pastoral extension systems

Pastoral Extension SystemPastoral Extension System

AMDISSA TESHOMEINTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE

ETHIOPIAN ECONOMY ETHIOPIAN ECONOMICS ASSOCIATION

21-23 JULY 2011

ETHIOPIAwww.future-agricultures.org

ORIGIN OF THE PRESENTATION

• This is not a research output in the conventional sense

• It is a synthesis of a series of national and regional consultations on the future of agricultural/ pastoral extension– 2 National consultations– 4 Regional consultations– Paper presentations + group

discussions + field visits to FTCs and FRGs

No. of participants

National 70

Regional 129

Total 199

Papers Gov’t Non-gov Total

National 2 4 6

Regional 8 5 13

Total 10 9 19

www.future-agricultures.org ETHIOPIA

2

OBJECTIVE

• To explain why past extension systems have failed to serve pastoral livelihoods

• To present national and regional responses to the critics

• To provide some international perspective on PES

• To suggest some issues for consideration in the design of PES


3

BACKGROUND

• Ethiopian agricultural extension system is 50-100 years old

• It has gone through numerous models of extension (almost testing ground for imported models)

• Overall transfer of technology (ToT) has been the dominant model

• Participatory approaches by NGOs (small scale)


4

STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES

Strength • The largest public extension system in SSA• Close to 100% coverage in terms of DAs and

FTCs• ATVETs for human capacity • Extension is now seen as critical to the

agricultural transformation agenda• Continues to attract donor support


5

Weaknesses • No standard definition of extension • DAs relatively strong on subject matter but weak

on key elements of extension (i.e. communication, facilitation)

• No guidance on generalist or specialist DAs• Public sector domination (lack of institutional

pluralism) • Crop dominated and yet the majority of farmers

do not apply the recommended rates


6

PASTORAL EXTENSION• Pastoralism is about NRM, people/ institutions and

livestock. An extension system that fails to address these in a holistic manner is not a pastoral extension system

• None of the extension models experimented in the past had pastoralism as a component

• The livestock/rangeland development projects of the past did not have strong extension element. – top-down;


7

– focused on infrastructure but no consideration for maintenance and sustainability

– paid no attention to the emergence of agro-pastoralism

– Insufficient attention to drought – No provision for private sector development– Conflict was not given due attention


8

NATIONAL RESPONSE

• Voluntary resettlement to facilitate provision of basic services including extension

• There are several policy statements making direct reference to pastoral extension

• Pastoral/agro-pastoral Agricultural Extension System drafted (see below)

• Pastoral Extension Team within MoA


9

• PCDP: a 15 year project - one of its objectives is to provide extension appropriate to pastoral areas

• Parliamentary Standing Committee• Pastoralist Day pioneered by PFE• Pastoral (PSNP) Taskforce


10

The draft Pastoral/agro-pastoral Participatory Agricultural Extension System (MoA)

An independent reviewer made several observations:

• The use of “agricultural extension” is not appropriate

• The level of stakeholder consultation not clear• Lots of emphasis on crop production. It does not

consider the various pathways available to pastoral communities.


11

• The challenges of conflict and cross-border trade not addressed.

• DRM and climate change adaptation not covered

Some strong points:• the potential role of indigenous institutions and

community leaders recognized• DAs to work with community groups and leaders• Packages prepared for (i) pastoral/agro-pastoral;

(ii) mobile and sedentary; (iii) dry and wet season grazing areas


12

REGIONAL RESPONSES

OROMIYA • BPR process has led to considerable restructuring • Six core processes dedicated to extension as

opposed to one in most regions• Separate core processes for livestock and

pastoralism• Extension located in three bureaus (i) Bureau of

Agriculture; (ii) Livestock Production, Health and Marketing Agency; and (iii) Pastoral Development Commission


13

• Public sector will continue to be the main provider of extension

• Linking pastoralists and agro-pastoralists to agro-industry and markets

• Conserving natural resources


14

SNNPR

• Presently, agricultural extension model adopted in pastoral areas:– Crop production– Natural resources protection – Livestock and fishery – Rural women


15

• Interventions specific to pastoral areas are:– Introduced camels– Provided milk processing technologies– Provided improved forage seeds– Constructed animal health posts– Assigned animal health workers – Constructed ponds


16

Future directions: • Number and professional mix of DAs to reflect

pastoral realities• Shift from animal headcount to more productive

livestock• Produce and store forage; improve handling of

natural pasture; improve water supply; market facilities and information

• Supply drugs at affordable prices on a timely basis• Introduce revolving funds using livestock as

collateral


17

Proposed extesnion model - SNNPR


Pastoral/agro-pastoral

Extension system

Water dev’t & utilisation

extension

Natural resources dev’t

& protection extension

Social services

extension

Land administration & utilisation

extension

Lowland agric. Dev’t extension

Early warning extension

Marketing extension

Animal health extension

Animal production extension

Forage/pasture extension

18

Critic of Regional responses:• No mention of indigenous knowledge (people+

institutions)• Multiple agency involvement may generate

conflicting extension messages from different sources

• Institutions are either new or have no previous experience in extension

• Continued public sector dominance• Focusing on reducing livestock numbers.

Pastoralists have a reason for keeping livestock!


19

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Why is Ethiopia finding it difficult to put in place a PES?

• There is no as such a strong/ replicable PES experience worldwide.

• A pluralism of models/approaches is used in most countries in Asia and Africa.


20

Country Extension approach/model

Angola Rural development and extension programme; FFS

Benin Participatory management; decentralised model; FFS

B. Faso FFS

Cameroon National agricultural extension; FFS

Ethiopia SG-2000 approach (modified T&V); PADETS; FFS (by NGO); Research-Extension Council

Ghana Unified extension system (modified T&V); pluralistic with NGOs and private companies as part of the national system; decentralised; FFS

Kenya Pluralistic system; FFS; DD driven; group based extension

Malawi Pluralistic; DD driven; decentralised; “one village one product”; FFS

Mali Modified T&V; both private and pastoral services for cotton; FFS; SG-2000

Mozambique Government-led pluralistic extension; FFS

Nigeria FFS; participatory; SG-2000

Rwanda Participatory; pluralistic; specialised bottom up approach; FFS

Tanzania FFS; group-based; SG-2000; private extension; pluralism

Uganda Pluralism; National Agricultural Advisory Service

Zambia Participatory extension approach; FFS


21

Key issues in designing PES:• Participation of pastoral people (IK is key)• Provision of appropriate services (inc. mobile)• Livelihood diversification• Access to all markets (local/international) not only

for livestock but also for a range of products• Technical support which build on adaptive

capacities of pastoralists• Conflict avoidance• Expand financial services• Meet basic needs of women and empower them• Involve relevant stakeholders


22

Thank you for your attention!0911 177069

[email protected]

23

mailto:[email protected]

pastoral extension systems

Technology