. In this regard, there is a considerable variation
among AEWs views towards the rural development policy and strategy. The researcher believes
that those AEWs employed to implement the AEP on which they do not believe. Therefore, the
reason behind is that either they do not internalize the program or they do not have willingness to
engage in such duty which needs committed responsible person.

According to the result of the study, the acceptance level of agricultural extension workers in the
eyes of the farmer was showing improvement. With this regards, as we have seen from the table 9
above, 8 (57.1%) of the respondents said that the farmers were accepting the agricultural
extension workers in a very good manner. While the rest, 6 (42.9%) of the respondents stated
that farmers have begun to recognizing the AEWs at a medium level. From this it is possible to
suggest that almost all AEWs in Chencha woreda believe that they have not acceptance problems
that might halt their work. In fact, this does not mean that they were never ever challenged or
rejected by the farmers. In this respect, it was also confirmed in the key informant interview with
the AEWs as; there were times that the farmers reject to obey rules of the AEP implementation
and the services provided by them.

Also 6 (42.9%) of the respondents confirmed that they were faced rejections from the farmers in
different times. While the larger part of them 8 (57.1%) stated that they were never faced any
rejection. In the course of such irregular actions, the AEWs who are experienced any sorts of
resistance from the farmers‟ were said that they were managed it through different mechanisms.
Among these mechanisms are providing training and convincing farmers to fully accept the
concepts of AEP, bringing farmers into practice and creating the opportunity of peer teaching
among each other; as well as showing best practices of agriculture. In support of this, as shown in
table 9 above, that 12 (85.7%) of the respondents confirms that farmers are actively participating
in AEP skill development trainings accordingly.

With regards to the AEWs satisfaction towards their earnings, the study result shows that
unprecedented responses. Out of the total respondents, 13 (92.9%) said that they are not satisfied

54
by their monthly salary and not happy by their occupation. While, only one respondent replied
that she/he is satisfied with her/his monthly salary.

When the level of recognition of creative farmers by the agricultural extension workers is
considered, it has a promising nature. Out of total respondents, 10 (71.4%) of agricultural
extension workers were highly appreciating the good deeds of farmers while the remaining 2
(14.3%) of the respondents has medium level of appreciation for the creative works of farmers in
the study Woreda. Even though, others 2 (14.3%) of them said that they have low level of
appreciation for creative farmers‟ because of their own good reasons. This fact illustrates that the
majority of AEWs are developing the culture of appreciation for creative farmers in the study
Woreda. This is an opportunity in order to attain the intended goal of AEP.

According to the study finding, other problems have reported by AEWs related with the AEP
implementation and evaluation process stemmed from the government organs. With this regards,
out of the total respondents who filled the questionnaire, 9 (64.3%) of them agreed that AEP have
challenges that emanate from the government organs that found at different levels. The rest 5
(35.7%) of the respondents said that there is no challenge which stemmed from government
organs.
Based on this, the researcher made an interview with his key informants in relation to challenges
that stemmed from government organs, the responses of the informants as follow:
 Lack of skilled manpower;
 Budget constraints at the woreda level;
 Lack of awareness among farmers;
 Enforcement on farmers to use new agricultural inputs than convincing them;
 Absence of doing things according to their plan because of capacity and resource problems;
 Lack of trainings for agricultural experts engaged in evaluation process and;
 Depressed working environment were associated challenges stemmed from planning to evaluation
stages of the AEP in Chencha Woreda.

This, as the researcher believes, implies that the agricultural extension workers as well as the
beneficiaries of the program/farmers were facing difficulties in implementation process of the AEP
in the study area.
The respondents further indicated that there should have been proper remedies such as providing
sufficient training to farmers, extension workers and other agricultural experts on AEP, sharing of
55
best practices and experience among farmers, creating complete awareness about AEP on farmers
and mobilizing the population as a whole into developmental activities in order to mitigate the
aforementioned challenges.

Moreover, they further stressed the following measures that have to be get addressed by the
government to properly implement the program in the study Woreda; expanding infrastructures
facilities, provision of sufficient daily per-diem to agricultural extension workers, prioritizing
agricultural activities by minimizing the cadres role. They also seek more professionalism than
political interference on technical works, creating the sense of accountability, responsibility,
impartiality and transparency among the agricultural extension workers.

In summary, the researcher stressed that proper involvement of all stakeholders including the
agricultural extension workers and farmer households in all stages of the AEP (formulation,
implementation and evaluation) is mandatory in order to meet the objectives of AEP in the study
Woreda. The role of the WoA experts should never been replaced by the woreda administrative
organs rather than policy level leadership. The woreda level Subject Matter Specialists (SMS) teams
have to consistently monitor, evaluate and technically guide the AEWs towards the proper and
successful implementation of the AEP.

3.4. Rural Households and Agricultural Extension Workers (AEW) Interview Analysis

3.4.1. Rural Household Interview Analysis

A) Opinions about the Way Farmers Became Models
During the interview session, different interviewees explained their opinion on the way they
became a model farmer in their „Kebelles‟. The criteria for farmers to be model farmers were
many. Among them, demanding agricultural inputs technologies from agriculture offices, devotion
of their time in agricultural activities, having behavioral change in agricultural productivity,
accepting the policies and strategies of agricultural sector, and among others. In addition to these,
model farmers expected to plough unutilized lands in rent, work together in farming activities with
peer farmers, expand and enhanced water use practices in dry seasons, introduce new agricultural
technologies, and the like. This implies that farmers considered as model farmers if they fulfill the
above conditions. With this regards, a 45 years old community participant interviewee responded
how he was became a model farmer in the study Woreda explained that:
„I became a model farmer by taking or demanding the agricultural inputs provided through government,
accepting the policies and strategies of agriculture, I kindly follow the instructions and guidance given by
AEWs, and used a full package of agricultural inputs as per the requirements of my farm plot. An NGO,
56
 which is undertaking community development, provided me with skill training and apple seedlings. I
acquired apple-planting skills and raised the seedling on my own garden. Now, I have about 10,000Birr
income/annum from the sale of apple seedlings. I do have also more than 50 apple fruit trees each gives
me 30kg fruit in average. I use organic manure/compost to maintain the fertility of the soil. He added that,
he attends community meetings at kebele level to grasp additional experiences and the message sent from
woreda government officials and AEWs, conserving water and using it has benefited me more.‟

In addition to this, others also explained that they became model farmers in the same way. For
example, a female interviewee from the rural households asserted that:
„First the government recruiting me as model farmer because I was demanding every supplies provided by
the government like foreign animals, exotic seeds, fertilizers both organic and inorganic to run the
agricultural activities. Then, they selected me as a model farmer. After that, I am attempting to expand my
farming activities by renting idle lands from others, increasing the use of full package extension services to
enhance productivity. Currently, I own some amount of money little better than other farmers do in my
locality‟.

Similarly, as the model farmers‟ interviewee explanation showed many farmers were not being a
model farmer. They stated that there were many reasons that made other farmers not to be
model farmers. According to the interviewees, the reasons are having small and often fragmented
plot of farmland owning, absentee farmers, poor adoption rate due to negative attitudes, shortage
of farm labor, inadequate farmer‟s organizations, and inadequate knowledge and skills on improved
farming practices. Similarly, the following reasons stated by the participants during the focus group
discussion session:
 absences of work motivation,
 weak cooperation between husband and wife due to the out migration of the male partner,
 absences of using fertilizers to the farming lands,
 absences of interest and inability to purchase agricultural inputs provided by the concerned bodies,
 absences of agricultural lands fertility due to land degradation, absences of good cultivating culture,
 absences of adequate farming land,
 absences of using pesticides and man-made system of avoiding weeds,
 absences of using fertilizer effectively,
 absences of following agricultural seasons and ploughing without program are major factors that
hinders farmers from being model.

57
In addition to these; absences of irrigation schemes in dry seasons, males out migration, absences
of education, having traditional attitude, fearing of credit (by those risk averts), repetitive weather
change were also the factors that halted the farmers not to be a model farmers.
Various research studies indicated that subsistence production systems in Ethiopia categorized into five
characteristics such as:
1. Small and often fragmented land
2. Primitive tools and implements
3. Production geared to personal needs rather than to market
4. Lack of alternatives or seasonal employment opportunities and
5. Almost total absence of reserves of either grain or cash

B) The Balance between Effort and Gain

To gain agricultural products from a farmland one farmer is expected to uplift his/ her efforts. One
of the mechanisms to uplift one farmer‟s efforts is related to the gain that the farmer could get
from farming lands. Therefore, efforts and gains have direct corresponding relationships. This
means that when there is high effort, there will be high gains and vice versa. Nevertheless, the
rural households of Chencha Woreda had different perceptions in the relationship of efforts and
gains. Some of the rural households explained that the efforts they made for agricultural activity
had proportional balance with their gains while some of them disagree with this idea. In other
words, some of the farmers explained that the efforts they made were greater/ lesser than the
gains they got. For instance, according to the one male 21 years interviewee explanation:
„When there is good weather conditions, the efforts and gains are balanced but when there
are bad weather condition the efforts are greater than the gains. For instance, in 2010, there
was good weather condition; as result of this, I got 35quental of wheat from the size of
1hactar farmland and out of this, I may use only 6-7quentals for input cost and carrying out
the farming activities or for labor while 28quentals considered as profit‟.

In addition to this, the rural households have also explained that when they conducted their
agricultural activities based on farm schedule, their gains were usually greater than their efforts.
For instance, according to one interviewee‟s explanation:
„If every agronomic practice performed on their own seasons, it is obvious that gains are
greater than efforts‟.

On the contrary, other interviewee explained that effort and gain might not balance. For instance,
male 35years old interviewee explained that:

58
 „My effort and gain was not balance particularly when I fail to take the agricultural inputs
like HYV seeds and fertilizers that provided by government. My effort usually becomes
greater than my gain.‟
Likewise, other male 49 years old, interviewee says that effort is greater than gain because of the
nature of his farmland. He said; „my effort and gain was not balance. Effort was greater than gain. The
reason behind to this was the nature of the land that I have. The farming land positioned in Slope
Mountains and the soil is easily vulnerable to flood. Even when we use fertilizer in such farming land the
floods wash away the fertilizer as it is‟.

Another male 37years old interviewee also shared the above idea and explained that:
„When the price of our product is decreased and when we carried out the collection of the
product through expensive price of labour, it is obvious that the effort is greater than the
gain.‟

Regarding the rural households‟ agricultural income or gain in the last six years i.e. 2005-2010 in
each year, there had been differences for product. This was mainly because of the difference in the
efforts they made in addition to the weather conditions and other problems such as the access of
agricultural inputs, lack of knowledge in both sides i.e. the farmers and the agricultural experts
those working with the farmers together has mentioned.

C) Suggestions given by Model Farmers to Other Farmers Engaged in Small Agricultural Activities
Suggestion is obviously helpful to increase result of activities in terms of quantity and quality.
Accordingly, Chencha Woreda‟s rural households suggested many solutions for the factors that
affect agricultural activities in general and AEP in particular. Some of the suggestions given were:
One male 39 years old interviewee explained that:
„I advising to the ordinary farmers that they have try to work like me to be a model farmer
or beyond me through using agricultural inputs provided by governments and accepting the
policies and strategies of government. Particularly, I advise them to use fertilizers, to
adopting on farm and off farm activities, use her/his family labor efficiently‟.

Other male 37years old interviewee explained that:

„My suggestion is particularly to those farmers who possess large or small plot of farming
land whatever its size would be I advise them to listen to the AEWs use technologies as
per their recommendation, avoid weeds on time, sow periodically and collect it periodically
from farming land.‟

59
In addition to this, female 33years old interviewee explained that:
„Those who seat in holydays and wasting their time for extended religious devotions; they
should to respect the holydays by engaging in different activities (farm works). Farmers
shall increase the working days than the holydays. She further advised them to work
together (support each other) particularly family labor (i.e. husbands, wives and their
children).‟

3.4.2. Agricultural Extension Workers (AEWs) Interview Analysis

A) Roles of AEW for the Successful Implementation of AEP and the Challenges they face
As the AEWs indicated, they themselves play a vital role in the successful implementation of AEP
in Chencha Woreda. Some of the roles they play were transferring technical support to the
farmers, creating awareness of farmers, motivating or initiating the farmers, introducing farmers
with the provided new agricultural technologies, encouraging to the creative farmers, guiding the
farmers how to utilize the products they produce and organizing farmers to help each other.
To do the above roles they need incentives as a means for encouragement. However, one male
interviewee indicated that:
„I did many things to mobilize farmers in preventing and protecting the environment
particularly in 2012/13 crop season through different mechanisms such as conservation of
soil and water through physical and biological conservation means but still I did not get any
incentives that made me to do more.‟
In addition to the above idea other interviewee also express in the same fashion. For instance, the
role of AEWs in Chencha Woreda also hindered by the disparities appeared among the farmers in
terms of knowledge, attitude, and experience. One interviewee 26 years old explained that:
„There are disparities in the use of the program in terms of attitude, knowledge and
experience among the farmers. Such disparities may consider as advantage and disadvantage.‟

To clarify more, the disparities in the use of the program in terms of attitude, knowledge and
experience among the farmers may help some of the AEWs who are not spirited and unhappy by
their duty in reducing the work burden laid on the shoulder of them. Contrary to this, such
disparities also negatively affect both the AEP in general and the role of AEWs in particular
because those who have low attitude, knowledge and experience may not demand what will be
provided through the government particularly the new agricultural ideas and skills.

60
That means those farmers who have low level of attitude; knowledge and experience may not
accept/resist the policies and strategies of agriculture as those who have high level of attitude,
knowledge and experience.

According to the explanation of the AEWs, such difficulties attempted to solve through different
mechanisms such as providing training, creating the opportunity of peer teaching among the
farmers, convincing the conservative farmers to narrow the gap existing among the farmers in
terms of attitude, knowledge and experience. According to another female interviewee
explanation:
„The high level of disparities in terms of attitude, knowledge and experience leads the farmers
to use the agricultural inputs improperly. For instance, if a farmer supposed to use and took
100 kg fertilizer on her/his plot of land she/he uses only half of it or 50 kg less than required
amount and sale the rest 50 kg fertilizer which could reduce its productivity.‟

B) Kinds of Packages Farmers Could More Successful

The farmers participated in different extension packages. Out of these packages; activities, natural
resource conservation, demanding agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, exotic seeds, foreign
animals and the use of water have made the farmers more successful in agricultural activities and
help them benefited. Particularly, those who have demand and use the new agricultural
technologies as commended by AEWs. Nevertheless, some of them may face difficulty in its
application. For instance, according to 28 years male interviewee; „the farmers have no problem in
demanding what has been important to their agricultural activities rather they had a great problem to
cover the cost in cash because most of them are poor and absence of skills in the application of the new
technologies.‟

Having the above notion in mind, the trainings provided for the rural households through the
governments might not change the difficulty of applying new agricultural technologies as required
because of either the effectiveness of the trainings provided or the farmers‟ ability to understand
accordingly. As the interviewees, explanation such difficulty can be solved through frequent and
effective provision of different type of trainings for both the farmers and AEW.

C) Major Factors Affecting the Implementation of AEP

There were many challenges that affect the implementation of AEP in Chencha Woreda. Some of
the challenges according to the interviewee of AEWs; they were forcing the farmers to do what
they do not believe it, providing new agricultural technologies without trying its adaptability, weak

61
awareness of the farmers, and lack of AEW capacity in convincing the farmers and delaying of
agricultural inputs as well as high price of inputs. Absence/inadequacy of observing and SMS
support of the work of AEWs in the „Kebeles‟ was also additional challenges that affects the
implementation of AEP.

In addition to this, according to the interviewees, the lack of necessary facilities such as, residence,
office, equipped FTCs etc. considered as basic challenges for the effective implementation of AEP.

3.5. Focus Group Discussion Analysis with Rural Households, AEWs and Agricultural
and Rural Development Officials

3.5.1. Focus Group Discussion Analysis with Rural Households

A) The Disadvantage of Less Agricultural Extension Workers in Chencha Woreda Based on the
idea of the discussants
As a result, the AEW do not reach when the farmers need them. That means according to the
discussants; the availability of less number of AEWs (only 3) in one „Kebeles‟ have disadvantage
for the farmers as some Kebeles has large number of population and wider area to be covered by
them. Some of the disadvantages of less AEW were absence of repetitive supervision of the work
of the farmers through the AEW and being they are few they tried to show off and misbehave
over the farmers.
Because of this, the life of AEWs has to be boring and unable to answer the questions of the
farmers. The farmers lacks optional workers that lead them to the right application of the new
agricultural technologies, less amount of product because of the wrong application of the new
agricultural technologies, and the AEW lacks time for their work and enjoyment or refreshment
with their family.

Lack of time for refreshment may also leads to social disorder. Due to this social chaos; the
political, economic and cultural aspects of the AEWs are disordered and lead them to do not
deliver the required services. This results a negative consequence in the AEP. Because the less
motivated people cannot deliver positive (greater) work achievements. Even though, lesser
number of AEWs in each Kebeles had a disadvantage for the farmers‟ agricultural activities. So the
farmers do not become active to improve their agricultural productions due to the insufficiency of
AEWs. In fact that does not mean that the researcher denies what they are trying their best to
overcome the challenges they face and to improve their agricultural production. The discussants
were expressed for the researcher that they trying all their best in order to improve their
agricultural productivities.
62
Among the remedies or the attempts they were suggest that; ploughing of the land repetitively if
possible five and above times, using organic and inorganic fertilizers, avoiding weeds effectively and
on time, conserving water and soil, participate on different training sessions provided by the
government bodies and the NGOs, avoiding lack of water by digging shallow-wells etc.

Furthermore, the discussants suggested that it would be better increasing well-trained workers in
terms of quantity and quality is important to change their overall living conditions and to
transform them to a better stage economically, politically, and socially. Furthermore, thy said that
farmers should be continuously consulted to take agricultural inputs and to apply them in the right
way. They also said that commitment of the higher officials is important to the effective
implementation of AEP.

These were some of the basic things, which the farmers anticipated from government and NGOs.
Currently, according to the discussants, they get only little support. Particularly the discussants
explained that they face lack of pesticides that results serious of seeds‟ disease. It is obvious that,
they are sowing many seeds like wheat, sorghum, and others. From these seeds, most of the time,
their crop have been affected by disease and minimizes their gains from it. The discussants also
explained that absence of providing agricultural inputs on time considered as serious problem.
According to them, agricultural inputs that provided after the right sewing time is equivalent to
denied, they strongly emphasized that the government is liable of it rather than requested for
support.

B) Reasons for Diminishing or Increment of Productivities from Year to Year

It is obvious that there had been reasons that diminishing and increasing the agricultural
productivities from year to year. Some of diminishing factors; in Chencha Woreda were
unconditional weather changes, unavailability and fear of credit, improper farm management, lack
of proper uses agricultural technologies, resistance by some of the farmers to accept what is said
by the agricultural experts, lack of wed and pest control, crop damage by wild animals and absence
of adequate technical and professional support.

The above-mentioned problems were not the only factors or reasons that diminish agricultural
productions. In addition, the discussants further considered the non-existence of FTCs hampers
the technology transfer and the smooth interaction between farmers and experts. As the

63
information obtained from the Woreda Agriculture and rural Development Office shows, only 15
out of 45 (33%) of the rural Kebeles have FTCs.

Contrary to that, there are also some reasons mentioned that which are helped to increase
agricultural production in Chencha Woreda. Out of which some of the stated reasons; are
improved water harvesting and use by some farmers, the due attention paid by the Woreda‟s
government authorities, the use of agricultural inputs effectively by the model farmers, land
management and environmental conservation works, ploughing of farming land properly and
effectively, requesting of any jargons for clarification. For the further information, see the table10
below, which shows the five years from 2007-2011 performances of agricultural extension in
Chencha Woreda.

Table 10:- Five Years Agricultural Extension Data of Chencha Woreda (2007-2011)
Fiscal Sectoral No of Beneficiaries *Cultivated Fertilizer used in Selected Seeds in Productivity/hectar
Year Budget Extension by package land in quental quental
Users hectare

DAP UREA Wheat Barley Corn Wheat Barley Corn

2007 143,576.2 17,080 1,513 19,395 189.125 73.5 223.68 NA 1 25 NA 32

2008 160,340.5 17,560 2,116 20,124 264.5 67 431 67 NA 31 31 NA

2009 193,869.1 17,875 8,415 21,211 1,402.5 40.5 331 32 2.13 35 25 35

2010 227,397.7 18,060 24,000 22,421 4000 2,020 200 46 NA 35 25 NA

2011 294,455. 18,277 9,084 24,672 1514 500 1,463.8 NA 13 36.5 NA 38

Source: Chencha Woreda Office of Agriculture
NA: Indicates Data Not Available
*Indicates the cultivated land only in one crop season called ‘Maher’

Table 10 above; reveals that there was an increase of the government budget allotted to the
agriculture and rural development sector at an increasing rate. This shows that there is higher
government focus (attention) given to the sector. As a result, the number of extension users and
beneficiaries by packages slightly increased. There was also some rise on the size of cultivated land
in hectare. The trend on the use of fertilizer however, only 262quentals used in 2007GC Maher
crop season and it grew up to 6,020quentals in 2010GC after four years. The improvement is
convincing during the years 2009GC and 2010GC in which where there were higher attention has
given by the government authorities at all levels. However, the achieved promising fertilizer use
situation has fallen down dramatically from 4,020quentals in 2010GC into 2,014quentals of DAP
and UREA decreased by 50% in the year followed 2011GC. When we see; the productivity level

64
of Wheat from the table 10 above, which exist 25-36quentals/hectare, which is much more less
than the productivity level achieved by ordinary copy farmer in Bale Goba area in Oromiya region
whose productivity reached 60-70quenals/hectare while the model farmers harvest up 95-
110quentals/hectare. Based on the researcher‟s personal tour to Bale Goba on June 2013 realized
that there were much more gaps among the farmers between Bale Goba and Chencha Woreda.
So that much has expected from all concerned government, authorities and the NGOs engaged in
community development activities.

3.4.2. Focus Group Discussion Analysis with Agricultural Extension Workers

A) Availability of Supervisors in Farming Area
After a long discussion with discussants concerning the availability of the supervisors in farming
area, they agreed that supervisors are not regularly available in the farming areas; they simply
expect the reports. Even if when they came to the sites, their contribution is negligible. This has
also its own negative consequences in the effective implementation of AEP. For instance, if the
supervisor could not able to observe what is happening in the farming area, they may receive a
false report. In addition to this, when the supervisors could not able to observe the activities being
conducted in the farming area, they could not share their knowledge. Sometimes, there were
times that frequently visit by the SMS staffs to their Kebeles, but they have given less technical
support. The discussant considered this as one factor that affect the implementation of agricultural
policies and strategies in general and AEP in particular

B) Comparison between Provision of Agricultural Inputs and Credit Service

The discussants believe that agricultural inputs and credit service are very essential for the
enhancement of agricultural productivities. However, the degree of their significance is different.
Regarding the provision of agricultural inputs in kind and credit service in cash to the farmers; the
AEWs agreed that it is better to provide farmers with the agricultural inputs in kind than credit
service. The basic reason raised by discussants is that the farmers may use the loan for other
purposes than the intended objective. Many farmers use the borrowed money to drink alcohol
and to buy irrelevant goods.

The discussants also mentioned that AEP had many challenges. Some of the major challenges
mentioned by the AEW discussants were absence of providing of quality agricultural inputs on
time, absence of educational opportunity to them, absence of daily per-diem, weak organizational
structure, weak level of awareness on the farmers, absence of providing trainings that build
farmers‟ and agricultural extension workers‟ capacity and presence of many political meetings.
65
For instance, those AEWs found in the „Kebeles‟ level should be accountable to the Woreda‟s
agricultural and rural development office or experts. Nevertheless, in practice, the AEW was
accountable to the political chiefs of the „Kebeles‟. The political chiefs command the agricultural
experts to exercise political activities out of their profession.

The AEW was also forced to practice the political activities because they had fear of expelling
from their work. When the AEW focus in their profession, the political chiefs by create group and
mobilize the people against the experts and they defame the name of the experts. Because of this,
the experts are demoralized and this negatively affects the AEP in general and his /her professions
in particular. In addition to this, the AEW discussant explained that they forced to work all
rounded activities out of their profession.

Agricultural extension workers usually perform their duties with few/insufficient on the job
training. Fortunately, when the farmers asked any question to the AEW since he/ she did not
specialized by that profession, they might not give clear and precise answer. This also resulted in
suspicious of the farmers on them and on their ideas. During the discussion sessions, the
discussant also explained that opportunity of education and daily per-diem as a serious problem or
discouraging factor that affects AEP.

For example, there is a direction set by the regional government, which says the Woreda
agricultural and rural development should give educational opportunity to its workers per year
based on our performances evaluation result. In fact, this instruction has been in effect in Chencha
Woreda within the last two years. According to the information obtained from the WoA, a total
number of 28 AEWs by two rounds 14 people in each year have had an advantage of higher
education to upgrade from diploma to degree level. However, the discussants complaint lays on
the selection criteria used by the WoA that was not clear and in equitable.

For instance, in Chencha Woreda from 2011-2012, only 28 (20.7%) AEWs out of 135 got
educational opportunity. According to the discussants, when agricultural experts at office level
may get daily per-diem quarterly weather they work or not where as the „Kebeles‟ experts do not
get any per-diem. There was a time that the safety jacket sent from the region for chemical
protection while spraying pest-side did not distributed to those concerned field experts. Rather,
the safety jacket goes to the support staff members including the driver. This in turn may affect
the successful implementation of the program.

66
 3.5.2. Focus Group Discussion Analysis with Agricultural and Rural Development Officials
A) Understanding of AEP in Chencha Woreda
According to the discussants, there has been less understanding of AEP in the farmers and even in
the agricultural experts. Being the existence of less understanding of AEP in Chencha Woreda,
both farmers and agricultural experts had some problems in the effective implementation of AEP.
Some of the problems appeared in the farmers and agricultural experts according to the
discussants were lack of transparency in the „Kebele‟ leaders, dependency nature of the people,
and absence of becoming a model in demanding agricultural inputs and suspicious in the new
agricultural technology.

In addition to this, the discussants explained that lack of infrastructure facility considered as
serious problem for the effective implementation of AEP. According to the discussants, even
though there are motors and cars for transport, they are usually damaged because of the absence
of quality roads and since the experts used the motors and car only at Woreda level.

B) Roles of Farmers, Governments and NGOs in Improving Agricultural Productivity

According to the discussants explanation farmers, governments and NGOs have played a vital role
in improving agricultural productivity. According to the discussants government played a vital role
in providing agricultural inputs like fertilizer, chemicals (pesticides), agricultural experts, and good
agricultural policies and strategies. The NGOs involved only in extension service provision and
other related activities but not allowed to supply fertilizer. The farmers on their part have played a
significant role by taking the agricultural inputs and services provided by government and NGOs
and by accepting the policies and strategies. According to the discussants, accepting the policies
and strategies of agriculture means having possibility of good implementation process in the
agriculture.

However, the roles of farmers, governments and NGOs faced difficulties through the lack of
access of the agricultural inputs including the credit service that facilitate their productivity and the
lack of availability of adequate number of AEWs in the „Kebeles‟. The farmers have a great
problem in the utilization of credit service. It is better that providing farmers with agricultural
inputs like motor pump, pesticides, fertilizers, agricultural equipment‟s and foreign animals rather
than credit in cash to buy the whole agricultural inputs. Nevertheless, the provision of agricultural
inputs should be in credit not as gift in order to avoid dependency. As a result, the farmers
became good workers in order to return their credit.

67
The other difficulty that challenged the roles of farmers, governments and NGOs was lack of
AEW in the „Kebeles‟. According to the discussants, it is better nowadays the number of AEW in
the „Kebeles‟. Each „Kebeles‟ have only three AEWs. However, there is shortage of AEWs, an
individual supposed to deliver service for about 183 farm households (BoFED, 2006) in the whole
Woreda.
The other challenge faced the AEP in Chencha Woreda is migration of the AEWs from their work
place to other work places in order to seek better benefits and position. Other reasons for the
migration of AEWs to other work place are lack of educational facility in the Woreda, absence of
good benefits to the agricultural experts. Generally, the AEWs were migrating to seek better
things in other work places.

C) General Suggestions Concerning AEP

For the above, mentioned AEP challenges the discussant suggested many solutions that improve
the implementation of AEP. Some of the remedies were the existence of quality policies and
strategies alone do not make sense without appropriate implementation. The discussants
suggested that the policies and strategies of agriculture should supported proper implementation
strategy prepared by the federal government.

That means when policy makers design the policies and strategies of agriculture, they should take
into account the conditions that affect the policies and strategies in the implementation process.
By now, some difficulties affect AEP such as lack of awareness on the farmers and agricultural
experts and having many steps to take agricultural inputs. For these difficulties, the discussants
suggested solutions i.e. striving for changing the farmers and agricultural experts‟ attitude and
minimizing the process to take agricultural inputs.

3.5. Key Informants Interview Analysis

A) Interview with the Extension Services Process Owner of Agricultural and Rural Development
Office of Chencha Woreda
i) The Role of Chencha Woreda Agricultural and Rural Development Office in Increasing
Agricultural Products as an authorized organization, it plays a pivotal role in increasing agricultural
production. According to the process owner of coordinator of agricultural research and extension
service, interviewee explanation:

68
„Our office is conducting agricultural activities with the collaboration of farmers. Our organization
plays a vital role in increasing productivity through creation of awareness of the farmers. We also
engaged on provision of skill and managerial trainings, providing agricultural inputs, technical
support regarding how to apply new agricultural technologies, distributing the AEWs to the
„Kebeles‟ levels in all branches like crop experts, irrigation experts, natural resource protection
expert, livestock resource expert, and providing trainings to the AEW when new agricultural
technologies arrive.‟

Concerning the practice of AEP in Chencha Woreda in the last six years, it was somewhat good.
According to the interviewee explanation:
„From 1998 or the renaissances period up to now to secure the farmers food security in particular
and the whole people in general we executing household oriented package. The household
oriented package particularly focused in water use, crop cultivation, reproducing animals including
hens and bees. The household oriented package activities conducted based on adequate study.
After the introduction of Business Process Reengineering (BPR), we attempted through relating all
agricultural activities to conducting intensive agricultural program. Especially, through increasing
the number of beneficiary farmers in agricultural package, increasing agricultural inputs and
restructuring the managerial arrangements.
For instance, we have two groups that expected to facilitate agricultural activities in terms of
management. These are the first branch called network that consists five members, called „1to5‟.
Out of these five members, one of them expected to be from the model farmers. The second
branch was the development group that consisted of twenty-five members. Therefore, one
development group made up of five-network branch.

We are doing in well-planned manner even we prepared and implementing the five years growth
and transformation plan starting from 2011-2015. The slogan of the development and
transformation plan is by flooding agricultural products we should alleviate poverty‟.
When the researcher asked the interviewee the question that how do you relate AEP with
productivities. The interviewee explained that:

„The aim of agricultural and rural development is to eradicate poverty from our country.
Eradication of poverty means increasing agricultural productions and having good management skill
of using the products. AEP is also one of the means to achieve the aim of agricultural and rural
development i.e. eradicating poverty by increasing productivity.‟ Prime Minister Meles Zenawi
neatly encapsulated the paradox facing agricultural policy in Ethiopia in a statement, in 2000: “The

69
agricultural sector remains our Achilles heel and source of vulnerability. … Nonetheless, we
remain convinced that agricultural-based development remains the only source of hope for
Ethiopia.” Therefore, the AEP motivates farmers in using fertilizers that enable farmers to yield
good amount of products, harvesting drought resistance seeds, and creating awareness on the
farmers. All these also play a vital role in increasing agricultural production. Therefore, AEP have a
direct relation with productivities. Particularly in this time, there is provision of agricultural inputs
like fertilizer, exotic seeds, pesticides to avoid weeds and tablet for the treatment of animals that
provided by the core process of the provision of agricultural inputs. The difficulty is absence of
demanding and supply of the quality agricultural inputs on time.

ii) Major Challenges Affecting the Implementation of AEP

As already mentioned, in all the analysis part in the paper, there are many challenges that affect the
implementation of AEP. The process owner of agricultural research and extension service
explained that:
„The serious factors that affecting the implementation of AEP, are lack of behavioral change that
leads to extensive deforestation, the traditional and backward outlook of the farmers possess for a
long period of time, absence of capacity regarding how to use the new agricultural inputs and
technologies, absence of well infrastructure that helps the agricultural experts to help the farmers
closely, absence of supervising when new agricultural inputs and technologies were applied,
absence of providing agricultural inputs and technologies what the farmer‟s needs, high price of the
agricultural inputs and technologies, and lack of agricultural experts in terms of their quality and
quantity.‟

According to the interviewee, these mentioned factors are not the only factors that affect the
implementation of AEP rather they are the fundamental factors that seriously appeared in
Chencha Woreda.

iii) Sharing of Experience with Others Related to the Performance of AEP

Sharing experience is obviously helpful for the effective implementation of AEP. Particularly best
practices; for instance, if one farmer required using fertilizer, it is better to see first the
significance of fertilizers rather than using it without observing its contribution in the agricultural
production.
Like other Woredas, Chencha Woreda sharing experiences with others related to the
performance of AEP. According to the process owner of agricultural research and extension
service, interviewee explanation:

70
„We shared experience with others regarding the performance of AEP. Such sharing experiences
conducted at different level. The one and best sharing of experience conducted intra Woreda
level. To get rid of poverty we make farmers to observe others best practices. We used different
techniques to facilitate sharing of experience such as; the construction of FTCs, letters and
meetings of model and ordinary farmers together as well as farmers‟ field visit.

We attempted to show our best practices to others and we expanded our best practices to other
Woredas. Generally, we made sharing practices within our Woreda, out of our Woreda i.e. with
other Woredas of our regional state and with Woredas of others regional states especially on
homestead development. Most of the sharing experience related to natural resource conservation,
manufacturing of market-oriented crops such as apple production activities. The primary objective
of sharing experience is to overcome our farmers from poverty and make them richer and
investor. So, we have many farmers changed themselves from poorer to richer and changing from
richer to investor.‟

71
 CHAPTER FOUR

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to investigate the problems and challenges of the agricultural
extension program in Chencha Woreda of SNNPRS. It has also tried to assess the roles of the
farmers, agricultural experts, government bodies and NGOs in relation to the success of the
program implementation. In addition to this, the paper has tried to investigate the benefits of
agricultural extension program implementation i.e. its positive impact on the life of the rural
community.

To gather relevant information, the researcher used different data collection tools such
questionnaires, interviews, focus group discussion and direct site observations. The research
respondents were agricultural extension workers, rural households (program beneficiaries) and
key informants who have direct or indirect involvement on the implementation of the program.
These data collection tools used to support one another and to triangulate the information gained
from different respondents so that relevant and working conclusion arrived at.

According to the findings of the study, the implementation of the agricultural extension program
has brought promising results in the study Woreda. However, the research findings have showed
that there is insufficient and irregular provision of agriculture inputs and absence of qualified
workers that implement the program effectively. Few number of agricultural extension workers,
absence of motivational factors both for farmers and agricultural expertise and absence of credit
services for farmers are the major challenges that affected the implementation of the agricultural
extension program in Chencha Woreda.

Beside these, weak awareness about agricultural extension program both in the farmers and
agricultural extension workers, absence of trainings both for the farmers and the agricultural
expertise, absence of model Farmer Training Centers (FTCs) in most of the kebeles and research
centers both in the Woreda and the regional state have also jeopardized the proper execution of
the program.
Finally, absence of the involvements of farmers and agricultural extension workers during policy
formulation, implementation and evaluation process of the program, repetitive weather change,

72
rain-fed oriented farming practice and weak market-information and links for farmers are also the
challenges that affected the program implementation in Chencha Woreda.

4.2. Recommendations
The benefits of the AEP in Chencha Woreda, as explained in the study and in the conclusion are
encouraging. However, it is important to examine carefully the challenges and problems that affect
the proper implementation of the program, identify possible remedies in timely manner in order
to effectively, and efficiently implement the program in the study Woreda as well as in the regional
state. The recommendations addressed here, therefore, present options for policy implications
and practical interventions by the stakeholders of the agricultural extension program in the region
in general and the study Woreda in particular to improve the implementation of the program, and
thereby increase communities‟ food sufficiency and security. Hence, based on the study findings,
the following major recommendations forwarded as follows:

1. Mass-education and training to create awareness on agricultural extension program should

be consolidated and expanded to grass roots levels, particularly through farmers‟ education
and empowerments. In addition to this, even though the community knows the impacts of
the challenges that affect the agricultural extension program, they failed to explain the
position of synthetic complicating factors like population growth in aggravating
deforestation that in turn leads to the decrement of agricultural productivity. Hence, it is
indispensable to raise the awareness of the local people by working together with
agricultural development agencies, schools and farmer associations;
2. As mixed farming practices in the study Woreda (crop production and animal rearing) is the
core means of economic activity, the concerned bodies (government organs, farmers and
NGOs) should:
i. Modify livestock diversity, composition and numbers, especially by focusing on quality
than quantity;
ii. Encourage to engage the farmers on off farm activities in order to increase their
household incomes;
iii. Diversify livelihood activities by encouraging off-farm practices;
iv. Modify farming practices and sharing experiences of model farmers by providing
different new technologies such as tractors, water pumps and other modern pesticide
control mechanisms;
v. Encourage local natural resource management more effectively by rewarding models
farmers;
73
3. In order to promote better economic activities of the farmers; issues such as access to
microfinance and credit facilities and building social infrastructures should be a policy priority;
4. In order to increase the productivities of the farmers in the study area concerned bodies
(government organs, farmers and NGOs) should actively engage in expanding social infrastructure
and providing enough and quality roads, electricity, telecommunication, fertilizers, exotic seeds,
motor pumps, qualified manpower and efficient markets;
5. Efforts to support agricultural extension program adaptation, implementation, and evaluation
should be based on the understandings of what people are doing on the real ground. Assessing the
effectiveness of current coping strategies in minimizing poverty and maximizing the productivity of
agricultural practices should implemented in on-going manner. In other words, strategies should
be based on local vulnerability and knowledge, and should be community-led;
6. To ensure programs and project activities that promote resilience for agricultural extension
program and increase adaptive capacity for the factors affecting the program, it is important to
understand which livelihood resources are sensitive to environmental (especially rainfall variability)
hazards and which resources are important for adaptation. To mitigate or reduce the impacts of
rainfall variability on crop production, the Woreda has to introduce new adaptive (resistant) crops
or seeds, conduct subsequent research and assign trained agricultural experts.
7. Ensuring a secure area free of poverty is impossible without dealing with the success of
agricultural activities in the study Woreda, hence concerned agents should improve the
agricultural extension program and rehabilitate the fertility of the land to have an improvements
on agricultural productivity;
8. As long as deforestation and land degradation diminish both the current and future adaptive
capacity, as well as livelihood option of the community, policies and strategies on agriculture in
general and deforestation and land degradation in particular should be reshuffled and be the
agenda of any community forums and discussions;
9. Since the role of religious institutions for agricultural productivity is basic and high in the study
Woreda, the local government structures should work closely with religious institutions to
encourage the communities to consolidate the culture of forest preservation that help for the
agricultural productivity and increasing the working days of a given month in their surroundings;
10. Finally, the promotion of awareness creation, increasing local knowledge and behavior among
the farmers in the SNNPRS in general and the study Woreda in particular is essential to have
healthy agricultural production and prosperous economy in the region. To advance this, therefore,
the role of young population in increasing agricultural production and in promoting economic and
social developments should expand and shall addressed.

74
 Bibliography
Abeje Berhanu (2009). The Ethiopia extension and the farmer: a view from the farm, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Anandajayasekeram Ponniah et al (2008), Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing
countries: A source book, IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute), Washington, DC,
USA, and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.
Assefa Admassie (1995), Analysis of Production Efficiency and the Use of Modern Technology in Crop
Production: A study of smallholders in the central high lands of Ethiopia. Wissen schaftsverlag Vaukkiel K
G.
Belay Kassa (1989). An Analysis of Administrative Organization and Extension Service with Suggestions for
Application in reference to Ethiopia, Cornell University, on published M. Sc. Thesis
______(2003). Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia: the case of participatory demonstration and training
extension system. Journal of Social Development in Africa, 18 (1). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Birner et al (2006). From “Best Practice” to “Best Fit:” A Framework for Designing and Analyzing
Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services.” International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),
Washington, DC.
Brunner Edmund Des and Yang E.Hsin Pao (1949).Rural America and the Extension Service, Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Buford, J.A. (1990). Extension Management in the Information Age. Journal of Extension, 28(1).
Retrieved 15 July, 2006 from http://www.joe.org/joe/1990spring/fut2.html
Cuba College of Agricultural Sciences (1995). A Preliminary Evaluation of the Needs for Agricultural
Extension in a Free Cuba, Oregon State University.
Davis Kristin (2008). Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and Assessment of Past and
Current Models and Future Prospects, Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education.
________ (2006) .Farmer Field Schools: A Boon or Bust for Extension in Africa, journal of international
agricultural and extension education,3(1).
_______ et. al, (2009). Review of Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia, On Behalf of the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation (BMGF), For the Government of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
Deribe Kaske (2007). Agricultural Information Networks of Farm Women and Role of Agricultural
Extension: The Case of Dale Wereda, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples‟ Region.
Haramaya University MSc Thesis, Haramaya University.
Edmonds Christopher, E. (1998). Policy Regimes, Agrarian Institutions, and the Performance of
Smallholder Agriculture in Chile: three essays analyzing longitudinal survey data on Chilean peasant
farm (1986 to 1995) PhD. Dissertation, university of California, Berkeley.

75
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) (1998). Research, Extension and Farmer
Linkage Strategy Document, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
FAO (1997). Improving Agricultural Extension a reference manual, Rome: FAO.
FAO (2008). Key message from study all Ethiopians extension system based on the work of
Habtemariam Abate (PhD), Sub- Regional Offices for Eastern Africa, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
FDRE Population Census Commission (CSA), (2008). Summary and Statistical Report of Population
and Housing Census: Population by Age and Sex. Addis Ababa: UNFPA.
Habtemariam Abate (1996). Agricultural Education, Research and Extension in Ethiopia: Problems and
Linkages. In Mulat, D., Aregay W., Tesfaye Z, Solomon B., Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture
in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society of
Ethiopia, held in Addis Ababa 3-October 1996.
Hailu Kasaye (2002,) The Performance of the Current Agricultural Extension Approach in Food Crop
Packages-a case study in Assosa and Bambasi woredas of the Benishangul Gumuz National Regional State,
Ethiopia, unpuplished.
Haramaya University (2009).Training of Trainers on Practical Extension Methods and Approaches
Organized by Rural Capacity Building Project (RCBP), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
IMF ( 2006). Country Report No. 06/27, The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper 2003/04 Annual Progress Report.
Itana Ayana (1985).An Analysis of Factors Affecting the Adoptions of Packages of Agricultural
Technologies in Subsistence Agriculture, A case study in two Extension Districts of Ethiopia, MSc. Thesis
Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
Jones and Garforth (1997).Improving Agricultural Extension History, Development and Future of
Agricultural Extension, FAO, Rome.
Kiros Assfa (2007). Farmers Response to Agricultural Extension Package in Raya Azebo, Tigray, AAU:
RLDS Ethiopia.
Gum Russell, L. and Blank Steven, C. (1990). Designing Expert Systems for Effective Delivery of
Extension Programming, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 72, No. 3,
Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1243022.
McGregor, D & Thompson, D. (Eds). (1999). Geomorphology and Land Management in a Changing
Environment. England: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Merresa Abadi. (2010). „A Comparative Assessment of Local and Exotic Dairy Cattle in Hintallo Wejerate
Adigudom‟. Tigray: Yardstick International College of Distance and Open Learning.

76
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. (2003) Rural development policy and strategy,
Economic Policy and Planning Department, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mitiku Haile (1995). Indigenous Knowledge and Agricultural Practices in Central Tigray. Proceedings of
the workshop on agro-ecological and health studies in the Central Zone of Tigray (unpublished),
Mekelle, March 1995, Ethiopia.
MoARD(1998). Agricultural development of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa
MoFED (2005). Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction Program (SDPRP), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
MoFED(2007). Ethiopia Building on Progress: A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End
Poverty (PASDEP), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mogos Alene (2008). Determinant of food security under subsistence agriculture in Ethiopia: the case of
Hintalo-Wejerat Wereda, Tigray Region, IDR, AAU, Unpublished.
Mulugeta Arega (2009). Determinant of intensity of adoption of old stumping technology in Dale wereda,
SNNPRS, Ethiopia, Haramaya University unpublished.
Nagel, J.V. (1997). Improving Agricultural Extension – Alternative Approaches to Organizing Extension,
FAO, Rome.
Savile, A.H. (1965). Extension in Rural Communities London, Oxford University,
Swanson Burton (2008). Global Review of Good Agricultural Extension/Advisory Service Practices, Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
Swanson Burton and Rajalahti Riikka (2010). Strengthening Agricultural Extension and Advisory Systems:
Procedures for Assessing, Transforming, and Evaluating Extension Systems, Washington, DC, agricultural
and rural development discussion paper 45.
Taye Assefa et al. (2008). Digest of Ethiopia‟s National Policy, Strategy, and Program; forum for social
study, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tesfaye Besha (1996). A Review of Agricultural Extension Approaches and Strategies with reference to
Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Teshom Tafesse (2003). Agricultural knowledge of students and their awareness about the role of
university in development regional and local development study (RLDS), AAU, and Ethiopia.
University of Greenwich (2008). Agricultural Extension, Advisory, and Innovation Natural Resources
Institute: www.nri.org.
Van den Ban and Hawkins (1996). Agricultural Extension, Blackwell Science Ltd, USA.
Aregay Waktola (1975). Assessment of the Development, Diffusion and Adoption of the Package of
Agriculture Innovations in Chilalo Ethiopia, Ohio State University, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
World Bank (2006). National Agricultural Innovation Project, Republic of India. Report No. 34908 in
World Bank, India Country Management Unit, New Delhi; India.

77
Yrga Teklu. (2010). „A Manual on Forest and Wild Animal Conservation and Monitoring Training‟. Tigray,
Woreda Hintallo Wajirate Adigudom.

78