Agri Extensions

Agricultural Economics Research ReviewVol. 26 (No.2) July-December 2013 pp 159-172

The State of Agricultural Extension Reforms in India:Strategic Priorities and Policy Options

Suresh C. Babua* , P.K. Joshib, Claire J. Glendenningc, Kwadwo Asenso-Okyerecand Rasheed Sulaiman V.d

aInternational Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USAbInternational Food Policy Research Institute, New Delhi-110 012, India

cFormerly at International Food Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, EthopiadCentre for Research on Innovation and Science Policy, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

Abstract

Agricultural extension in India has undergone several changes since independence. Still, a large numberof smallholder farmers and other vulnerable groups remain unreached by the public extension system. Anumber of organizational performance issues hinder the effectiveness and efficiency of public extensionsystem. These include inadequate staff numbers, low partnerships, and continued top-down linear focusto extension. This paper has presented a critical review of the current state of agricultural extensionreforms in India and based on the field case studies in four states Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra,and Tamil Nadu has identified policy priorities and strategic options for further refining the on-goingreform process and effective implementation of the public agricultural extension system.

Key words: Agricultural extension, strategic priorities, policy options, extension reforms

JEL Classification: Q16, Q18

IntroductionThe Indian agriculture is at the crossroads today.

Its strength to alleviate poverty and hunger is well-recognized, yet, the agricultural growth rate in the past20 years has been visibly less impressive and the

productivity in the agricultural sector continues to below compared to the international standards. Whileinvestments in research and extension have increasedin recent years, their impact on smallholder farmerslivelihoods remains debatable. Even when theseinvestments may address relevant problems of thefarmers, the benefits of improved technologies will notfully accrue to the farmers. The yield gap betweenresearch stations and farmers field remains high. Fortranslating research results into tangible gains at farm-level, well-functioning agricultural extension andadvisory services are required.

The Indian public agricultural extension system isone of the largest knowledge and informationdissemination institutions in the world. The systemplayed a critical role during the Green Revolutionperiod, but in recent years, it has undergone a high

*Author for correspondenceEmail: [email protected]

This is a substantially expanded version of the paperpresented at the workshop on Policy Options and InvestmentPriorities for Accelerating Agricultural Productivity andDevelopment in India, organized by the Indira GandhiInstitute of Development Research, Mumbai and the Institutefor Human Development with the support from the PlanningCommission, Government of India, Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) and The World Bank, during 10-11November, 2011 in New Delhi. We are grateful to FAO- NewDelhi for funding this study and for the discussions andcomments during the above workshop. Usual disclaimersapply.

160 Agricultural Economics Research Review Vol. 26 (No.2) July-December 2013

level of scrutiny (Sontakki et al., 2010; Pal, 2008; Joshiet al., 2005). Several efforts have been made in thepublic sector over the past one decade to initiate variousreform measures and operational models to improvethe organizational performance of this system. Yet, thechallenge of enhancing relevance, efficiency, andeffectiveness of the public sector agricultural extensionsystem in meeting its organizational goals andobjectives remains unresolved (WGAE, 2007; Raabe,2008; Glendenning et al., 2010; Desai et al., 2011).

Undoubtedly, without a well-functioning nationalagricultural research system (NARS) capable toproduce relevant technologies and knowledge base, anyamount of reforms in the agricultural extension systemwill be unsuccessful (Binswanger-Mkhizi and Zhong,2012). The reforming of NARS in India has been thesubject of extensive analysis and the focus of severalhigh-powered committees (NAAS, 2005; NFC, 2006;Pal, 2008; ICAR, 2011). India is endowed with a strongNARS, comprising the Indian Council of AgriculturalResearch (ICAR) and State Agricultural Universities(SAUs). The ICAR is the apex body for agriculturalresearch and education in the country. The contributionsof agricultural research have been commendable to theglobal agri-food systems, especially during the GreenRevolution period in the mid-1960s and early-1970s.A perfect symphony of research, technology, and inputdelivery, and agricultural policies was responsible forthe impressive performance of Indian agriculture inthe 1970s and the 1980s. The production of rice andwheat witnessed a spectacular increase, andtransformed Indian agriculture from deficit to self-sufficiency in food grains (Joshi et al., 2005). Althoughthe NARS has been responding to the challenges facedby Indian agriculture, it is often criticized for notattending to the demands for improved technologiesand also for the poor linkages between research andextension systems (Desai et al., 2011).

This paper examines the current state ofagricultural extension reforms and their linkages to theagricultural research system reforms in India, andidentifies the policy options and strategic priorities formaking it relevant, responsive and efficient. It exploreshow the NARS responded with its own set of reformsthat were sought to increase its relevance and itslinkages to the extension systems reforms. It alsoprovides an assessment of the organizationalperformance of the major public sector policy reforms

in the agricultural extension the AgriculturalTechnology Management Agency (ATMA) model using the case studies of seven districts in four Indianstates (Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra andTamil Nadu), located in different agro-ecological zonesof the country.

The paper is organized in seven sections. After abrief background in section one, the following sectionprovides the evolution of agricultural extension systemin the country. In section three, a snap-shot on emergingchallenges and issues for agricultural extension andadvisory services is given. Farmers access and sourcesof extension are discussed in section four, using NSSOdata and also several case studies conducted in recentyears. Section five examines the performance ofAgricultural Technology Management Agency withrespect to its relevance and reach to the farmers. It isfollowed by the section that prescribes policies andstrategies for reforming agricultural extension systemin the country. Finally, in the last section, we concludethe conditions for successful extension reforms in thecountry.

Evolution of the Extension System in IndianAgriculture

The evolution of agricultural extension system inIndia has a long history. Its contribution to productivityenhancement during the Green Revolution era has beenwell documented. During this period, the publicextension system played the key role in conductingfield demonstrations of high-yielding varieties andimproving the input delivery that ensured timelyavailability of quality seeds, fertilizers and agriculturalchemicals at affordable prices. Along with extensionservices, the price policy and procurement supportthrough public agencies provided additionalencouragement to the farmers for adoption of high-yielding varieties in the 1960s and 1970s. By the endof 1970s, the Green Revolution type of extensionsystem had largely achieved its major goal of increasingthe area under high-yielding varieties (Ameur, 1994).

In the late-1970s, the agricultural extension systembecame mostly involved in the distribution ofagricultural inputs through the state agricultural depotsand handling of the subsidies that were providedthrough various agricultural development programs.The public sector extension system as a whole seemed

Babu et al. : The State of Agricultural Extension Reforms in India 161

to have become a monolithic organization withoutspecific goals to achieve. Sustaining such a large systemwithout added benefits to agricultural productivitybecame a big challenge for agriculture ministries atboth the central and state levels. Therefore, reformingof the system towards goal orientation and betteroperational efficiency was sought. A Training and Visit(T&V) system was introduced in extension serviceson a pilot scale in Rajasthan in 1974 with World Bankfunding support and was scaled up to several otherstates in 1977 (Ameur, 1994). While impressive resultswere documented by the studies that evaluated the T&Vsystem, the issues related to sustainability of funding,high requirement of staffing, and the quality of staffbecame the key concerns (Federet al., 1987; Andersonand Feder, 2004). The state governments could not meetthe high level of recurrent costs of the system andstopped recruitment of new staff after the World Bankfunding ended in the early-1990s. Over the next tenyears, due to the low level of staff and low resourcesto cover their costs, no serious efforts were made tohold the extension officials accountable. No specificgoals were set and the agricultural extension systemas a whole had become moribund, although the T&Vsystem continued as a method of public extension(Anderson et al., 2006). Thus, began a period of lowcommitment from the policymakers at the state level.This was reinforced by the ineffectiveness of theextension system as a whole in contributing to farmersneeds. As a result, the T&V system, or whateverremained of it, was seen as an unrealistic model bymany state governments, though some elements of themodel still continue to be implemented in several states.

About a decade ago, in order to introduce reformsin the public sector agricultural extension system andincrease its relevance, accessibility, and efficiency ofknowledge sharing among various actors, players, andstakeholders, the Agricultural Technology ManagementAgency (ATMA) was introduced as a pilot (1998-2003)in 28 districts (DAC, 2005). Following a positivefeedback from the pilot implementation (IIM, 2004),the ATMA model was scaled up across 251 ruraldistricts in 2005 and throughout the country in 2007(Reddy and Swanson, 2006). In June 2010, revisedguidelines for ATMA were issued in order toincorporate the lessons learnt from the implementationthus far (DAC, 2010). However, several operationaland organizational challenges continue to confront the

ATMA as a system of extension. The ATMA facessevere capacity and institutional constraints. Yet,ATMA is seen as the key intervention for reformingthe extension system in India. There is increased callfor evaluating the impact of ATMA model on the farmlevel benefits. However, an understanding of thevariance between the intended guidelines and the actualimplementation of the program is still lacking. Further,the organizational and capacity challenges in itsimplementation have not been fully recognized(Anderson, 2007). Such information is the first steptowards the analysis of the impact of the program. Inwhat follows we take a critical look at theorganizational performance issues faced in theimplementation of ATMA to provide program andpolicy feedback for further refining the reform process.But, first we examine the global patterns in extensionreforms, followed by the existing use of extension bythe farmers in India.

Issues for Extension and Advisory ServicesIndia is not alone in the world in reforming its

extension and research systems. There are manycountries where extension and advisory servicesreforms are occurring globally (Swanson and Rajalahti,2010; World Bank, 2012). A common pattern in mostdeveloping countries is to decentralize the extensionsystems since agro-ecological conditions and accessto markets vary within most countries. Makingextension decentralized and demand-driven gives thefarmers a better say in setting the agenda anddemanding extension and research priorities. Theextension reforms strive to reach those groups smallholders, resource-poor, and women farmers which often remain unreached by the existing extensionsystems, and instead often tend to address the needs ofprogressive and commercially-viable farmers. Thereform measures also focus on sustainability. Withoutadequate public funding, agricultural extension systemsin many developing countries will not be sustainablein the long-run. Donor funds are not highly reliableand are targeted mostly to pilot projects. When thedonor funds dry up or the pilot projects end, the farmersno longer have access to the extension services (Birnerand Anderson, 2007). The public sector has a role toplay in developing a sustainable system of extensionservices delivery. Recognizing that a top-downapproach does not always address the needs of farmers,


extension reforms also focus on making extension andadvisory services farmer-led and demand-driven.However, in any extension reform, poorly developedand inadequate monitoring systems, coupled with lowhuman and institutional capacities, remain a majorconstraint to scaling-up successful pilot programs.Another reform option is the increased use of moderninformation and communication technologies (ICTs),but this calls for a higher level of investment in orderto make them accessible by the smallholder farmers(Aker, 2011). Given the broad lessons emerging fromglobal experiences and the immediate need forunderstanding the challenges and constraints incontinuing the reforms in agricultural extension systemin India, we next review the farmers access toagricultural extension and advisory services and thevarious sources from which farmers access theseservices in the context of extension system reforms.

Farmers Access and Sources of ExtensionServices

The only nation-wide survey of farmers access toextension is the 2003 National Sample SurveyOrganization (NSSO) 59th round, 33rd schedule onSituation Assessment Survey of Farmers. Sixty percent of the farmer-households in India did not accessany information on modern technologies that year. Thatsuch a large proportion of the farming population doesnot use any extension service indicates the poororganizational performance of the public extension in2003. It was aptly identified in the 10th and 11th five-year plans, which recognized that the public extensionsystem needed revamping and revitalizing.

While a more recent nation-wide survey is notavailable, a number of IFPRI studies have shown apicture different from the NSSO 2003 survey. In TamilNadu, a 576 farmer-households survey in two districtshas shown that only 1 per cent of the respondents hadnot accessed any information to support their farmenterprise in 2010. By comparison in 2003, the NSSOsurvey data show that 50 per cent of the farmers inTamil Nadu did not access extension for information.From a survey of farmer-households, Birner andAnderson (2007) have reported that of the 966 farmer-households surveyed, 22 per cent had at least onecontact with a government extension worker duringthe past one year, which was greater than the averageof 11.5 per cent reported for Karnataka in the NSSO

2003 survey (NSSO, 2005). A survey of 810households each in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh andAndhra Pradesh revealed a different extent ofextension-use in these states in 2009; it was 18 percent in Uttar Pradesh (Reardon et al., 2011a), 80 percent in Madhya Pradesh (Reardon et al., 2011b) and95 per cent in Andhra Pradesh (Chandrasekhar et al.,2011). While the recent small-scale surveys have shownthat extension access might have improved since thetime of the NSSO 2003, a nation-wide survey is neededto show the difference in extension-use since theimplementation of major reforms in public sectoragricultural extension through programs like theSupport to State Extension Programs for ExtensionReform (SSEPER) and the Agricultural TechnologyManagement Agency (ATMA).

Progressive farmers and family members, as wellas mass media and the private sector constitute a largepast of farmers sources of information. Another issueis that the quality and reliability of public extensionsystem is still a constraint (Babu et al., 2012). Onsources of extension services, the NSSO survey resultshave shown that nearly one-third of the farmers whohad accessed information, obtained it from progressivefarmers and input dealers. Broadcast media, includingradio, television and newspapers, was also largely usedto obtain information (by about 29.3% farmers). Thepublic sector extension system was a source ofinformation for about 10 per cent of the farmers. Theprivate and NGO extension services were accessed byonly 0.6 per cent of the farmers. Farmers tried andadopted the information that they received fromprogressive farmers and input dealers more than fromother sources. The service delivery by public-sectorextension workers was lowest for small farmers (4.8%versus 12.4% for large farmers), which suggests thatthe system may be biased against small farmers(Adhiguru et al., 2009).

In a recent survey of farmers in Tamil Nadu in2010, the input dealer was reported to be the mainsource of information (68.6%), followed by the statedepartment of agriculture extension staff (51.2%), TV(43.6%), family members or relatives (39.9%),progressive farmers (36.2%), Primary AgriculturalCooperative Banks (35.7%) and newspapers (30.6%).Farm magazines were accessed by 9.2 per cent of thefarmers. Only a small percentage of farmers used radio(5.4%) and farmer group associations (4.7%) to access


information (Babu et al., 2012). The main reasons forthe choice of information source were proximity(33.7%), assured quality (21.1%), sole option (20.6%),and timely availability (13.7%).

In Uttar Pradesh, Reardon et al. (2011a) havereported that 7 per cent of the sample farmers availedthe services of state extension staff, while other public-sector extension sources (KVKs, All-India Radio,university extension, and plant protection units) werecollectively a source of information for 18 per cent ofthe farmers. Madhya Pradesh has presented a morepositive picture of public sector extension-use, with37 per cent of the farmers accessing state extensionstaff (Reardon et al., 2011b). Other major sources ofextension services for farmers in Madhya Pradesh wereAll-India Radio and TV (21%), and KVKs (12%). Theprivate-sector sources accounted for 25 per cent.

The studies reported above suggest that theorganizational performance of extension system couldbe influenced by local conditions. Therefore, reformsin the extension system would need to allow flexibilityin the service delivery to adapt to different situations.Consideration of state variabilities is important indeveloping extension strategies, particularly at thenational level where much of the public sectorextension policy is formulated. A greater flexibility atthe state level to implement effective extensionprograms is needed.

The provision and delivery of agriculturalextension and advisory services to small and marginalfarmers remain the important elements of extensionreforms in the developing countries. The challenge forsmallholder farmers in India is typical (Birner andAndersen, 2007; Chandrasekhar Rao et al., 2011;Reardon et al., 2011a; 2011b). These farmers tend tohave minimum access to information. Reachingfarmers who search for information the least, would,therefore, require different content, approach anddelivery mechanisms, as they have differentinformation needs and rely mostly on interpersonalsources. Targeting smallholder farmers, who have lowagricultural income, is important as they search lessfor information. These farmers mostly lack motivationand interest in agriculture, so improving the timelydelivery and reliability of information will be importantto encourage them to improve their information searchstrategies. The studies have revealed that membershipof farmer based organizations (FBO) is associated with

high information search behaviours. Being a significantfactor in determining information search behaviours,membership in a FBO, self-help group (SHG) orcooperative could be an approach extension servicescould target to improve access to extension of low andmoderate information searchers. A group-basedapproach could also improve the delivery of demand-driven extension services. This is the main aim ofdistrict level public extension institution, the ATMA,though several implementation issues are hindering itseffectiveness. Further, the public sector is only one ofthe many sources farmers use to access extension andadvisory services.

Pluralistic Extension and Advisory Services andtheir Performance

The public sector agricultural extension system inIndia has gone through a number of changes sinceindependence (Glendenning et al., 2010; Raabe, 2008;Sulaiman and Holt, 2002). Still, several organizationalperformance issues hinder the effectiveness andefficiency of public agricultural extension system.These include inadequate staff numbers, lowpartnerships, and continued top-down linear focus toextension. Innovations from the private sector and civilsociety organizations show that providing an integratedservice to farmers, which incorporates local needs,could be more relevant. But, it is clear that the privateand civil society sectors will not fulfil the entire roleof extension and advisory service in India. The privatesector should work in areas where business issustainable and should interact with farmers on anindividual basis. The civil society tends to be project-based and is not widespread. On examining where thecapacity lies in each sector, partnerships emerge as animportant need; non-governmental organizations(NGOs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) havethe capacity to build social capital, but they tend towork on a small scale; the technical expertise lies inthe national agricultural research system (ICAR andstate agricultural universities), but it is also not able toreach a reasonable scale with limited staff in eachdistrict; the private sector can improve market linkages;and the state department of agriculture has the reachacross each district of India, but staff are overburdenedwith other duties.

During the past ten years, the central governmenthas recognised the need to converge and integrate


extension activities at the district level and hasimplemented a major reform in extension. It aims toachieve this through the institution of AgricultureTechnology Management Agency (ATMA). While thisis viewed as a huge innovation in agricultural extensionsystem r, it is also not without implementation andorganizational challenges.

Organizational Performance Assessment ofAgricultural Technology Management Agency

The Agricultural Technology Management Agency(ATMA) is the flagship program for agriculturalextension reforms in India. It was implemented as apilot in 28 districts from 1998 to 2004 as part of theWorld Bank-funded Innovations in TechnologyDissemination (ITD) component of the NationalAgriculture Technology Project (NATP) (Reddy andSwanson, 2006; Singh and Swanson, 2006; Swanson,2008). The constraints of the Training and Visit (T&V)and post-T&V extension were considered to beaddressed in the ATMA pilot.

Over the past one decade, the implementation ofextension reforms in the form of ATMA has gonethrough three phases; the NATP pilot 1998-2004 ATMA(phase I), the 2005-2010 Government of India (GoI)ATMA (phase II), and the post-2010 GoI ATMA (phaseIII). On the basis of the ATMA pilot, in 2005-06 theGovernment of India initiated the Support to StateExtension Programs for Extension Reforms (SSEPER)project, which was operationalized through ATMA,across 262 districts in all states about one-third ofall districts in India. In 2007, the XIth Five-Year Planexpanded ATMA to all the districts of India, but it wasnot supported with the provision of additional fundingand staff. The XIth Five-Year Plan working group onagricultural extension (WGAE, 2007) identified theorganizational performance challenges of the program,including (i) lack of qualified personnel at all levels,(ii) absence of a formal mechanism to support extensiondelivery below the block level, (iii) inadequateinfrastructure support at the state agriculturalmanagement and extension training institutes(SAMETIs), and (iv) lack of convergence with othercentral and state projects. It was not until 2010 that theplan for increased funding to ATMA was approved,resulting in revised guidelines for the ATMA (DAC,2010).

ATMA is a registered society at the district level.The district extension activities are based on a strategicresearch and extension plan (SREP) prepared using theparticipatory rural appraisal (PRA) technique for eachdistrict. The ATMA governing board (AGB), chairedby the district magistrate, reviews and approves theSREP for the district and also the annual block actionplans (BAP). Other members of the board include theheads of line departments and research organizationsas well as stakeholder representatives, includingfarmers and private sector representatives. The ATMAproject director chairs the ATMA managementcommittee (AMC). The AMC is responsible forcoordinating the extension activities in the district. TheAMC includes the heads of all line departments andresearch organizations in the district.

At the block level, the farm information andadvisory centre (FIAC) is the physical platform wherethe block technology team (BTT) and farmer advisorycommittee (FAC) meet to prepare the block action plan(BAP) and implement extension activities. The BTTincludes technical officers from various linedepartments at the block level and consults with theFAC, which includes the heads or representatives offarmer interest groups (FIGs) and self-help groups(SHGs). When FAC approves the BAP, it is reviewedby the AMC and approved for funding by the AGB.The FAC meets monthly to discuss the implementationof the annual BAP. The decision-making process isdecentralized to the block level, with activeparticipation of farmer representatives in thedevelopment and approval of the BAP.

At the state-level, an interdepartmental workinggroup (IDWG) formulates a state extension work plan(SEWP) to consolidate the district SREPs. The SREPand SEWP are the instruments that promoteconvergence of extension activities between linedepartments and research institutions at the district andstate levels, respectively. In each state, a stateagricultural management and extension traininginstitute (SAMETI) has been established. This instituteprovides training and undertakes human resourcedevelopment on the concepts and processes of ATMAto the junior and middle-level extension functionaries.The current performance of ATMA at all of these levelsvaries from state to state.


In 2010, the Department for Agriculture andCooperation (DAC) released new guidelines for ATMA(phase III), which included a revised structure. Theblock to village extension link was formallyinstitutionalized through the concept of a farmerfriend (FF) for every two villages. A farmer friend isa progressive farmer who has the minimumqualification of a pass in matriculation or intermediateexamination and is directly engaged by the blocktechnology manager. Some additional personnelexclusive to the ATMA project have been assigned;these include a state coordinator; faculty and supportingstaff for the SAMETI at the state level; a projectdirector, project deputy directors, and supporting staffat the district level (five employees per district); oneblock technology manager and two subject matterspecialists (SMSs) at the block level. Additionalactivities have been added to the ATMA cafeteria(the list of extension-related activities to choose fromfor funding), including farm schools. Farmer advisorycommittees (FACs) at the state, district, and block levelsnow provide advice to the administrative bodies at eachlevel, which were previously defined only at the districtlevel (DAC, 2010).

The block-level structure remains similar to theprevious structure but with higher emphasis onincorporating the ICAR institutes, such as the KrishiVigyan Kendras (Farm Science Centres) (KVKs) andZonal Research Stations (ZRS). It is expected that theKVK scientists will provide technical advice to theBTT and will be involved in preparation of the BAPs.The SREP also aims to involve the Panchayati Rajinstitutions, the lowest tier of local government. At thevillage level, the Agriclinics and Agribusiness projectswill be incorporated into the ATMA structure.

To examine the organizational performance of theATMA, this paper has considered the following factors,in addition to the main processes that ATMA is tryingto reform in the extension system, namely:

Decentralization Are the activities of ATMAdetermined from the decisions made at district orblock level? What aspects of organizationalperformance are hindering decentralization ofdecision-making at the district and block levels?

Linkages in ATMA Is ATMA integrating theextension-related activities of ICAR institutes,including KVKs, state line departments, NGOs

and the private sector at the district and blocklevels, which have been traditionally working inparallel? What aspects are hindering thisintegration?

Farmer Participation Are farmers effectivelyparticipating in decision-making at the block anddistrict levels? What mechanisms are used inATMA to understand the needs/demands offarmers (to make it demand-driven)? What aspectsare hindering farmer participation? What modelof farmer participation is envisaged?

Answers to these questions can help in furtherrefining the design and implementation of ATMA toreach its goals. To understand how ATMA has beenimplemented and how new guidelines may address thechallenges being faced, seven districts in four states Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, and TamilNadu were selected as case studies in 2011-12. Ineach case study, district interviews were conducted withkey informants involved in ATMA at the district andblock levels. This assessment provided a first look athow different states were implementing ATMA, andthe main challenges and constraints in linking differentagencies involved in extension in India, particularlybetween the state department of agriculture and theKVKs, and also empowering farmers to participate andcontribute to block and district level extension plansand programs.

The results from the case studies have highlightedseveral changes brought out by ATMA, although thedegree to which they were achieved in different statesvaried. These included:

There has been increased recognition of theimportance of extension services by the policy-makers at centre and state levels as evidencedthrough more funding and human resources forextension systems.

ATMA has expanded the range of extensionactivities (field technology demonstrations, farmertrainings, study tours, farm schools, exhibitions,and farmer-scientist interaction) at the district andblock levels. It has improved the extensionsystems ability to respond quickly to the demandsof different stakeholders and thereby has enhancedthe credibility of extension services. It has alsowidened the range of topics dealt with by extensionsystem beyond agriculture.


Figure 1. (a) ATMA in phase I; and (b) ATMA in phase IISource: DAC (2005; 2010)

ATMA has helped to achieve some convergenceamong different programmes being implementedby the Department of Agriculture (DOA). TheATMA funds are used for trainings and technologydemonstrations to support beneficiaries of severalnational schemes, such as the National FoodSecurity Mission, National Horticulture Mission,etc., which have funds only for distribution ofsubsidized equipments and inputs.

ATMA has helped to improve workingrelationships of the DOA with other linedepartments (animal husbandry, horticulture,fisheries, sericulture, forestry, and agriculturalengineering), KVKs, research centres of SAUs andICAR, NGOs, and private entrepreneurs involvedin agricultural development. It is partly throughregular meetings at the district and block levelsand partly through additional funding from ATMAthat help some of these departments to implementtheir extension activities.

ATMA has brought in new concepts, tools, andapproaches to extension planning such as bottom-up planning, farmer involvement in decision-making, participatory rural appraisal, public-private partnerships, commodity interest groups,and beneficiary contributions.

By implementing a series of activities includingregular staff training through establishment ofSAMETI at the state level, development of theStrategic Research and Extension Plans (SREPS),formation of Commodity Interest Groups (CIGs),and collection of beneficiary contributions, ATMAhas been recognized as a reformed system ofextension at the block and district levels. However,it is yet to establish itself as an autonomousinstitution since it is still implemented as a schemeof the central government and continues to beattached to the DOA at the state and district levels.

ATMA has created a constituency for its supportat the ground level through the mechanism offarmer advisory committee (FAC) and commodityinterest groups (CIGs) at the local level and tosome extent has expanded public sectorextensions reach to the rural communities.

In some states, some of the CIGs are becomingfarmer federations for value addition andmarketing. The registration with ATMA helps theCIGs to better access finance from the commercialbanks to set up processing facilities. ATMA is alsofacilitating the CIGs links with other knowledgeand service sources such as marketing agents andequipment manufacturers.

Fund

Flo

w

Wor

k Pl

an

Fund

Flo

w

Wor

k Pl

an

(a) (b)


However, the effectiveness of these initiativesvaries widely from state to state, from district to district,and from block to block, as ATMAs effectiveness isclosely dependent on the interest and time devoted toit by the officials of DOA and other governmentdepartments, BTT members, BTM and FAC membersas well as their perception of ATMA. Some of thefindings on the factors associated with the performanceof ATMA are discussed below.

At the district level, the ATMA is recognized as anew demand-driven and multi-agency approachto extension; but at the block levels and withfarmers, this role was not well articulated.

The performance of ATMA depends crucially onthe availability of dedicated staff at all levels.Filling staff positions and providing adequateincentives to retaining them by timely renewal ofcontracts and creating an enabling environmentfor them to unleash their full potential are alsocritical.

KVKs have begun to work closely with the ATMAat the district level, but this depends on personalinterest. Linkages between the ATMA and KVKcould still be greatly improved. Funding supportfrom ATMA to KVKs for adaptive research trialshelps in this research-extension linkage. However,there has not been much enthusiasm from theICAR or SAU scientists to pro-actively undertakeresearch on issues identified in the SREP.

The district officials of various line departments,the KVKs and farmer representatives participateat the district level management meetings. Whilethe research-extension linkage is ensured at thedistrict level, it is not so at the block level.

Funding for the ATMA has been increasing inrecent years. Apart from the actual quantum ofresources available, the actual time when the fundsare available also affects the performance ofATMA. Delays in release of funds from the centreto the states affect the implementation of SREPsand SEWPs. This is a major policy issue andaddressing this can help improve the performanceof ATMA.

A large number of schemes, involving subsidisedinputs, are implemented at the district level. Theseinclude National Horticultural Mission (NHM),

National Food Security Mission (NFSM),watershed development through ruralinfrastructure development fund (RIDF)-NABARD, initiative for nutritional securitythrough intensive millets promotion (INSIMP),and centrally sponsored scheme on microirrigation (sprinkler and drip). These schemesprovide opportunity for using ATMA for achievingspecific goals. In Maharashtra for example, theATMA funds were used to provide extensionsupport to the scheme beneficiaries. This is apositive sign of harmonization at the district level.However, most of the centrally sponsored schemeshave provision for distribution of inputs, but verylittle resources for knowledge support. This is anarea where further convergence of extension goalscould be achieved.

At the block level, the FAC provides a forum forobtaining farmers input in planning andimplementation of ATMA activities. But, farmersdecisions do not strongly influence extensionactivities, with the majority of extension activitiesbeing decided at the district level. Farmersempowerment to influence decision-making at theblock level needs more research. Also, the FACmembers tend to be the DOA contact farmers, soincreased reach for more farmers needs specialconsideration. Besides, taking farmer participationone step further to village level through theconcept of the farmer friend has not gained a firmfooting. The capacity building of farmerrepresentatives of the CIGs and farmer friendscould yield better results at the village level andblock and district level participation in ATMAmeetings.

The formation of farmer interest groups (FIGs)depicted some progress. However, maintainingand nurturing them to function as effectiveorganizations will require further investments intheir capacity building. As the farmer interestgroups mature, they need extension support onseveral aspects (training, demonstrations, marketlinkages, etc.). These groups also needhandholding support especially during the first fewyears. This is presently a major lacuna.

Despite prescriptive program guidelines from thecentre, there are strong state level differences inthe implementation of ATMA. State flexibility to


implement an appropriate reform model ofextension is an important need. For example, insome areas farmer groups may be more effectivethan farmer friend.

Research System Reforms and their Linkage toExtension Reforms

The success of extension system reforms cruciallydepends on how the research system responds to meetthe needs of extension reforms. The most importantreform measure from ICAR that relates to theimplementation of the extension reform was the issueof a set of directives jointly with the Department ofAgriculture and Cooperation (DAC-DARE, 2011;ICAR, 2011). The directives emphasize the need forresearch entities from ICAR (KVKs and researchinstitutes) and for the SAUs to contribute to the researchpriorities set by the SREPs and SEWPs as identifiedby the AMCs and ATMA Governing Boards AGBs atthe district level and approved by the IDWG at thestate level. While KVKs linkages with the SREPs areensured with the ATMA funding at the district levelfor adaptive research trials, such linkages were not clearfrom the ICAR and SAU research institutes/centres.

At the ICAR level, the zonal directors (extension)may use the inputs from SREPs to develop regional orsub-regional research agenda and foster linkagesbetween PME (priority setting, monitoring andevaluation) units in research system and extensionmachinery (KVKs and ATMAs). There is a need formonitoring the priority setting process of researchinstitutions in order to ensure that the research needsidentified by SREPs and SEWPs are seriouslyaddressed by the research programs implemented bythe ICAR and SAUs. This may be ensured through theparticipation of SAUs and ICAR institutions operatingin the state in the interdepartmental working groups(IDWGs). The increased transparency of discussionsand public sharing of the outcomes of IDWG meetingswill help in holding the SAUs and ICAR institutionsmore accountable.

Policy Implications and Strategic Priorities forExtension System Reforms

Several policy and strategic priorities emerge fromthe review of the extension and associated researchreforms and the case studies conducted in the four

states. These have been grouped under the followingbroad categories: organizational and structuralrefinements, human resource development,communications, and monitoring and evaluation.

Organizational and Structural Refinements

Moving from Decentralization to Devolution The decentralization of extension services hasbeen successful to a large extent. Yet, there is aneed to move this to further devolution byinvolving Panchayati Raj institutions to have amonitoring role in the delivery of extensionservices and holding extension functionariesaccountable to the farmers. However, little isknown about the ability of the Panchayati Rajinstitutions to play this role; pilot testing of thereporting mechanisms involving Panchayati Rajinstitutions will be needed. Further, theimplications of such arrangements for elite captureshould be understood before such a mechanismcan be scaled out.

Improving Convergence through HarmonizationThe ATMA has made some progress in theconvergence of extension services at the districtlevel. Further convergence of the extensionservices at all levels requires carefulharmonization of work plans of the RashtriyaKrishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY), national missions,and other schemes that will require support of theextension services to succeed. Allocation ofresources for extension services should be madeunder these national schemes to support the ATMAactivities. This will not only increase theoperational resources for effectively targeting theATMA activities but also will help nationalschemes to meet their objectives and make ATMAsustainable in the long-run.

Allowing Implementation Flexibility andInnovation to Reach the Unreached Furtherinnovations are needed in extension services forreaching the unreached. The formation of farmergroups and introduction of the concept of farmerfriend is a good start. However, these mechanismsas implemented currently, do not guarantee totalinclusion of smallholder, marginal, resource-poor,and women farmers. Allowing new models thatare context-, commodity-, agro-ecology-, and


market-specific to emerge based on the local needsthat engage different groups of farmers, shouldbe encouraged. Flexibility in experimentation andimplementation of the reform packages is needednot only at block and district levels, but also atthe state level.

Increasing Integration by Choosing AppropriateLead Departments Integration of linedepartments continues to face challenges at thedistrict and block levels. The choice of the leaddepartment, at least at the district level, should bebased on the agro-ecology of the district andcontribution of various commodities to the districteconomy. The choice of DOA as the leaddepartment for ATMA may not be appropriate ina district where, for example, horticulture oranimal husbandry dominates in its contributionto rural livelihoods, especially in states where theseare not under the direct control of DOA. Thisaspect requires serious policy consideration.

Increasing Accountability for Better Research-Extension Linkages Improving researchextension linkages will require transparency andaccountability that goes beyond writtendocuments. For example, research prioritiesidentified by the ATMA in consultation withfarmers and approved by IDWG at the state level,need to be reflected in the research priorities ofthe SAUs and the ICAR research institutions. Suchpriorities need follow up and the solutions fromresearch must reach the farmers. This flow ofproblems and solutions needs effective monitoringby the FACs at all levels. Transparency and sharingof such information by making them publicthrough the ATMA websites is the first steptowards accountability.

Human Resource Development

Developing a Human Resource DevelopmentStrategy Investing in personnel buildingcapacity is seriously needed at all levels to makethe extension reforms effective at different levels.It is not enough to train the extension functionariesin the new extension process. They need additionalskills to be able to generate innovation in thesystem and address the newly emerging problemswith area and context specific solutions. Theinstitutional and organizational capacities need

further strengthening at the block, district, andstate levels. There is also the need to develop thecapacity of farmers involved in the ATMAcommittees to make them effective members. Arevised human resource capacity development andmanagement strategy is also needed.

Public-Private Partnerships

Going beyond Technology Transfer Goingbeyond the current linear technology transfer modeof extension requires a pragmatic andprogrammatic approach to the delivery ofextension services. For example, development ofthe value chains will require technical expertisethat goes beyond the capacity of the currentextension functionaries. While they need to betrained for such innovations, hiring experts at thedistrict and block levels to provide such serviceswill help in the involvement of the private andNGO sectors in extension advice and delivery tosupport the farmers. A strategic approach toeffective involvement of private and NGO sectorsexpertise is needed.

Involving Private Sector through BetterPartnerships The public-private partnershipsneed further nurturing in agricultural extensionservices. The role of private dealers of inputs andthe operators of agriclinics in advising farmerscould be made more effective by improving theircapacity at the district levels. Specific coursesbefore beginning of each crop season may beneeded to equip them to meet the farmers needs.The SREPs and SWEPs should reflect these needsand the DAPs and BAPs should budget for suchtraining activities.

Communications

Developing a Communications Strategy forExtension Reforms Increasing the use of ICTin reaching the farmers through use of mobilephones, better internet connections and contextand locality-specific portals could be useful toolto support extension. The SAUs should play animportant role in converting their research resultsinto readily available information for farmers. Theuse of community radio and television stations todevelop locality-specific agriculture-relatedprogrammes could be effective in providing


knowledge and information to smallholderfarmers. However, specific strategies for effectiveuse of modern communications methods tosupport knowledge intermediaries are needed.

Financial Sustainability

Developing and Communicating a Long-termFinancing Strategy Reducing uncertainty in thefunding levels and making the states understandthe expectation of the central government will beimportant for ensuring better ownership of theextension reforms by the state governments, whichpresently see ATMA as a centrally sponsoredscheme rather than an autonomous institution.Allowing them to experiment and use resourcesinnovatively will help in increased ownership ofthe extension reforms. The scheme perceptionof extension reforms need to be removed andefforts to mainstream them with the state extensionsystem will ensure the sustainability of extensionreform measures. A long-term strategy for guidingthe financing of the reforms is needed.

Monitoring and Evaluation

Moving from Activity Monitoring to EvaluatingOutcomes for Learning and Change Monitoringand evaluation of the extension reforms shouldgo beyond activity monitoring to output, outcomeand impact. Rewarding the states with totalownership and making them innovative willrequire an effective monitoring system.Independent evaluation of the state level ATMAshould be based on choosing the evaluatorsthrough an open bidding system and the evaluatingentity must be directly accountable and paid bythe central government. A revised monitoring andevaluation strategy is needed for an effectivelearning and change process.

Finally, there is the need to understand the politicaleconomy of extension and research reforms as theyinvolve several stakeholder groups. The centre-staterelations in resource-sharing, priority-setting, andreporting-mechanisms need better transparency. Therole of DOA in making effective use of centralgovernments support through ATMA needs to bestudied further. While there has been some success inpushing forward the reform measures, removing

constraints that hinder effectiveness of the reforms isthe immediate concern.

ConclusionsThis paper has presented the current status of the

agricultural extension and associated research systemreforms in India. The reform measures need to be fullyunderstood for their organizational, structural andimplementation challenges before they could theassessed for achieving their impact on farmproductivity and other welfare measures. Using the casestudy of four Indian states, several organizationalperformance challenges related to the extensionreforms have been identified. Compering the lessonsemerging from these four case studies, has presentedseveral policy and program suggestions for improvingthe functioning and sustainability of extension reforms.

While the broad objectives of decentralization andfarmers participation have been achieved, the reformsfall short in terms of increased accountability to farmersand being fully demand-driven. Inclusiveness ofsmallholder and marginal farmers has been achievedonly partially. The group approach to extension remainsweak and needs strengthening at the block and villagelevels. While the reform measures provideopportunities to the states in terms of flexibility,adaptability, and learning and thereby leading to thesustainability of reformed system, huge gaps inorganizational and human capacity suggest the needfor long-term capacity development strategy. Themonitoring and evaluation system needs to go beyondprocess monitoring to the provision of inputs forlearning and change. Incentives for motivating andretention of human resources need further attention tostrengthen the current fragility of the system.

Effective synergies need to be established with theongoing agricultural interventions in the form ofnational missions for both sustainability and leveragingthe limited resources available for extension. This willimprove both allocative and operational efficiency ofthe extension system and the Department of Agricultureat the state level. Increasing the effectiveness of theextension system in meeting its objectives will requirereaddressing of the above policy and programmaticinterventions. Finally, the financial dependence of thestates on central government needs to be graduallyreduced to enable the states, and ultimately the farmers,to take ownership of their reformed extension systems.


ReferencesAdhiguru, P., Birthal, P.S. and Ganesh Kumar, B. (2009)

Strengthening pluralistic agricultural informationdelivery systems in India, Agricultural EconomicsResearch Review, 22: 71-79.

Aker, J.C. (2011) Dial A for agriculture: A review ofinformation and communication technologies foragricultural extension in developing countries,Agricultural Economics, 42: 6.

Ameur, C. (1994) Agricultural Extension: A Step beyondthe Next Step, World Bank Technical Paper 247, TheWorld Bank, Washington DC.

Anderson, J.R. and Feder, G. (2004) Agricultural extension:Good intentions and hard realities, The World BankResearch Observer, 19(1): 41-60.

Anderson, J.R., Feder, G. and Ganguly, S. (2006) The Riseand Fall of Training and Visit Extension: An Asian Mini-drama with an African Epilogue, The World Bank,Washington DC.

Anderson, J.R. (2007) Background Paper for the WorldDevelopment Report 2008: Agricultural AdvisoryServices, Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentDepartment, The World Bank, Washington DC.

Babu, S.C., Glendenning, C.J., Asenso-Okyere, K. andGovindarajan, S.K. (2012) Farmers Information Needsand Search Behaviours A Case Study in Tamil Nadu,India, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01165, InternationalFood Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Binswanger-Mkhizi, H. and Zhong, Y. (2012) TheRoundtable Consultation on Agricultural Extension forStrengthening Sustainable Agriculture and FarmersParticipation in Value Chains in Asia, Proceedings ofa meeting held during 15-16 March, 2012, Beijing. TheSyngenta Foundation, Basel, Switzerland.

Birner, R. and Anderson, J.R. (2007) How to MakeAgricultural Extension Demand-driven? The Case ofIndias Agricultural Policy, IFPRI Discussion Paper00729, International Food Policy Research Institute,Washington DC.

Chandrasekhar Rao, N., Srinivasan, J., Das Gupta, S.,Reardon, T., Minten, B. and Mehta, M. (2011) Agri-services in Andhra Pradesh for Inclusive Rural Growth:Baseline Survey Findings and Policy Implications.Submitted to USAID/New Delhi. International FoodPolicy Research Institute, New Delhi.

DAC (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) (2005)10th Plan Scheme - Support to State ExtensionProgrammes for Extension Reforms, Department of

Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture,Government of India, New Delhi. . Accessed July 28, 2010.

DAC (Department of Agriculture and Cooperation) (2010)Guidelines for Modified Support to State ExtensionProgrammes for Research and Extension ReformsScheme, 2010, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government ofIndia, June 2010.

DAC-DARE (2011) Convergence between Research andExtension, Department of Agriculture and Cooperationand Department of Agricultural Research andEducation. Ministry of Agriculture, Government ofIndia, New Delhi.

Desai, B., DSouza, E., Mellor, J.W., Sharma, V.P. andTamboli, P. (2011) Agricultural policy strategy,instruments and implementation: A review and the roadahead. Economic and Political Weekly, XLVI.53: 42-50.

Feder, G., Lau, L.J. and Slade, R. (1987) Does agriculturalextension pay? The training and visit system innorthwest India, American Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, 69(3): 688-686.

Glendenning, C.J., Babu, S.C. and Asenso-Okyere, K.(2010) Review of the Agricultural Extension in India,IFPRI Discussion Paper 01048, International FoodPolicy Research Institute, Washington DC.

ICAR (Indian Council for Agricultural Research) (2011)Vision 2030, New Delhi.

IIM (Indian Institute of Management) (2004) ImpactAssessment Report on the Innovations in TechnologyDissemination (ITD) Component of the NationalAgricultural Technology Project, Indian Institute ofManagement, Lucknow.

Joshi, P.K., Pal, S., Birthal, P.S. and Bantilan, M.C.S. (2005)Impact of Agricultural Research: Post Green RevolutionEvidence from India, NCAP/ICRISAT, New Delhi.

NAAS (National Academy of Agricultural Sciences) (2005)Redefining Agricultural Education and ExtensionSystem in Changed Scenario. Policy Paper 31, NationalAcademy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi.

NCF (National Commission on Farmers) (2006) ServingFarmers and Saving Farmers. Jai Kisan: Revised DraftNational Policy for Farmers, Fifth and final report,October 2006, Ministry of Agriculture, Government ofIndia, New Delhi.


NSSO (National Sample Survey Organization) (2005)Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers Access toModern Technology for Farming, 59th Round (January-December 2003), Ministry of Statistics and ProgrammeImplementation, Government of India, New Delhi.

Pal, S. (2008) Agricultural R&D policy and institutionalreforms: Learning form the experiences of India andChina, Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 145-155.

Raabe, K. (2008) Reforming the Agricultural ExtensionSystem in India. What do We Know about What WorksWhere and Why?, IFPRI Discussion Paper 00775,Washington DC.

Reardon, T., Minten, B., Mehta, M., Das Gupta, S.,Rajendran, S., Sarawygi, A. and Beohar, B. (2011a)Synthesis Agri-services in Madhya Pradesh forInclusive Rural Growth: Baseline Survey Findings andImplications, Submitted April 2011 to USAID/NewDelhi; IFPRI, New Delhi.

Reardon, T., Minten, B., Mehta, M., Das Gupta, S. andSingh, S. (2011b) Synthesis Agri-services in UttarPradesh for Inclusive Rural Growth: Baseline SurveyFindings and Implications, Submitted May 2011 toUSAID/New Delhi; IFPRI, New Delhi.

Reddy, M.N. and Swanson, B. (2006) Strategy for up-scalingthe ATMA model in India, In: Proceedings of theAssociation for International Agricultural andExtension Education, Ed: J.R. Vreyens. AIAEE 22ndAnnual Conference, Clearwater Beach, Florida, USA.

Singh, K.M. and Swanson, B. (2006) Developing Market-driven Extension System in India, Paper presented at

the 22nd annual meeting of the Association forInternational Agricultural and Extension Education,May 14, Clearwater Beach, Florida, USA.

Sontakki, B.S., Samanta, R.K. and Joshi, P.K. (2010)Redesigning Agricultural Extension in India:Challenges and Opportunities, Summary proceedingsand recommendations of NAARM-IFPRI workshopheld during 20-21 August 2010. National Academy ofAgricultural Research Management, Hyderabad,Andhra Pradesh.

Sulaiman, R. and Holt, G. (2002) Extension, Poverty andVulnerability in India, Country Study for the NeuchatelInitiative, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Swanson, B.E. (2008) Global Review of Good AgriculturalExtension and Advisory Service Practices, UnitedNations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Swanson, B. and Rajalahti, R. (2010) StrengtheningAgricultural Extension and Advisory Systems:Procedures for Assessing, Transforming, andEvaluating Extension Systems, Agricultural and RuralDevelopment, Discussion Paper 45, The World Bank,Washington DC.

WGAE (Working Group on Agricultural Extension) (2007)Recommendations of Working Group on AgriculturalExtension for Formulation of Eleventh Five-Year Plan(200712), Planning Commission, Government ofIndia, New Delhi

World Bank (2012) Agricultural Innovations Systems AnInvestment Source Book, The World Bank, WashingtonD.C. 658 p.

Documents

Agri Extensions