Training Extension System Research Articles

A Seminar Title On the History and Evolution of Agricultural Extension in the Ethiopia Country

Agricultural extension service began work in Ethiopia since 1931, during the establishment of Ambo Agricultural School. But a formal Agricultural extension started since Alemaya Imperial College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts (Haramaya) was constructed since 1953.The extension activities of Ethiopia during the last 50 years reveals that a range of extension approaches has been used. The approaches tended differ with each successive political regime. Different extension approaches in different political regimes, during the imperial regime the responsibility for national extension administration to the Ministry of Agriculture, extension service became one of the departments in the Ministry. And during the military regime the land reform proclamation banned the private ownership of rural lands and declared that land would be distributed to the tillers without compensation to former owners. Because of the political instability and major structural changes in the rural areas, including the formation of peasant associations and producers' cooperatives as well as the implementation of the land reform, it was not possible to carry out this plan. There was not much organized and coordinated extension work in the country until the beginning of the 1980. At the current Extension service of Ethiopia in 1991 the T & V extension approach was adopted as a national extension system with major government financing until its replacement by the Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System in 1995. The latter was adopted from the SaSakawa Global 2000 (SG 2000) extension strategy. Agricultural extension service in Ethiopia can be given by different mandatory level such as at federal level by ministry of Agriculture, At Regional level Bureau of Agriculture, At Woreda level Agricultural and Natural Resource office, and at Farmer Training center level Development agent and different stockholders have responsibility of giving extension especially agriculture related extension to need holders. In Ethiopia there are different extension approaches model such as Chilalo agricultural development model (CADU), minimum package project I and II, Peasant Agricultural Development program, participatory demonstration and training extension system, farmers field school, Farmers training center and Agricultural technical and Vocational Education training (ATVET) these are the different extension approaches in Ethiopia starting from the begging up to current extension service respectively.

에티오피아 농촌지도사업의 현재와 미래

에티오피아의 농촌지도사업은 다른 아프리카 국가들과 비교하여 긴 역사를 가지고 있으며 다양한 접근방법과 모델을 통하여 이루어져 왔다. 오랜 역사에도 불구하고, 농촌지도사업 시슨템은 사업영역, 커뮤니케이션, 제도적인 다원성 측면에서 초보단계에 머물고 있다. 농촌지도사업의 초점은 시험연구사업 결과에 대한 기술이전, 국가식량안보와 수출증가를 위한 농업생산성 증대에 있다. 최근 농촌지도사업 시스템에 대하여 많은 논의가 이루어지고 있으며, 다른 관점을 통하여 보다 지도사업 시스템이 엄밀성을 더해 가고 있다. 최근 에티오피아 농촌지도사업은 공공부문에 의하여 추진되고 있으며, 특히 district 단위에서 분권화된 방법으로 운영되고 있다. 그리고 제한된 수준이지만 NGO에 의하여 수행되고 있다. 에티오피아의 농촌지도사업은 1950년대에 연구개발 및 기술이전, 외국의 새로운 기술도입을 위하여 시작되었다. 초기에 농촌지도사업은 시험장 위주로 이루어졌다. 이후에 에티오피아 농촌지도사업은 다섯 가지 단계로 추진되었다. 대학학장시스템(the land grant extension system), 패키지 프로그램, 최소 팩키지 프로젝트, 농민 농업개발 프로그램, 참여민주주의와 훈련시스템(PADETS). 패키지 지도사업 프로그램은 시범지역에 최초로 수행되었으며, 15-20년내에 농촌지역의 90%까지 확대되었다. 이 프로그램은 개발기구에 의하여 관리되는 시범포를 사용하였으며, 조직화된 농민들을 훈련하였다. 그러나, 이 프로그램이 특정한 조그마한 지역에서 운영되어 다른 지역까지 확대되지 못하였다. 참여민주주의와 훈련시스템을 통하여 에티오피아의 농촌지도사업은 주목을 받게 되었으며 많은 논의가 있었으며, 외부의 관점들이 더 정교하게 만들었다. 긴 역사에도 불구하고, 이 시스템은 커뮤니케이션, 제도적인 다원주의적인 측면, 분권화 측면에서 걸음마 단계이다. Agricultural extension service in Ethiopia was started in early 1950s with mandate of transferring local research outputs and technologies to farmers, and importing technologies and improved practices from abroad. Extension service provided in this early time was limited to areas surrounding the experiment stations. Since then, Ethiopian Agricultural extension service has passed through at least five stages: the land grant extension system, the Comprehensive Package Programs, the Minimum Package Projects, the Peasant Agricultural Development Program, and the Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETS). The comprehensive package extension program was initially implemented in selected pilot areas and eventually to be scaled up to cover about 90% of the farming community within 15-20 years time. The program used demonstration plots managed by development agents and used to train farmers organized through various field days. However, since all of these programs were operational in only small areas, the vast majority of the country was out of their reach. Through Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System, the extension service in Ethiopia has come under the spotlight and government debates and external reviews are putting additional scrutiny on the system. Despite this long history, the system is still in its infancy in terms of coverage, communication and institutional pluralism. Currently in Ethiopia the Agricultural extension is provided primarily by the public sector, operating in a decentralized manner through which extension is implemented at the district level. Therefore, the main focus of this paper is to scrutinize the past, the present and the future Agricultural extension system in Ethiopia.

THE EFFECT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE ON THE TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY OF TEFF (<i>ERAGROSTISTEF</i>) PRODUCERS

Teff ( Eragrostistef ) is a major staple food crop in Ethiopia, but smal lholder teff production is characterized by persistently low average yield. A major government effort aimed at raising the productivity and competitiveness of smallholder agriculture in Ethio pia involved reforming and implementing agricultural extension service known as Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES). Therefore, this study investigates the effect of ag ricultural extension service and other factors on t he Technical Efficiency (TE) of teff producers in nort hern Ethiopia. Using cross sectional data we compar e TE level of teff producers who are participants and no n-participants of Agricultural Extension (AE) progr am. We address self-selection in to AE program particip ation using propensity score matching method. Translog stochastic frontier production function is used for TE analysis. The empirical results reveal that , AE program participants’ and non-participants’ farms h ave an average TE of 72 and 71% respectively. Both groups of farms have considerable overall technical inefficiencies, suggesting the existence of immens e potentials for enhancing production through more ef ficient use of available technology and resources. Determinants of TE are explained significantly by li vestock ownership, credit and improved seed. Based on the results, we derive policy recommendations to im prove farmers’ teff production performance. These policy measures include the provision of extension services related to technical skill and farm manage ment capacity of the farmers, demand driven livestock ex tension service, greater access to credit and incre asing the availability, quality and adoption of improved seed.

Agricultural extension in Ethiopia: the case of participatory demonstration and training extension system

This paper examines the participation of farmers in the Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System and looks into the principal barriers to the adoption of modern agricultural inputs. The paper is based on a review of the literature and an analysis of data collected from 1482 household heads selected from 16 sites in four regional states, namely, the Amhara National Regional State, the Oromia National Regional State, the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Regional State and the Tigray National Regional State. The historical review reveals that extension programmes and policies have been formulated without due consideration to the farmers' opinion and traditional knowledge system. The various extension approaches have been biased against the livestock subsector and research and extension activities have been carried out by different organizations without proper co-ordination which, in most cases, has led to redundancy of effort and wastage of resources. Both the historical review and the survey results reveal that extension service coverage in the country has been very low, the research–extension linkage has been very poor and extension agents have been involved in different activities which are not related to their normal duties. The study also makes it clear that a host of factors, some of which are policy related, were responsible for the low rate of adoption of modern agricultural inputs in the country. (Journal of Social Development in Africa: 2003 18 (1): 49-84)