Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing ...

• emergence and wider acceptance of participatory research methods• more sustainable approaches to extension funding involving greater flexibility and multiplepartners (Gustafson 1991)—pluralism in service provision• fall of T&V systems and the emergence of the new approaches such as Farmer Field Schools (FFS)• new role for extension staff—a more facilitating and catalytic role• greater focus on changing the mindset of change agents.2.2.6 Current scenario: Diversity and institutional pluralismMuch literature (Schwartz and Kampen 1 1992; World Bank 1995; Contado 1997) suggested the needfor a pluralistic extension system because public extension services need to be accountable to both theclients of the services and the wider population. Contado (1997) identified a number of advantages thata national pluralistic policy of extension will bring about:• It encourages wider participation in providing resource support and control of the extensionprogram of the country. As a consequence, more resources are allocated for extension or at least aclearer accounting of resources devoted to extension is achieved.• It creates complementarity and synergy in the use of resources for extension by different donors,which are recognized as part of the pluralistic extension policy.• Research and extension linkage is made functional in the field.• It creates a cohesive critical mass of extension people who could address large numbers offarmers as well as the increasing variety and complexity of subject matters needed by farmers.• It lessens the resource burden upon the central government, or on a single agency, or on theprivate sector or on farmers themselves.National reforms and other initiatives that in essence aim at an optimum mix of institutional pluralismhave followed different paths for achieving their objectives. Grassroots associations, the NGO sector,farmers’ associations are major stakeholders in this process.Potential providers of agricultural extension services (Table 2.1) fall into three main groups: the publicsector, the private nonprofit sector and the private for-profit sector. Distinctions between variousproviders are important because of the range of services each typically offers, and the incentives theyhave for delivering these services. The private (profit) sector includes all agents whose objective is togenerate profits directly or indirectly for their owners, members or shareholders. The private nonprofitsector differs from the profit sector in one important respect: rather than distributing the residualearnings (if any) to individuals who exercise control, it reinvests profits to finance future activities(Umali-Deininger 1997).The private-for-profit sector comprises three main sets of actors. Commercial suppliers of agriculturalinputs provide ‘free’ information and advice linked directly to the use of their technology. They areincreasingly concerned to ensure that accurate information is passed on by input dealers at point ofsale and so may be involved in training and providing technical support to their dealer networks. Atthe other end of the production process, companies which purchase, process and market agriculturalproduce provide information and services in order to assure quality and reliability of supply. Muchless common in developing countries is the autonomous emergence of for-profit organizations (firms,partnerships) or individuals specializing in providing consultancy and advisory services. However,1. Schwartz and Kampen (1992) referred to ‘extension pluralism’ as the philosophy where a national extension system reflectsdifferent strategies to meet the needs of various agro climates and farmers.36