The Ethiopian Agricultural Extension System and Its Role as Development Actor

275 Pages·2017·5.22 MB·English

by  Gerba Leta Dufera

Zentrum für Entwicklungsforschung (ZEF)

______________________________________________________________________________
The Ethiopian Agricultural Extension System
and Its Role as a Development Actor: Cases
from Southwestern Ethiopia

Dissertation

zur Erlangung des Grades

Doktor der Agrarwissenschaften (Dr. agr.)

der Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät
der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

von
Gerba Leta Dufera
aus
Wollega, Äthiopien

Bonn, August 2018
Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Anna-Katharina Hornidge
Zweitbetreuer: Prof. Dr. Christian Borgameister
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 06.08.2018

Angefertigt mit Genehmigung der Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bonn.
Acknowledgements

Many individuals and institutes have contributed to my study in different ways, and I
acknowledge their assistance and collaboration here. First and foremost, I thank my primary
supervisor, Prof. Dr. Anna-Katharina Hornidge, who introduced me to the topic of agricultural
extension systems and guided me with the design and execution of the field research as well as
the writing of this thesis. Indeed, this work would not have been possible without her immense
support and encouragement. Her emphasis on adopting an analytical perspective and the
attention she paid to my research motivated me, and I am highly grateful to her. I also sincerely
thank my second supervisor, Prof. Dr. Christian Borgemeister, for allowing me to pursue my
PhD under the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bonn. Likewise, I extend my deepest
gratitude to my third supervisor, Prof. Dr. Kristof van Assche, who introduced me to the
Evolutionary Governance Theory. His relentless guidance and follow-up—from the initial
planning phase to the field research stage, and finally to the completion of this thesis—have
been inspiring. I acknowledge his insightful and valuable comments that have shaped my
analytical thinking and sharpened my writing.

I am highly indebted to my first advisor, Dr. Girma Kelboro, for his persistent guidance,
support, and encouragement throughout the study period. He helped me hone my work with
his enthusiasm, meticulous and steady support, able mentoring, and invaluable comments and
suggestions. I also extend my heartfelt thanks to my second advisor, Dr. Till Stellmacher, for his
support and guidance right from the start—from briefing me on the concept of agricultural
extension system to mentoring my field research, and finally to providing constructive
comments on the thesis. His knowledge of the Ethiopian agricultural extension system has been
extremely useful.

I sincerely appreciate the Ethiopian Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, along
with various directorates, officials from bureaus and line offices, and senior and junior experts,
for agreeing to participate in the study and for providing me with the necessary policy and
strategy documents and secondary data. In particular, I am grateful for the support and
participation of the extension department of Oromia Region Bureau of Agriculture and Natural
Resources, the Regional Livestock Agency, and the Irrigation Authority staff. I am equally
indebted to the extension staff of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Regional
State (SNNPRS), Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the departments of natural
resource and agricultural input and marketing, and the livestock and cooperative agencies for
their participation and facilitation of the local studies. I also thank the Regional and National
Research System based in Oromia and SNNPRS, the Ethiopian Seed Enterprises (Awassa), and
the information center of the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Ethiopia, for
allowing me to access their amenities and services. The Regional Bureaus of Finance and
Economic Development and Microfinance Institutes assisted me with their participation and by
providing me with the necessary information and documents. Special thanks are due to the
west Showa Zone Administration, the extension department of the Zone Office of Agriculture
i
and Natural Resources, and the Zone Office of Livestock and Cooperative Agencies for their
participation and facilitation of the woreda-level study.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to the case study woredas (Bako-Tibe of the
Oromia regional state and Yem of SNNPRS), the staff of the Woreda Office of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, the woreda and kebele administrations, and other sector offices for their
participation and facilitation. In particular, I would like to mention the support extended to me
by the local agriculture staff: extension supervisors notably Shelema Bate, the development
agents mainly Abiyot Jabessa and Bashu Dama, and the participating farmers in the four case-
study kebeles. I am also thankful to the staff at the Bako and Sodo Agricultural Technical and
Vocational Education Training Colleges for their participation.

I would like to mention the support offered to me from Dr. Tadesse Woldemariam Gole,
director of the Ethiopia Coffee Forest Forum (ECFF), experts and the supporting staff for their
support, office facility and supplies. Several international and local NGOs staff also contributed
to this work: Sasakawa Global 2000; Oxfam America; Capacity Building for Scaling up of
Evidence-Based Best Practices in Agricultural Production in Ethiopia (CASCAPE), Addis Ababa
University; and Meseret Kristos Church Relief and Development Association (MKC-RDA), Bako
sub-office and Dr. Abel Mersie from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Awassa project office for which I am thankful to all.

This research has been funded by the BiomassWeb research project: “Improving Food
Security in Africa through Increased System Productivity of Biomass-Based Value Webs at the
Center for Development Research (ZEF),” University of Bonn, under the Work Package 7.1:
Follow the Innovation–Collective Learning, Change Adaptation and Transition Management in
Ethiopia (www.biomassweb.org). The project is financed by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (BMBF) and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development (BMZ) to whom I am sincerely grateful. I am thankful to all the supports from
the BiomassWeb research project coordination team and ZEF doctoral program academic
coordination office. Particularly, my special thanks is due to Mrs. Maike Retat-Amin and Dr.
Güenther Manske for the facilitation and support. I am also grateful to the ZEF management
and its community. I also extend my gratitude to the Leibniz Center for Tropical Marine
Research (ZMT) for their office space, facilities, and the evaluation of my study findings through
discussions during colloquia and symposiums. The members of the ZMT Social Sciences
Department, including researchers at the Development and Knowledge Sociology Working
Group, helped me with their friendly interactions, support, and encouragement.

Last and definitely not the least, I am grateful to my family—my wife Mrs. Kasech
Merera and my two daughters, Hawi Gerba and Ayantu Gerba—for their love, patience, and
encouragement, both at home and while I was away. I also thank my brothers, sisters, mother,
and friends for their best wishes, steady backing, and moral support throughout the years of my
study. Above all, I humbly thank the Almighty God for his care and support, without which I
would not have been able to realize my academic dreams.

ii
DDeeddiiccaattiioonn

To my father, the late Leta Dufera and my mother Himire Tuli who sparked my academic career
and for their love, care and support in their prayer.

iii
AAbbssttrraaccttss

Smallholder agriculture forms the backbone of the Ethiopian economy, supporting about 85% of the
country’s population. Since the late 1960s, the state has been actively pursuing agricultural extension as
a key means of agricultural and rural development as well as economic transformation. Over the years,
the state has introduced several reforms to update and validate its agricultural extension agenda.
However, despite reforms, the effectiveness of the extension service in promoting technology transfer
and enhancing its adoption has remained low. Top-down planning and poor technology transfer have
been identified as the main bottlenecks. In 2010, as part of its recent reform process, the Ministry of
Agriculture has adopted the participatory extension system, which is characterized by the formation of
farmer groups. Development agents and model farmers are key actors in the implementation of the
participatory extension system. The kebele administration oversees the implementation at the local
level. However, kebeles are weakly institutionalized with poor capacity; hence, their duties are often
transferred to the development agents. Despite the steadily increasing number of development agents,
most are insufficiently trained and involved in multiple activities, which diminishes their effectiveness in
providing extension services and earning the farmers’ trust. Attempts have been made to provide group
extension services through public mobilization; however, community involvement is achieved through
persuasion and pressure, which can lead to adverse effects on their participation. This study examines
the participatory extension system from perspective of governance, participation and evolution of
agricultural extension. The main aim of the study is to analyze and describe the Ethiopian agricultural
extension system and understand its opportunities and challenges as a development actor. It draws on
field research data collected in 2015 and 2016, using a mixed methods approach, secondary data, and
literature reviews. Data were documented, coded and analyzed using ATLAS.ti and SPSS. The findings of
the study show that the Ethiopian state has invested considerable resources in maintaining a strong
agricultural extension system. Over the years, the state has developed and issued a series of agricultural
policies and strategies to nurture service provision and promote rural development. However, the
strategies are typically not well communicated to the actors and end users. The implementation of the
participatory extension system is also inconsistent, showing limited impact and sustainability across
study sites. Agricultural extension is constrained by multiple challenges: high input and low output
prices, knowledge and skill gaps among development agents and model farmers, non-inclusive extension
services system, ambitious top-down allocation of plans, and actors’ involvement in non-extension
activities. These limit farmers’ participation in technology adoption and upscaling and weaken the
efficiency of both the development agents and the model farmers. As a result, the majority of the
farmers resort to social learning and local network for interactions and for acquiring knowledge. This
analysis indicates that along with the public, involving the private and non-governmental organizations
extension services may allow other actors to be involved in the extension services and help address the
prevailing gaps of inadequate capacity and skills, shortage of inputs such as improved seeds, and price
escalation. Understanding strengths, limitations and reform options of the current system through the
lens of Evolutionary Governance Theory, can also enable top actors/planners to formulate better
policies and strategies. Introducing pro-poor strategies is vital to involve the disadvantaged groups of
the society. Promoting real farmer participation and a paradigm shift in focus—from targeting spatial
coverage to effective outcomes—are essential for the agricultural extension system to succeed. Realistic
decentralization also believed to promote real participation and allow farmers to develop a sense of
ownership toward the development initiatives. Exempting development agents and model farmers’
involvement in non-extension activities, while improving their skill sets, is also vital for improving the
agricultural extension service system in Ethiopia.
iv
ZZuussaammmmeennffaassssuunngg

Kleinbäuerliche Landwirtschaft beschäftigt als Grundlage der äthiopischen Wirtschaft die
Mehrheit (ca. 85%) der Bevölkerung des Landes. Seit den 1960er Jahren baut der äthiopische
Staat die landwirtschaftliche Beratung als Mittel zur ländlichen Entwicklung und
wirtschaftlichen Transformation massiv aus. Über die Jahre wurden die staatlichen
landwirtschaftlichen Beratungssysteme häufig neu ausgerichtet. Trotz zahlreicher Reformen ist
ihre Effektivität jedoch gering geblieben. Hauptprobleme liegen in einer hierarchischen Planung
und unzureichendem Technologietransfer. Im Zuge neuerlicher Reformen hat das äthiopische
Landwirtschaftsministerium im Jahre 2010 das partizipative, landwirtschaftliche (participatory
extension system) verabschiedet, welches die Bildung von farmer groups vorsieht.
Development Agents und sogenannte model farmers sind die Hauptakteure in der Umsetzung
von landwirtschaftlichen Beratungssystem. Die kebele Gemeindeadministrationen sollen dabei
die Umsetzung auf lokaler Ebene übernehmen. Da diese jedoch in der Regel über zu geringe
Kapazitäten verfügen, werden diese Aufgaben häufig an die development agents übertragen.
Die Anzahl von development agents im ländlichen Äthiopien hat in den letzten Jahren stark
zugenommen. Allerdings sind sie zumeist unzureichend ausgebildet und in eine Vielzahl von
Aktivitäten involviert, was ihre Effektivität in der Bereitstellung landwirtschaftlicher Beratung
sowie in der Gewinnung des Vertrauens der Bauern einschränkt. Es wurde daher versucht,
Gruppenberatungsdienste durch öffentliche Mobilisierung bereitzustellen. Dabei wurde
versucht, die Einbindung der lokalen Bevölkerung weitgehend durch Druck zu erzielen.
Diese Studie untersucht das landwirtschaftlichen Beratungssystem in Äthiopien unter Nutzung
der Konzepte von governance, Partizipation und der Entwicklung landwirtschaftlicher
Beratungsdienste. Das Hauptziel der Arbeit besteht in der Beschreibung und Analyse des
äthiopischen landwirtschaftlichen Beratungssystems und seiner Rolle als Entwicklungsakteur.
Die Studie baut auf Feldforschung auf, die in den Jahren 2015 und 2016 in Äthiopien
durchgeführt wurde. Dabei wurde ein Methodenmix angewandt. Die Primärdaten wurden mit
Hilfe von ATLAS.ti und SPSS verarbeitet. Die Ergebnisse der Studie zeigen, dass der äthiopische
Staat große Ressourcen in den Aufbau und die Bereitstellung von landwirtschaftlichen
Beratungssystems investiert. Über die Jahre hat der Staat dabei eine Reihe an Strategien
entwickelt um landwirtschaftliche Dienste im Speziellen und ländliche Entwicklung im
Allgemeinen zu fördern. Diese Strategien wurden allerdings häufig nicht ausreichend an die
Akteure und Betroffenen kommuniziert. Die Umsetzung von landwirtschaftlichen
Beratungssystem erfolgt häufig widersprüchlich, mit eher geringer Wirkung und Nachhaltigkeit
in den Untersuchungsgebieten. Generell stehen die staatlichen landwirtschaftlichen
Beratungsdienste vor großen Herausforderungen, wie etwa hohen Kosten für
landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgüter, niedrige Preisen für die erzeugten Produkte, einer
unzureichenden Qualifikation der Berater, nicht inklusiven Beratungssystemen,
überambitionierten und hierarchischen Planungen, sowie der Mitwirkung von development
agents in zahlreichen nicht-Beratungsaktivitäten. All dies beschränkt die Partizipation der
Bauern sowie die Einführung und Hochskalierung von Technologien. Als Konsequenz vertraut
v
die Mehrzahl der Bauern auf informelles soziales Lernen und lokale Netzwerkinteraktionen für
den Wissens-, und Technologietransfer. Die hier vorgelegte Analyse zeigt, dass die Einbindung
von privaten Dienstleistern und Nicht-Regierungs-Organisation – in Zusammenarbeit mit den
staatlichen landwirtschaftlichen Beratungsdiensten - helfen könnte, grundlegende Probleme
wie die ungenügenden Kapazitäten, das geringe Fachwissen, und den Mangel an
Produktionsmitteln (etwa an verbessertem Saatgut) wirksam anzugehen. Die Stärken,
Beschränkungen und Reformmöglichkeiten des gegenwärtigen Beratungssystems mit Hilfe der
Evolutionary Governance Theory zu verstehen kann wichtigen Akteuren und Planern helfen ihre
Politiken und Strategien besser zu formulieren. Armutsorientierte Ansätze sind dabei
entscheidend um benachteiligte Gruppen der Gesellschaft einzubinden. Eine wirkliche
Einbeziehung und Beteiligung der Bauern und ein Paradigmenwechsel weg von einer
flächendeckenden Bereitstellung unzureichender Dienste hin zu effektiver Wirksamkeit ist
dabei wesentlich um das landwirtschaftlichen Beratungssystems erfolgreich zu gestalten.
Dezentralisierung kann dabei helfen Partizipation zu befördern und Bauern zu ermöglichen
Beteiligungsstrukturen anzunehmen. Nicht zuletzt ist die Regelung der Mitwirkung von
development agents und model farmers in nicht-Beratungsaktivitäten, sowie die Integration
und Stärkung ihrer Expertise absolut erforderlich zur Verbesserung des landwirtschaftlichen
Beratungssystems in Äthiopien.
vi
TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ i
Dedication ............................................................................................................................ iii
Abstracts .............................................................................................................................. iv
Zusammenfassung ................................................................................................................. v
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................xii
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... xiii
List of Appendix Tables ........................................................................................................ xiv
Lists of Appendix Sections .................................................................................................... xv
Glossary of Local Language Terminology .............................................................................. xvi
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................................. xvii
Chapter 1: Agriculture in Ethiopia: An Overview .................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Problem Statement and Relevance of the Study ...................................................................... 7
1.3 Research Objectives and Questions.......................................................................................... 9
1.4 Summary of the Main Arguments .......................................................................................... 11
1.5 Structure of the Thesis ............................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2: Research Methodology ....................................................................................... 15
2.1 Selection and Description of the Study Areas ........................................................................ 15
2.1.1 The Bako-Tibe Woreda ................................................................................................. 15
2.1.2 The Yem Woreda .......................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Stakeholders and Kebeles Selection ....................................................................................... 16
2.3 Data Collection and Analysis ................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1 Household Survey ......................................................................................................... 19
2.3.2 Focus Group Discussion ................................................................................................ 20
2.3.3 Expert Interviews .......................................................................................................... 22
vii
2.3.4 Interviews with Key Informants ................................................................................... 23
2.3.5 Participant Observation ................................................................................................ 23
2.3.6 Case Studies of Model Farmers .................................................................................... 24
2.3.7 Informal Group and Individual Discussions .................................................................. 26
2.3.8 Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 27
2.3.9 Data Documentation, Coding, and Analysis ................................................................. 27
2.4 The Field Research Experience: A Personal Reflection ........................................................... 28
2.4.1 Knowledge of Local Language and its Effect on the Research ..................................... 28
2.4.2 Selection of Study Sites and the Use of a Mixed-Methods Approach ......................... 29
2.4.3. Extension Reforms and the Actors' Unfamiliarity with the Reform Process .............. 29
2.4.4 Variations in Implementing Agricultural Extension ...................................................... 30
2.4.5 Differences: Farmer Participation, Size of Kebeles, and Partner Linkage .................... 31
2.5 Research Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 3: Evolutionary Governance Theory: Conceptual Frame .......................................... 35
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 35
3.1.1 Agricultural Extension ................................................................................................... 36
3.1.2 Regime Changes and the Evolution of Extension ......................................................... 37
3.1.3 Governance Paths and Dependencies in Agricultural Extension ................................. 40
3.2 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 4: The State: Its Role and Interest in the Ethiopian Agricultural Extension System ... 43
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 43
4.2 The Role of the State in Agricultural Extension ...................................................................... 46
4.2.1 Developing Agricultural Extension Strategies .............................................................. 46
4.2.2 Training of Development Agents .................................................................................. 47
4.2.3 Assisting in Planning and Implementation ................................................................... 50
4.2.4 Facilitating Access to Credit Services............................................................................ 53
4.2.5 Supply of Agricultural Technologies and Inputs ........................................................... 55
viii