WNORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 87 WTP- 87

Aid and Agricultural ExtensionEvidence from the World Bank and Other Donors

Michael Baxter, Roger Slade, and John Howell

~~~~~~~ .r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS

No. 50. Turtiainen and Von Pischke, Investment and Finance in Agricultural Service Cooperatives

No. 51. Shuval and others, Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries: Health Effects andTechnical Solutions

No. 52. Armstrong-Wright, Urban Transit Systems: Guidelines for Examining Options (also inSpanish, 52S)

No. 53. Bamberger and Hewitt, Monitoring and Evaluating Urban Development Programs:A Handbook for Program Managers and Researchers (also in French, 53F)

No. 54. Bamberger and Hewitt, A Manager's Guide to "Monitoring and Evaluating UrbanDevelopment Programs: A Handbook for Program Managers and Researchers" (also inFrench, 53F; Spanish, 53S; and Chinese, 53C)

No. 55. Technica, Ltd., Techniques for Assessing Industrial Hazards: A Manual

No. 56. Silverman, Kettering, and Schmidt, Action-Planning Workshops for DevelopmentManagement: Guidelines

No. 5 7. Obeng and Wright, The Co-composting of Domestic Solid and Human Wastes

No. 58. Levitsky and Prasad, Credit Guarantee Schemes for Small and Medium Enterprises

No. 59. Sheldrick, World Nitrogen Survey

No. 60. Okun and Ernst, Community Piped Water Supply Systems in Developing Countries:A Planning Manual

No. 61. Gorse and Steeds, Desertification in the Sahelian and Sudanian Zones of West Africa

No. 62. Goodiand and Webb, The Management of Cultural Property in World Bank-AssistedProjects: Archaeological, Historical, Religious, and Natural Unique Sites

No. 63. Mould, Financial Information for Management of a Development Finance Institution:Some Guidelines

No. 64. Hillel, The Efficient Use of Water in Irrigation: Principles and Practices for Improving Irrigationin Arid and Semiarid Regions

No. 65. Hegstad and Newport, Management Contracts: Main Features and Design Issues

No. 66F. Godin, Preparation of Land Development Projects in Urban Areas (in French)

No. 67. Leach and Gowen, Household Energy Handbook: An Interim Guide and Reference Manual(also in French, 67F)

No. 68. Armstrong-Wright and Thiriez, Bus Services: Reducing Costs, Raising Standards

No. 69. Prevost, Corrosion Protection of Pipelines Conveying Water and Wastewater: Guidelines

No. 70. Falloux and Mukendi, Desertification Control and Renewable Resource Management in theSahelian and Sudanian Zones of West Africa (also in French, 70F)

No. 71. Mahmood, Reservoir Sedimentation: Impact, Extent, and Mitigation

No. 72. Jeffcoate and Saravanapavan, The Reduction and Control of Unaccounted-for Water:Working Guidelines

No. 73. Palange and Zavala, Water Pollution Control: Guidelines for Project Planning and Financing

No. 74. Hoban, Evaluating Traffic Capacity and Improvements to Road Geometry

No. 75. Noetstaller, Small-Scale Mining: A Review of the Issues

No. 76. Noetstaller, Industrial Minerals: A Technical Review

(List continues on the inside back cover)

WORLD B3ANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 87

Aid and Agricultural ExtensionEvidence from the World Bank and Other Donors

Michael Baxter, Roger Slade, and John Howell

The World BankWashington, D.C.

Copyright (© 1989The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing April 1989

Technical Papers are not formal publications of the World Bank, and are circulated to encouragediscussion and comment and to communicate the results of the Bank's work quickly to thedevelopment community; citation and the use of these papers should take account of theirprovisional character. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper areentirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, toits affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries theyrepresent. Any maps that accompany the text have been prepared solely for the convenience ofreaders; the designations and presentation of material in them do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of the World Bank, its affiliates, or its Board or member countriesconcerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area or of the authorities thereof orconcerning the delimitation of its boundaries or its national affiliation.

Because of the informality and ro present the results of research with the least possible delay,the typescript has not been prepared in accordance with the procedures appropriate to formalprinted texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors.

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portionsof it should be sent to Director, Publications Department, at the address shown in the copyrightnotice above. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally givepermission promptly and, when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without askinga fee. Permission to photocopy portions for classroom use is not required, though notification ofsuch use having been made will be appreciated.

The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index ofPublications, which contains an alphabetical title list and indexes of subjects, authors, and countriesand regions; it is of value principally to libraries and institutional purchasers. The latest edition isavailable free of charge from the Publications Sales Unit, Department F, The World Bank, 1818 HStreet, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenued'1ena, 75116 Paris, France.

Michael Baxter is chief of the Agricultural Unit in the World Bank's Field Office in New Delhi,Roger Slade is a senior economist in the India Country Department of the World Bank, and JohnHowell is director of the Overseas Development Institute in London.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Baxter, Michael W. P.Aid and agricultural extension.

(World Bank technical paper, ISSN 0253-7494 ; no 87)Bibliography: p.1. Agricultural extension work. 2. Agricultural

extension work--Economic aspects. 3. Agriculturalassistance. 4. World Bank. I. Slade, Roger,1941- . II. Howell, John, 1941-III. International Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment. IV. Title. V. Series.S544 1989 630'.7'15 89-5604ISBN 0-8213-1193-X

ABSTRACT

The paper opens with brief examinations of the process of agricultural extension,extension as a public service and the different forms of publicly provided extensionservices. A more extensive discussion of the more common ways of organising extensionemphasises the similarities and differences between, and strengths and weaknesses of,rural extension, commodity based extension and extension services founded in universitiesand those organised and managed b y Ministries of Agriculture. The World Bank is shownto have supported all types of extension. The scale of that support and the Bank's role andaims in providing it are examined at some length, drawing on the results of extensive, butsimple, statistical analysis. The achievements and objectives of other donors, particularlyUSAID and FAO, are similarly examined although the statistical evidence is lessexhaustive. Drawing on this background several important aspects of extension areidentified which require careful treatment in designing or modifying extension systems.The importance of a consistent and stable agricultural policy environment is emphasisedalong with the need for a robust yet flexible research system, capable of responding toconstantly changing farmer requiremnents, and the central need to apply proven, simple andreplicable methods of organisation and management. Further drawing on work done in theWorld Bank as well as elsewhere some of the more important economic issues indeveloping, implementing, monitoring and evaluating extension projects and performanceare reviewed. On the basis of earlier chapters the paper closes by drawing a series ofconclusions relevant to the formulation of agricultural extension policy and operations andnotes some areas where further study and analysis are needed.

- iv -

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper has benefited greatly from help, guidance, and advice from many colleaguesboth within and outside the Bank. We particularly wish to acknowledge the carefulattention to detail and long hours that characterized the work of Macdonald Benjamin andRavi Venkataraman who, working as summer interns, laboriously extracted the data for thestatistical annex from hundreds of Bank "black books" and to Ursula Alebrand, ourresearch assistant, and Macdonald Benjamin who converted these data into usable tables ata later date. We are also grateful to the Agriculture and Rural Development Department inthe World Bank for making John Howell's participation in writing this paper possible.Nevertheless, the authors alone remain responsible for all surviving errors of omission andcommission.

Table of Contents

1. THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ................................... 1

The Process of Agricultural lExtension ...................... I" ............... 2Agricultural Extension as a Public Service ............................................. 2Approaches to Agricultural E,xtension .................................................. 4Agricultural Extension in Historical Perspective ...................................... 6Public Funding and Extension ................................................ 7

2. THE ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ......................... 9

Rural Extension ................................................ 10Commodity Extension ................................................... 11University-based Extension .................... ............ 113Ministry of Agriculture Extension Services ............................................ 13Different Organisational Methods: Strengths and Weaknesses ...................... 14

3. THE WORLD BANK AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ......................... 16

The Dimensions of Bank Support for Agricultural Extension ....................... 16Trends in Bank Support for Agricultural Extension .................................. 19

4. OTHER DONORS AND AGRI'CULTURAL EXTENSION ............................ 22

Types of Support ................................................... 22IFAD and the Regional Development Banks .......................................... 24United States Agency for International Development (USAID) ..................... 25The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) ....................................... 28

5. THE DESIGN OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEMS ...................... 32

The Policy Framework ................................................... 32The Technological Base ................................................... 34The Organization of Extension ................................................ 35

6. ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ....................... 39

Bank Practice ................................................... 40Cause and Effect in Extension Project Analysis ....................................... 41Studies in the Ex-Post Evaluation of Extension ....................................... 43The Productivity Effects of Extension .................................................. 44Monitoring and Evaluation in Extension ............................................... 47Cost Recovery and the Role, of the Private Sector .................................... 49

7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 51

REFERENCES ......... ... 55

STATISTICAL ANNEX ................. 59

- vi -

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

CDC Commonwealth Development Corporation

CFDT Compagnie Francaise pour le Developpment de Textiles

FELDA Federal Land Development Authority

HYV High Yielding Variety

IDA International Development Association

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

KTDA Kenya Tea Development Authority

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

ODI Overseas Development Institute

Oxfam Oxford Committee for Famine Relief

PVO Private Voluntary Organisation

SAR Staff Appraisal Report

T&V Training and Visit

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

USAHD United States Agency for International Development

VEW Village Extension Worker

VLW Village Level Worker

CHAPTER 1

THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

The term 'extension' was first used in connection with agricultural improvementover a century ago,' and what we now call 'agricultural extension activities' pre-dates thatusage by many years. In recent years, however, there has been much interest in the role ofextension in agricultural development and in the organization and effectiveness ofagricultural extension programs in developing countries.2 Many countries have madesubstantial investments in agricultural extension and many international developmentorganizations have provided financial and technical assistance to agricultural extension indeveloping countries. These facts make it appropriate to take stock of recent experiencewith agricultural extension and to analyze its importance to developing countries. Thispaper draws extensively on the World Bank's experience with the design andimplementation of agricultural extension projects, but it also surveys other donorsexperience of, and approaches to, agricultural extension.

Taking stock of extension requires some care in determining precisely the nature ofthis recent experience in agricultural extension. Investment in extension has taken anumber of different forms and the form and purpose of agricultural extension activity variesconsiderably even within countries. The first part of this opening chapter is concerned withclarifying the nature of agricultural extension, and the different agricultural strategies,extension approaches and methods which determine the range of activities that typicallyconstitute the work of a public agricultural extension service.

In subsequent chapters we ifrst examine the main approaches to the organization ofagricultural extension. From this diversity we attempt to isolate some of the maincomponents of effective agricultural extension and identify those components that appear tooffer the greatest scope for improvement through external support. Chapter 3 examines, insome detail, the experience of the World Bank in providing assistance to extensionservices, and describes some of the operational issues which have become evident in thedesign, appraisal, monitoring and evaluation of the several different types of extensionproject with which the Bank has been associated. The experience of other major donors in

1 The first account of the origins of extension in Europe and the USA was by A.C. True, A History ofAgricultural Extension Work in the Uniled States 1785-1923. US Dept. of Agriculture, 1929.

2 See, for example, William M. Rivera and Susan 0. Schram, Agriculture Extension Worldwide, CroomHelm, London, 1987, and Gwyn E. Jones, Investing in Rural Extension. Elsevier, London and New York,1986. Both books are compendiums of recent work.

- 2-

assisting extension is then examined in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5 a summary account isgiven of the principal factors that should be taken into account in designing agriculturalextension systems. Thereafter, in Chapter 6, we examine some of the more importanteconomic aspects of extension. Finally, in Chapter 7, we draw on the evidence in thispaper and consider some of the main outstanding difficulties and opportunities for futuredonor investment in agricultural extension.

The Process of Agricultural Extension

Farmers seek and acquire useful agricultural knowledge and develop their farmmanagement skills in a large number of ways. The most common way is through farmer-to-farmer contact and this can be facilitated by government initiatives such asencouragement of farmer associations. Another important means of acquiring knowledgeis the private agricultural supply industry. In the private sector, the provision of technicaladvice can be an established activity of major companies drawing, for example, uponcontract growers. Management advice can be a component of agricultural financialservices, such as insurance. More generally, advice may simply be the guidance providedby small local traders licensed to deal, for example, in pesticides.

The emphasis upon extension as the acquisition of technical knowledge has ledmany professional extensionists to retreat from the view that extension can be usefullyconsidered separately from research and from the knowledge of farmers themselves3. Fewwould now disagree with the proposition that extension is one part of an 'agriculturalknowledge system', and it is rare to find extension projects which do not in some wayinvolve both strengthening agricultural research and measures to involve farmers intechnology development. Furthermore, if extension is seen primarily as part of a processof transferring knowledge, then the work not only of government field services but also thewide range of non-government agencies, universities and farmers associations and privatesuppliers must be considered.4

Agricultural Extension as a Public Service

Yet, however wide the ambit of the extension process, agricultural extension as aspecific publicly-provided service can be more narrowly defined. In this context, extensionrefers to the agencies of government which are explicidy concerned with the provision oftechnical advice to farmers. Of course, 'extension services', (the field services of

3 See N.G. Roling, Extension Science: Agricultural Information Systems in Agicultural Development.Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).

4 See F.A.O. Agicultural Extension: A Reference Manual. Rome, 1972 (first edition prepared by DerekBradfield) and 1984 (much revised second edition prepared by Interpaks, University of Illinois).

- 3 -

ministries of agriculture or other agencies of government) are frequently involved in whatwould strictly be termed 'non-extension' duties such as the sale of production inputs. But'extension' is a convenient and generally accepted term which describes the function ofproviding advice to farmers. It is investment in government-financed agricultural extensionservices with which this paper is largely concerned5 as it is the government itself whichprovides the most widespread and important institutional mechanism for providing adviceto farmers in developing countries.

Governments use varied ways of providing extension services and these differentapproaches reflect different objectives for extension and differences in productionenvironments. These differences in strategy and approach are discussed below, but thesealso spill over into different extension methods. As so much of the literature on extensionis concerned with methods,6 it is worth briefly reviewing the range of methods currentlydeployed.

In some countries, a relatively formal style of extension is used whereby farmersare selected for instruction at Fanner Training Centers and may then be designated (forexample, as model farmers or master farmers) to provide (or become the focal point of)local demonstrations and instruction. Another important extension method in somecountries is the use of mass media such as radio or television programs. Mobile film andvideo units linked to the establishment of local groups visited by extension agents whohave some knowledge of communications and adult education are another method.Another is the organization of farmer visits to other areas.

Yet the staple method of agricultural extension in most developing countriesremains the individual farm visit undertaken by the field staff of the Ministry ofAgriculture. And it is this direct advisory work of Ministries of Agriculture, and thesupport services which are necessary to make such work effective, that has been theprimary concern of recent World Bank involvement in agricultural extension. This, ingeneral, is a reflection of the Bank's view that there are, in many countries, large numbersof field staff whose work can be made much more efficient, potentially high pay-offs toindividualised advice in diverse farming systems and, the difficulties of using mass-mediafor extension unless linked to a strong field service.

5 Peter von Blankenburg, Ariculturid Extension Systems in Some African and Asian Countries, FAOEconomic and Social Paper 46, Rome, 1984, identifies three different structures: government service,intervention service (mainly commodity-based) and unified development service.

6 For a wide ranging overview, see Gwyn E. Jones and Maurice Rolls, Progress in Rural Extension andCommunity Development. vol. 1, John Wiley, New York, 1982.

-4 -

Approaches to Agricultural Extension

Governments adopt a number of different approaches to the organization of theirfield extension services. These often represent different policy objectives, although theymay also represent different responses to production systems. We identify four mainapproaches.7

First, are those governments, particularly in East Asia and Latin America, whoregard the dissemination of agricultural knowledge as only one part of a wider governmentinvolvement in changing rural attitudes and promoting community self-reliance. Normally,this tradition of extension is termed 'rural extension' and stresses human resourcedevelopment alongside technology development within agriculture.8 Operationally,extension may be administered separately from the work of technical agriculturaldepartments although the staffing and support structure of separate rural extensionorganizations draws upon national systems of agricultural training and research.

The differences between this approach to agricultural extension and the approachbased on Ministry of Agriculture field services are twofold. Firstly, rural extensioninvolves a wider range of functions than the provision of technical advice on cropproduction and animal husbandry. Secondly, rural extension is often specifically targetedon poorer groups to improve their incomes, welfare or possibly access to services andassets such as land or water.

Second, some Governments concentrate most of their extension effort on specificcommodities providing a relatively intensive service in order to ensure, for example, qualitycontrol, adequate supplies to processing plants or regulation of planting. In such instances,the extension service is effectively an inspectorate with a range of input supplyresponsibilites and is also responsible for such matters as ensuring that disease controlmeasures are taken.

A third approach to extension is to give the responsibility to a university-basedresearch system. This approach, modeled in part on the US Land Grant experience, seesextension as primarily a mechanism for carrying research results to farmers and linkingfarmer requirements to the research system. Scientists thus become extension workersthemselves. Additional extension agents are used to provide research station scientists witha field service and are not employed direcdy by the Ministry or Department of Agriculture.

7 See Derek Byerlee, 'Extension in Post Green Revolution Agriculture', in John Howell (ed.), AgriculturalExtension in Practice. ODI, London, (forthcoming).

8 See Maurice J. Rolls, Gwyn E. Jones and Christopher Garforth, 'The Dimensions of Rural Extension',in Jones (ed.), op. cit..

The fourth approach is one in which the Ministry of Agriculture establishes aprofessional (at least nominally) extension service whose primary purpose is to linkfarmers and research scientists in a two way transfer process. Such an approach often has,as a series of adjuncts, elements of the three other approaches noted above - ruralextension, commodity specific extension, and university research-extension. But thissystem is found more in principle than in practice as the field services of Ministries ofAgriculture - while often termed the 'extension services' - frequently cover a wider range ofactivities than simply 'extension'. Indeed, it can be argued that it is misleading tocharacterize this situation as a distinctive approach as there is a general absence of adistinctive philosophy.

In some ministries, field staff may have some non-agricultural duties such as theorganization of public works prograams or famine relief measures but such duties normallyoccur only in countries with either a relatively weak government infrastructure at locallevel, or a specific extension mandate to support measures aimed at poverty alleviation.Typically it is the 'agricultural' category of activities that provides most of the claims on anextension agent's time but few of these activities are really 'extension'. First, are thegeneral ministry duties of data collection and reporting; second, are a range of directproduction activities such as supervising school farms, seed multiplication plots andresearch trials; and third, are duties related to the provision to selected farmers of inputsprovided by the Ministry itself, such as tractor hire, veterinary services or even seed andfertilizer. In short, the provision of technical advice to farmers may be only part (andsometimes a small one) of the duties of an agricultural field service agent.

No matter what the basic approach, any extension service should be organized inresponse to local conditions such as administrative structure and tradition, agro-ecologicaland cultural factors, technology availability, and the educational levels of staff and farmers.These conditions change with time, thus requiring adjustments in the intensity andobjectives of publicly-supported extension.

Furthermore, within developing countries there are major differences in whatfarmers demand from extension. For example, there is likely to be a need for fairlyrudimentary improvements in crop husbandry and soil conservation in the drier regions ofAfrica where the use of improved inputs is low (and which makes little sense untilappropriate cultural techniques are adopted) and market opportunities are restricted. Incontrast, farmers in some of the irrigated areas of Asia are now in what could be tenned apost-green revolution era where extension should focus on upgrading technical andmanagement skills in the application of a diversity of available varieties, treatments andcropping patterns.9

9 See Robert Chambers, Setalement Schemes in Tropical Africa. R.K.P., London, 1969.

- 6-

Agricultural Extension in Historical Perspective

The experience of some developed countries with institutionalized agriculturalresearch and extension underscores the need to keep in mind the differences in the historicaland technological context of agricultural extension in developed and developing countries.Today's agricultural extension activities in Western Europe and the United States have theirorigin in general agricultural promotion and education activities that date from the earlynineteenth century. 10 These initiatives were largely privately sponsored, and included thecreation of agricultural societies. It was largely demand from farmers and theirorganizations which led to increasing government involvement in agricultural technologygeneration and transfer towards the end of the nineteenth century, usually first inagricultural research and then in extension. Thus, government departments of agriculturein the United States and Western Europe date from the latter part of that century.

Agricultural extension activities in developing countries, on the other hand, largelygrew out of the rural administration of colonial governments. Agricultural officers andtheir staff were closely bound to the work of the administrative service and much of theirwork was concerned with revenue collection and enforcing regulations on such matters assoil conservation and animal health. Where they were involved in giving advice on how toimprove agricultural production, extension activities normally focused on the introductionof new crops for export and this often entailed persuading producers to adoptrecommended practices. Extension methods were generally imperious and regulative.Training was centered on 'progressive' farmers. The establishment of settlement schemesreinforced this style.1 1

Broadly speaking, the extension systems inherited by former colonies from themid- 1960s onwards shared a number of common features. They were primarilygovernment services, subject to a high degree of central direction (especially through'production targets,') and hierarchical in structure. Generally they had poor linkages withagricultural research and there was little farmer participation in the design and content ofextension work. As a consequence, the technologies promoted by extension services oftenhad little relevance to traditional farming systems nor did they pay much attention tofarmers' access to resources.12

10 See, for example, Michael Collinson, Farm Management in Peasant Agriculture. Westview, Boulder,1983.

11 See Jon Moris, Managing Induced Rural Development. International Development Institute,Bloomington, 1981.

12 M. Ann Judd, et al, Investing in Agricultural Supply. Economic Growth Centre, Yale University,1983.

- 7 -

The difficulty of establishing an institutional structure responsive to farmerdemands was further exacerbated by post-independence developments in rural developmentadministration. 13 The agricultural field service in many countries was given a range ofadditional functions as governments increased their role in the rural economy. Thesefunctions included input supply anid credit disbursement as governments (often withexternal assistance) instigated a number of crop production programmes supported bysubsidized credit and inputs.

Public Funding and Extension

The period after 1960 also saw an increase in national expenditures on agriculturalextension in the wake of the new cereal production technologies now widely terrmed the'green revolution'. The scale of this increase is difficult to establish precisely as there aredifferences in definition of extension expenditures and a variety of budget heads againstwhich extension operations are oiften charged, but the one series of studies that hasventured in this area concludes that national investment in agricultural extension andresearch has roughly doubled in real terms since 1960.14

An important factor contributing to this upward trend in public investment inagricultural extension has been the impact attributed to extension services in a number ofcases where significant technical advances have been made (as in the adoption of improvedmnaize and wheat varieties in Mexico, the rapid expansion of fertilizer use on irrigated wheatand rice in the Punjab, and the spread of vegetative propagation methods among Kenyantea growers). Although there were always factors other than the existence of a strongextension effort, it was generally accepted that extension had been a necessary condition ofrapid agricultural development

More generally, however, the case for public investment in extension has notalways enjoyed the same degree of acceptance largely because of the intangible nature ofthe benefits of extension. Extension has an intermediary role in the generation,dissemination and adoption of technology. Thus, well-organized extension should drawfarmers' attention to technological and management developments that will improve theirfarm profitability, and it should ensure that the services that develop technology (and thosethat supply other farmer services) are aware of farmer requirements.

13 For an account of then available evidence, see James K. Boyce and Robert E. Evenson, National andInternational Agricultural Research and Extension Programs. Agricultural Development Council, NewYork, 1975.

14 Evenson has been mainly responsible for this work. See for example Robert E. Evenson, 'IARCInvestmnent, National Research and Extension Investment and Field Crop Productivity.' Yale University,New Haven, Connecticut, undated. (processed).

- 8 -

In some cases, the adoption of improved technology - such as new plant varieties -may appear to spread without the involvement of the agricultuml extension service and thus'benefits' are difficult to attribute. However, this overlooks the general educational role ofextension in facilitating adoption (and adaptation) by farmers of new technology. Even incases where extension's role is less apparent because of a lack of technology for the serviceto extend, extension has a key role in ensuring that the research system is responsive tofarmers and develops technology to meet their needs. Quantifying such benefits isnaturally very elusive and, in any event, they usually take longer to emerge than theinvestment period of most projects.

The World Bank has, however, accepted the general case for extension investmentnot least because it has recognized the probable presence of significant positive extemalities(see Chapter 6). This acceptance, however, has been accompanied by a growing interest inimproving the management and organization of extension in order to improve the costeffectiveness of public extension systems.

CHAPTlER 2

THE ORGANIZATION OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

The ways in which agricultaral extension services are organized are as diverse asthe socio-economic and administrative environments in which they operate. There is,however, widespread agreement on the main principles that should underpin extensionservices.15 Nonetheless, although there may be agreement on principles of extension therecan be disagreement on the principles of extension management (for example the degree ofsupervision) or over extension methods (for example, the use of farmer groups).16

There are four basic principles of effective agricultural extension:

1. Extension must provide agricultural knowledge and skills to farmerswhich will enable them to cope better with any difficulties they have andimprove the returns to their farm investments. For low-technologyagriculture this knowledge and skill is likely to be related to specific farmpractices and technologies., whereas for farmers already using a range ofnew technologies and impiroved inputs the emphasis is more likely to beupon improving farm management and diagnostic skills. But the generalprinciple holds that effective extension must offer agricultural advice whichis useful to farmers. 'Agricultural advice' normally covers advice on cropand livestock production, although it also includes advice on access toinputs and in some circumstances it can include advice on how farmersmight organize collectively to advance their farm interests.

2. Extension staff must understand the production systems withinwhich they are offering advice, the farm businesses or householdeconomies with which they are dealing, and the scientific basis of theknowledge they are advancing. Their training and methods of work mustbe organized to ensure that they can perform this enabling role both forfarmers and for farmer sernices, including research.

3. Extension must be supported by a research system which producesproperly tested and fully appropriate new practices and varieties whichextension agents can recommend to farmers. The nature of the researchsystem and its relationship to extension staff can vary from one basedheavily on research station-based technology transfer to one that relies most

15 For a further account of 'fundamentals', see A.T. Mosher, An Introduction to AEricultural Extension.Agricultural Development Council, New York, 1978.

16 See John Howell, 'Making Agricultural Extension Effective', in Howell (ed.)., op.cit..

- 10-

heavily on on-farm trials, but the principle of an effective research baseremains.

4. Extension work may involve a range of methods but frequent visitsto individual farms are particularly important. This direct personal contactpart of extension work is essential to ensure that extension staff themselvesfully appreciate the possibilities and constraints of the farm community inwhich they work and that advice is adapted to specific farm contexts. Thereis clearly enormous scope for enhancing extension and farmers' educationmore generally through mass communication technologies but as acomponent of effective extension, direct individual contact is irreplaceable.

Making these principles operational needs a clear sense of purpose and amanageable set of tasks (principle 1); a properly trained work-force (principle 2); asupportive research base (principle 3); and methods of work which encourage direct contactwith farmers and relay their demands to other agricultural services (principle 4). But, thereis often a large gap between what is expected of extension and what, in practice, prevails inmany agricultural ministries and agencies employing large numbers of extensionists. And,such gaps in performance are not necessarily related to the particular extension approachemployed - as the following sections indicate.

Following the categorization suggested in Chapter 1, we now examine in turn ruralextension, commodity-specific extension, university-based extension, and Ministry ofAgriculture field service extension.

Rural Extension

A common extension approach in many developing countries, at least untilrelatively recently, has been one based on the multi-purpose extension agent. This isprimarily associated with the community development approach to rural development whichwas particularly well developed in India as a means of providing government supportacross a range of activities. Village-level workers were directed particularly to assist poorerrural groups: those generally disadvantaged in their access to land and other resources.17

Animation rurale as promoted in some Francophone countries has much in common withcommunity development, with its aim of generally elevating rural living standards.18 Theterm 'rural extension' is employed for this form of extension as it gives administrativeexpression to the notion that advice on increasing agricultural output should not be divorcedfrom improvements in public health, adult education, community organized labour forpublic works or off-farm employment and so on. Similarly, within the narrower field of

17 See Guy Hunter and Anthony F. Bottrall (eds.), Serving the Small Farmer: Policy Choices in IndianAgriculture. Croom Helm, London, 1974.

18 On the approach generally, see contributions in Bruce R. Crouch and Shankariah Chamala (eds.),Extension Education and RuMa Development. 2 Vols., John Wiley, New York, 1981.

- 11 -

agricultural production, the emphasiis is upon addressing multiple constraints so that theadministration of input supply and credit in particular become the direct responsibility ofextension workers.

In most cases, the rural extension approach requires the extension agent to beresponsible for the village-based programs of several, often most, government departmentswith rural service programs and thus the technical supervision of some of the agent's workis likely to come from officers outside the agricultural sector. As a rule, the technicalcontent of agricultural extension under a rural extension system is modest althoughsometimes a mechanism for obtaining expertise elsewhere is built in. For example, in theanimation rurale approach, the role of the multi- function village level animateurs is toencourage farmers to make use of the representatives of specialized extension services,which are thus one step removed from the village.

The multi-function extension approach (multi-function in the sense of handlingeither services in addition to agriculture or services related to agricultural production inaddition to extension) has advantages, especially where rural welfare services are poorlydeveloped and there is little reliable private provision of agricultural services. The systemoffers governments a relatively lowv-cost and flexible administrative instrument and, inagricultural terms, there are benefits from having an extension agent whose acceptability inthe community is enhanced by performing useful non-agricultural roles.

Yet there are also limitations to the rural extension approach. Above all, there isgenerally a low and irregular level of technical (agricultural) direction given to extensionagents, who often work in the poorest, most challenging and resource constrainedenvironments, yet are expected to develop recommendations appropriate to such farmingsystems.19 This lack of direction can normally be attributed to the range of tasks expectedof the extension agent and the (lifficulty of incorporating agents with such broadresponsibilities into the work of the research departments and specialized services of theagriculture ministries.

Commodity Extension

Commodity-based extension approaches are generally based on the technical,administrative and commercial requirements of a specific crop. In most cases, extension isdirected by a commodity authority which manages all activities from research and extensionthrough to input (including credit) supply, and product marketing and processing. Indeveloping countries, such authorities are generally confined to export crops, though they

19 Geoffrey Lamb and Linda Muller, _Cgtrol. Accountability and Incentives in a Successful DevelopmentInstitution: The Kenya Tea Development Authority. World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 550,Washington D.C., 1982.

- 12-

may also be found in domestically oriented activities such as dairy production. Well-known commodity-based extension systems include the FELDA rubber schemes inMalaysia, the CFDT cotton companies in West Africa, the Kenya Tea DevelopmentAuthority, and the dairy cooperatives of India. There are also commodity-based extensionsystems operating in the private sector such as those run by the British American TobaccoCompany in Kenya.20 In both the private and public sectors the customary pattem is forcrop authorities to operate on a commercial basis whereby the cost of providing extensionand other services is recovered by a management charge or crop cess at the point of sale.This cost-recovery mechanism is largely assured by the monopsony powers of theauthority or the company.

Most commodity-based field services are successful in attaining their objective ofproducing and marketing a commodity effectively and efficiently. Field operations arefacilitated by integration of the various elements of technology transfer, a usually limitedgeographic scale of operation, and the specific technical and managerial requirements ofthe crop concerned. Another potential strength of commodity-based extension is thedegree to which growers can hold extension agents responsible for the services theyprovide. In KTDA for example, grower committees and individual growers have asubstantial influence over the way the Authority manages its day-to-day operations.21

Yet this is not the general rule. Most commodity-based extension systems aredesigned in part to ensure quality control and, in some cases, sufficient throughput for theefficient utilization of processing factories. As a consequence, extension tends to beauthoritarian in character and limited to the technology of a single crop even where farmershave a spread of crop and animal production activities on which their livelihoodsdepend.22 Furthermore, in these circumstances commodity-based extension tends tocontribute to a fragmented series of farmer support services. This is not necessarilyagainst the interests of farmers but it is frequently the case that the staffing and otherresource requirements of an efficient commodity approach can detract from the generalextension service for crops and regions where the commodity is not produced.

20 For an account of BAT, see Jon Moris, Extension Alternatives in Tropical African Development. ODI,London, (forthcoming).

21 Guy Mahdavi 'A Commodity-Driven Approach: the Experience of the Compagnie Francaise pour leDeveloppment de Textiles', in Nigel Roberts (ed.)., Agricultural Extension in Africa. The World Bank,Washington DC., (forthcoming).

22 See H. C. Saunders, (ed.)., The Cooperative Extension Service, Prentice Hall, New York, 1986.

- 13-

University-based Extension

In the United States, where U niversity-based extension originated, it took the formof a cooperative extension service based on Land Grant colleges. Under this system,extension staff are employed by the university, and the service is normally funded under acooperative arrangement between federal, state and local agencies. One important aspect ofthis approach is the close link between the research, extension and training functions;another is the general educational function of extension including, community developmentand youth work. The approach is a product of US agricultural cooperative history datingfrom the establishment of the land grant universities in 1862 which effectively distancedextension services from direct government control.

These special circumstances have limited the adoption elsewhere of university-based extension on the US pattern, particularly the cooperative aspects. Nonetheless,agricultural universities have been promoted by USAID in Latin America and there is someevidence of long-term success in improving the effectiveness of the links between researchand extension. In India, there has been a partial adoption of university-based extension.There, staff of the agricultural universities do not hold joint extension/researchappointments, as in the US model, and field extension operations remain the responsibilityof State Departments of Agriculture. Nevertheless, research is generally sensitive toextension possibilities because of its strong university focus.

While components of the :Land Grant model have been established in variouscountries, nowhere has the model been fully adopted. Moreover, key elements in theevolution of the US extension system were not 'exported'; there has been much less farmerdemand for extension (and research) in most countries compared to the historicalexperience of the United States. Thus extension clients have played a weaker role inextension program design; mass mnedia support for field extension operations has beenlacking; technical specialist expertise has been generally deficient; and the close linksbetween state extension operations and those of cooperatives and private firms hasgenerally been absent

Ministry of Agriculture Extension Services

The bulk of agricultural extension work in developing countries is undertaken byMinistries of Agriculture. Unlike the commodity approach, the Ministry approach isdesigned to meet the needs of all farmers throughout the country whatever their productionsystem, and this role is particularly strong where there is an absence of private sectorinvolvement in agricultural inputs and advice or where farmer associations are weak.

Strictly speaking it is inaccurate to describe the wide range of Ministry field servicesas a distinctive extension 'approach' because, unlike the other three approaches described

- 14-

above, there is an absence of a recognizable strategy. However, there are now a number ofcountries which have adopted measures to reorganize their field services based on 'Trainingand Visit' (T&V) principles and, taking these countries together, it is possible todistinguish an extension approach which differs from the rural extension, universityextension, and commodity extension approaches. The basic principles of this approach arethat the extension service should deal only with agriculture (in the sense of including allproductive activities carried out on a farm); that staff at each level should have monitorabletasks and responsibilities; that farmers deal mainly with one field level agriculturalextension agent; that there are effective two way links between extension and agriculturalresearch; and that the capabilities of extension staff should be constantly upgraded.23

The management principles of training and visit extension can be applied to otherextension approaches and most commodity-based systems stress such features as workscheduling, regular visiting and staff training. However, T&V extension is distinguishablein so far as it has been adopted by Ministries of Agriculture who have used the method toimprove the work of large numbers of often poorly-trained staff working with farmers invery diverse production systems.

Different Organisational Methods: Strengths and Weaknesses

Most countries simultaneously support a mix of extension approaches and thispartly reflects diverse farmer requirements and agricultural policy objectives. Large andheterogeneous countries such as India or Brazil, for example, maintain some diversity intheir approaches to extension. Nonetheless, there is some utility in examining the relativeperformance of different approaches, as they must all be judged against the generalprinciples of effective agricultural extension described earlier.

The commodity-based approach is normally the most purposeful in conveyingknowledge as there are relatively strong pressures from both farmers and the industry itselfto ensure that extension advice is practical. This approach also normally has a strongresearch base and endeavours to maintain the calibre of its staff through training. Itsweakness lies in the lack of concern with the production of crops other than the definingcommodity and, as a consequence, there is a lack of understanding of farm-levelconstraints and opportunities which often results in pressures on farmers to misallocateland or labor resources.

The rural extension approach often suffers from having too many functions. Thiscontributes to a lack of clear purpose and tends to reduce the relevance and usefulness of

23 See Benor, Daniel, J.Q. Harrison and M. Baxter, Agricultural Extension: The Training and VisitSvstu, The World Bank, Washington D.C. 1984, and Daniel Benor and Micheal Baxter, Training andVisit Extension, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1984.

- 15-

the agricultural advice it offers. T he responsiveness to village-level demand in suchextension can be strong but this asset is often undermined by the poor level of technicalunderstanding of field staff and weak links to research.

The university-based approach is generally stronger on research than extension andfanner contact. There is nothing intrinsically non-consultative about such an approachalthough in practice outside the USA it tends to be dominated by an emphasis uponresearch station-based technology transfer.

Ministry of Agriculture extension using T&V methods is similarly prone to atransfer of technology bias which reduces the scope for consultative extension and mayweaken its responsiveness to farmers. On other counts, however, T&V extension withinMinistries has the merits of simplifEying field tasks, of making provision for regular staffinstruction and of reinforcing research inputs into extension work.

CHAPT'ER 3

THE WORLD BANK AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

From modest beginnings in the late 1960s, the World Bank has become asignificant supporter of agricultural extension in developing countries. Key features ofthis involvement in extension are presented in this chapter. The first part of the chapterdescribes the scope of Bank extension support in terms of both project investments andnon-project activities. The second part identifies some major trends in this support.

The Dimensions of Bank Support for Agricultural Extension

Between 1965 and 1986, the World Bank funded 460 projects in 79 countries thatsupported agricultural extension mainly for crop production.24 The extension componentsof these projects were estimated at appraisal25 to cost $4,027 million, of which $1,807million was covered by Bank loans (Tables 1 and 2).26 During the same period, inaddition to these projects the Bank supported extension components in 25 livestock, 12forestry and 3 fisheries projects; the cost of the extension components in these projectswas $66.4 million (Table 3). On June 30, 1986, there were 244 projects with crop focusedagricultural extension components underway in 70 countries: their cost, at appraisal, was$2,904 million, of which $1,260 million was covered by Bank loans (Table 4).

Bank support for agricultural extension should, however, be seen in the context ofall its lending for agricultural and rural development (Table 5). For example, between1965 and 1986 slightly more than 40% of the 1,146 Bank supported agricultural and ruraldevelopment projects included some funding for extension but the share of extension intotal agricultural and rural development lending was only about 4.5%. Clearly, althoughwidespread, the financing of extension constitutes a minor part of Bank lending foragriculture.

24 See the 'Note on Data' in the Statistical Annex.

25 Appraisal is that stage in the 'project cycle' when the Bank determines whether a project sufficientlysatisfies the technical and economic criteria necessary to justify a loan. Hence, the costs of a project atappraisal are estimated costs. In general, actual total project costs do not vary greatly but the actual costs ofindividual components of projects may differ substantially from appraisal estimates.

26 The term 'Bank' includes IDA and all cost figures are in current US$ unless otherwise noted. Tables 1and 2 and all other tables cited below are to be found in the Statistical Annex.

- 17 -

There are significant regional and country variations in the Bank's lending foragricultural extension (Tables 1,2,4, and 5). Although Western Africa has had the greatestnumber of projects with extension activities, Bank investment for agrcultural extension hasbeen greatest in the Latin America aLnd Caribbean and South Asia Regions; together theyaccount for 52% of all Bank lending for extension. Not only has investment in extensionbeen skewed to particular Regions, but agricultural extension lending has been dominatedby a relatively small number of borrowers. The ten countries (Table 14) with the largestBank involvement in extension account for nearly 70% of Bank extension funds, and 34%of Bank extension projects. These countries are: Brazil ($328M of Bank investment inextension), India ($279M), Nigeria ($138M), Mexico ($133M), Indonesia ($94M), Turkey($76M), Thailand ($65M), Bangladesh ($57M), Philippines ($50M) and Malaysia ($30M).

Like agriculture and rural development projects, the number of projects supportingextension has increased with time (Table 6). From an annual average of 10 new projectswith extension components in the period 1970-74 (out of 39 agricultural and ruraldevelopment projects), there were more than 35 a year during the following decade (out ofan annual average of 75 for agriculture and rural development). For the two years 1985and 1986 the number of new extension projects averaged 24 per year, compared to 67agriculture and rural development projects.

Extension projects suppoited by the Bank incorporate a variety of extensionmethodologies. Following the classification in Chapter 2, two are identifiable as discretemethods: commodity specific and training and visit extension. In some projects, a'modified T&V' method is used, the modification being either implicit or explicit.27 Avariety of other extension methods have been utilized in Bank-supported projects, but noneis as readily identifiable as these ltwo methods, and many in fact are not comprehensivesystems. Some 99 Bank projects hiave supported agricultural extension without specifyingin appraisal documents or working papers the extension methodology to be used.

Bank lending for different extension methods is summarized in Tables 7 through10. Of the 361 projects for which an extension method is specified, commodityapproaches are used in 15%, T&V in 23%, modified T&V in 15% and 'other methods' in47%. In terms of the cost of these extension components, 48.4% of Bank extension fundshave gone to 'other methods,' 31.7% to T&V, 13.4% to modified T&V and 6.5% tocommodity systems. These figures suggest that introducing the T&V method is relativelymore expensive than other methods.

As indicated in Table 8, ithe number of projects initiated with T&V or modifiedT&V extension methods is greatest in the 1975-79 and 1980-84 quinquennia. In both these

27 We have classified projects as 'modified T&V' where the method is so identified in the Staff AppraisalReport (though rarely are precise details of the modification given) or where the method is not specificallymentioned but the extension system as described follows some key features of the T&V approach.

- 18-

periods, however, more projects used 'other methods' or an unspecified method than usedT&V methods. Commodity-based extension systems have not been as common in Bankprojects started in the 1980s as in earlier years.

Agricultural extension projects have been supported by the Bank in 79 of its 93borrowing member countries. Training and visit or modified T&V extension methods werebeing implemented in 38 of the 70 countries that had an active extension project as of June30, 1986, and commodity specific approaches in 15. Including those projects that werecompleted before June 30, 1986, the Bank has supported commodity specific approachesin 26 countries, T&V in 30, modified T&V in 29 and T&V and modified T&V together in45 countries.Extension has generally been supported by the Bank as a relatively smallcomponent of an agricultural project (Table 1 1). In 60% of 'extension projects' extensionhas accounted for less than 10% of total project costs. On average, these projects hadextension components that cost $4.3 million. These components accounted for 26% of allBank funds that have been allocated to extension. In contrast, the 13 projects that have had90% or more of total costs allocated to extension accounted for almost one-third (31%) ofBank investment in extension but only 4% of extension projects.

The World Bank's involvement in agricultural extension goes beyond thepreparation and implementation oversight of the individual projects that comprise theextension portfolio. This further involvement has taken two main forms: conferencesdesigned to raise borrowers' awareness of extension issues and publications on aspects ofextension methodology and evaluation. The Bank has supported, with co-sponsors, fourinternational conferences on agricultural extension. These were at Chiangmai, Thailand(1982, on T&V extension); Denpasar, Indonesia (1984, on research-extension linkages);Eldoret, Kenya (1984, on extension methodology); and Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire(1985, on extension methodology). Proceedings of the first two have been published bythe Bank.2 8 The Bank has also published several technical papers on extension includingthe seminal Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System (1977).29

There has been, however, relatively little analysis during the course of either projectpreparation or sector work that focuses on extension. Aside from postfacto examinationsof project performance by the Bank's Operations Evaluation Department,3 0 internalanalysis has been largely confined to surveys of extension strategies in India, Zambia and

28 Michael Cernea, John Coulter and John Russell (eds.), Agricultural Extension by Training and visit.The Asian Experience. 1983, and Research-Farner-Extension: A Two-way Continuum for AgriculturalDevelQment. 1985.

29 Daniel Benor and James Q. Harrison, 1977; revised and reissued under the same title by Benor, Harrisonand Baxter, 1984. See also D. Benor and M. Baxter, Training and Visit Extension, op. cit..

30 Operations Evaluation Department, Agricultural Research and Extension: An Evaluation of the WorldBank's Experince. The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1985.

- 19-

Mexico. As the number of projects without an identifiable extension methodologysuggests, the attention given to extension even during project preparation can be modest.In general, there has been little systematic evaluation by the Bank of extension operationseven in countries with major Bank investments in extension. A notable exception is theresearch study on the impact of extension in northwestern India undertaken jointly by theBank and researchers in India (see Chapter VI).

Despite its substantial support of agricultural extension via lending operations andother means, the World Bank has no official policy on agricultural extension apart,perhaps, from insistence that an extension system should be in place if the potential benefitsof agricultural projects are to be attained. There is not, for example, an agriculturalextension policy paper, as there is f:or agricultural research, forestry, rural credit and otheragricultural sub-sectors. The absence of a comprehensive policy and a standard approachto extension investments no doubt contributes to the variety of extension projects supportedby the Bank and to the differences in levels of input into, and quality of, project preparationand supervision. In some projects, extension principles, objectives and methodologies arespelled out in detail, and Bank staff give considerable attention to reviewing these aspectsof project implementation. It is nolt unusual for there to be significant changes in extensionmethodology or project scope during project implementation: in some respects this reflectsthe importance of flexibility in implementing extension projects, but also, it often derivesfrom the lack of attention paid to extension during project preparation, particularly when theinvestment in extension is a small part of total project costs.

Trends in Bank Support for Agricultural Extension

A number of distinct trends in Bank support for agricultural extension can bediscerned from the experience of the past two decades. One is the increasing level ofsupport for extension: from an annual average of less than six new projects incorporatingagricultural extension during 1965-1974 to more than 33 annually over the followingtwelve years. Some evidence of this build-up was given in the preceding section andfurther details are to be found in the statistical annex. It is enough to note here that whilethere may not have been an explicit Bank extension policy, there has been sufficientconsensus on the need to eliminate the chronic inefficiencies present in many extensionservices, Ministries of Agriculture and agricultural research institutions, to contribute to asteady expansion of support for extension. This has allowed the Bank to learncontinuously and to improve its ability to appraise interventions and to be innovative.

Another trend has been the change in the nature of the Bank's support forextension. Extension in early projects was usually a component of commoditydevelopment or region-specific agricultural or integrated rural development projects. Inmany cases these extension investments were not linked, in design or implementation, tonational agricultural extension policies or strategies; often there were parallel agricultural

- 20 -

research components with overlapping objectives and design. More recently, however, ithas become common to integrate support for extension into the national research andextension frameworks and to support extension development on a national scale. Wheresub-national components are supported, there is now recognition that extensionorganizations or methodologies should not be changed if the changes cannot be replicatednationally for financial or administrative reasons.

Another change in the Bank's support for extension has been the increase in thenumber of projects introducing the training and visit extension method. Since the mid-1970s when this method was first articulated, the Bank has supported 84 projects with thisapproach and another 54 that use it in a modified form.

A significant concomitant of the Bank's growing interest in agricultural extensionmethodology and systems is an increased awareness of the need for a sound administrativeand technical basis for extension. The principle that an extension system must beadministratively sustainable and technologically innovative seems better understood.Interest in the administrative structures supporting extension has also focused moreattention on the capital and recurrent costs of extension. There has been an increasingacceptance of the need for agricultural extension project preparation to include detailedassessment of technological constraints to farming and the availability and development oftechnology. This, in turn, has led to more careful assessment of the costs involved andtheir justification.

Another trend in Bank support for agricultural extension has been the growingacknowledgement that such support is part of a broader process of institutional andeducational development. Extension projects with which the Bank has been involved haveincreasingly recognized the links between research, education and agricultural extension.Similarly, more attention is now paid to ways of improving the planning andimplementation activities of the agricultural administrations within which extension servicesoperate.

Lastly, Bank involvement in agricultural extension now tends to take a long-ternview. This derives from the recognition that meaningful institutional development isusually a slow process. The usual five-year project period is often to short to completeextension improvements because of the time normally taken to institute the reformsassociated with establishing an effective extension system and the need to allow time for thesystem itself to evolve. Recognition of the long time it takes to build up effective extensionservices has led to longer project investment periods, follow-on projects and extension'sector' programmes. There have also been changes in the way extension projects aresupported during implementation. For example, intensive field-based support teams havebeen established in the New Delhi, Nairobi and Abidjan World Bank Resident Missions,each staffed in part by experienced local officers. These teams assist local administrations

- 21 -

implement extension projects ancd, in some cases, projects concerned with relatedagricultural support services.

CHAPTER 4

OTHER DONORS AND AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

There is no satisfactory method of providing useful comparative data on levels andforms of donor investment in agricultural extension. There is no standard definition ofexpenditure on extension and, in any event, few donors isolate extension as a discrete itemof investment. Some comparisons are made later in the chapter but they relate largely toestimates of expenditure on extension gathered from a small number of donors and acceptspending on such items as 'technology transfer' as a proxy for extension.

Types of Support

A wide range of international agencies are involved in agricultural extension, andthey are involved in a variety of ways. In spending terms, the main form of support isfinancial aid, on grant or concessionary loan terms, for agricultural projects which containextension components. These often support the development of a particular technologicalpackage (as in the case of British aid to the Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation inNortheastern India) or production system (as in the multi-donor Gezira RehabilitationProject in the Sudan).

It is rare for donors, other than the World Bank and USAID (see below), to beinvolved in substantial projects with extension as the primary component. Like researchprojects with an extension component, donor-assisted 'extension projects' tend to bemodest in size and in most cases targeted on parts of the extension service rather than itsoverall operation. For example, UK aid for extension in East and Central Africa has beenlargely for the establishment of extension communication aids (e.g., the AgriculturalInformation Centre in Kenya and the Extension Aids Branch in Malawi). German andCanadian aid for extension in developing countries has often been concentrated on buildingFarmer Training Centres, encouraging demonstration farms and training 'progressive'farmers.

Particular technical services within extension have also been subject to donorsupport. For example, several bilateral donors have collaborated with FAO in extensionprojects in East Africa to promote disease and pest control measures (for East Coast Feverand Armyworm, particularly). Another example is USAID assistance for farm-levelproduction and storage of improved seed for local distribution in the hill farming areas ofNepal.

- 23 -

In most of these extension projects, technical assistance as well as financial aid hasbeen provided. Manpower aid for extension provided by bilateral donors tends toconcentrate upon specialist technical or training inputs rather than the supply of extensionsupervisors or managers. The major exceptions are the various commodity schemes forAfrican export crops (see below) where some expatriate management continues. In the pastUSAID provided extension management in its Latin American programmes. The mostcommon form of technical assistance in extension is in training. The UK, Holland andUSA provide awards for extension training in their own countries, as they each haveinternationally-recognized extension training and research centers. Such training is forextension managers and trainers rather than extension agents, although the UK andHolland, among others, also providle some in-country extension training directed at staffwith field-level responsibilities.

Apart from official aid agencies, local and external non-governmental agencies(private voluntary organisations: PVOs) are also involved in extension. There are a numberof large PVOs which operate like official donors and play an important role in extensionwork. For example, the Aga Kharn Foundation's Rural Support Programme in NorthernPakistan has effectively substituted for the government's own extension service in theremoter districts. In Zaire, much of the agricultural extension effort is externally financedand implemented through PVOs. In general, however, PVOs narrowly target theirinterventions which are almost always supplementary to the main govemment extensioneffort.

International (as opposed to indigenous) PVOs are normally engaged in financinglocal initiatives of a community development nature rather than agricultural extension in thetechnical sense; but there are instances where PVOs (such as Oxfam) provide staff forextension work. Such direct intervention tends to occur in areas of relative governmentneglect. Forestry and soil conservation extension in the drier parts of Kenya and BurkinaFaso, and livestock extension in the Sudan, for example, have a substantial internationalPVO involvement.

Another important category of donor investment in agricultural extension is wheregovernment funds are provided for overseas commercial investment (not necessarily onconcessional terms and thus not official development assistance) by publicly-ownedcompanies or corporations. The UK's Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC)and France's Compagnie Francaise pour le Developpement des Fibres Textiles (CFDT) arecases where investment in smallholder export crop production has been made conditional -in effect, on the establishment of commodity extension systems which integrate technicaladvice with input supply and regulation functions at the field level.31 There are 'aid'

31 Guy Mahdavi, "A Commodity Driven Approach: the Experience of the Compagnie Francaise pour leDeveloppment de Textiles", in Roberts (ed.)., op cit..

- 24-

elements in such investments, including the provision of technical assistance and, in Africaat least, it would be accurate to categorize the main British and French impact on extensionas commodity-specific.

Considering this range of external aid for agricultural extension as a whole, anumber of points emerge. First, the forms of extension which receive support, and themechanisms of support, are often different in character even within particular countries.Second, it is very difficult to isolate 'extension' as a discrete component in most projects,and donors do not normally attempt to do this. There have been very few attempts toformally evaluate extension projects (exceptions include the Indo-German and Indo-BritishFertilizer Projects mentioned above which attribute higher levels of fertilizer use in north-eastern India to enhanced extension coverage).32 Similarly, projects (or parts of projects)aimed at improving training have rarely been evaluated: donors do not think it helpful toisolate 'extension' training aid from wider training support to Ministries of Agriculture toassist in the development of the technical capabilities needed to support a field extensionservice. Third, the issue of 'donor co-ordination' within extension does not appear to be ascontentious an issue to governments as it sometimes is in other areas of agricultural aid.Governments appear to accept a varied pattern of extension assistance involving the privateand voluntary sectors as well as the public sector. They also seem to allow some degree oflocal experimentation often based upon externally-assisted training and research projectswithin their own extension schemes.

In the rest of this chapter we examine available evidence on flows of externalfinancial resources for extension investment from multilateral donors other than the theWorld Bank. We then consider the record of the largest bilateral donor for agriculturalextension - USAID - which is also the donor with the most explicit set of policies towardsextension. Finally, we examine the resources and objectives of FAO which is probably themajor single source of technical assistance for extension projects and which maintains thelargest extension advisory establishment of any donor or international development agency.

IFAD and the Regional Development Banks33

The emphasis within IFAD's mandate upon services to small farmers has meant thatthe bulk of its project loans include some extension or extension-related component. Up toSeptember 1986, the IFAD Executive Board had approved 188 projects; of these, 150 hadcomponents of agricultural extension, research or farmer training, or combinations of twoor more of these activities. These 150 projects entailed loans of $1,740M out of $2,149M

32 National Council of Applied Economic Research., Impt of Indo-German Fertilizer Education Project,New Delhi, 1979.

33 IFAD: The International Fund for Agricultural Development.

- 25 -

in total loans approved by IFAD. Figures on commitments to agricultural extension withinthe projects are not available. As Table 4.1 indicates, Africa is particularly important in theIFAD portfolio of extension lending.. The size of individual [FAD project investments forextension, research and training ranges from $7,000 in Dominica to $203M in Turkey.IFAD's data on the number of intended beneficiaries in its extension projects shows arange from 425 in Djibouti and 1,000 in the Gambia to 1.2M and 1.7M in Turkey andKenya respectively. IFAD extension, research or training projects are usually financed inconjunction with other donors. Only about 25% of such projects is financed exclusively byIFAD.

Table 4.1 IFAD Projects Approved to September 1986

Number of Projects

Latin Near East/Africa ,4sia America North Africa Total

AR projects 67 50 37 34 188

Projects withextension 57 37 27 29 150components

[FAD has not taken a position in favour of any particular extension system ormethodology. Provided that the FLnd's basic target of serving smaller farmers is met, anysystem is supported.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Inter-American Development Bank(IDB) treat agricultural extension in dissimilar ways. ADB does not give explicit attentionto extension and is not active in lending for agricultural extension. It believes that theWorld Bank is adequately handling the subject in Asia and so does not see a need to makeadditional investments.

IDB, on the other hand, provides funds for extension although it does not makeextensive professional inputs into country strategy, or project design and evaluation.Between 1980 and 1986, IDB funds were used in 65 'integrated agricultural' projects thatinvolved some agricultural extension. Five were primarily extension projects with totalproject cost averaging about $30M.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

Of the development agencies involved with agricultural extension in developingcountries, USAID has probably given the most thought to the objectives and strategy of its

- 26-

involvement. This introspection and the agency's long period of involvement withextension in a wide range of countries, make the USAID experience particularly relevant tothis review.

Through its predecessor the International Co-operation Administration, USAIDbecame involved in extension support in the early 1950s. One of its early activities was toplace extension agents from the United States in developing countries where they workedas local extension agents. While sometimes successful, this approach generally revealedthat US agricultural technology was not directly transferable and showed that to be effectiveextension agents require a close familiarity with the local culture and community and astrong institutional base. In response to these lessons, USAID altered its strategy andbegan to support the formation of ministries of agriculture and national extension systems.To this end, from the early 1960s attention turned toward promoting the US Land Grantmodel of agricultural extension, research and education.

The Land Grant focus lasted into the 1970s but its limited impact (see Chapter 2)and criticism of USAID's support of national extension systems34 resulted in the early1970s in a shift of USAID attention towards the support of extension within area-basedintegrated agricultural development projects. At the same time, extension support (often inconjunction with agricultural research) was also directed to commodity-specific projects.In these projects, extension' activities were normally set up parallel to the national extensionsystem for a single commodity or group of related commodities. As with area-basedprojects, these commodity projects were successful in the short-term due to the increasedresources and attention they provided but little survived their eventual reamalgamation intonational programmes.

Over the last decade, USAID involvement with agricultural extension has beencharacterized by an increased questioning of the priority to be accorded to strengtheningextension delivery systems compared to developing farmer-relevant technology. USAIDevaluation studies have also raised questions concerning the adequacy of farm policy andrural infrastructure. These findings stimulated discussion of the merits of strengtheningextension and adaptive research programmes along the lines of farming systems research -which, expanded to farming systems research/extension, was seen by some as a substitutefor extension. Adaptive research and extension projects based on a farming systems modelare now a major component of USAID support to extension.

USAID has a much more explicit extension policy than other donors, and it has alsoissued detailed guidelines to its field offices. In 1985 a circular on extension noted that the

34 E.B.Rice, Extension in the Andes: An Evaluation of Official US Assistance to Agricultural ExtensionServices in Central and South America. USAID, Washington D.C., 1971.

- 27 -

results of the Agency's efforts in technology transfer had been disappointing35. Thecircular implied that this was attributable to a dependence on approaches that tended to relyon extensive cadres and a hierarchy cf public sector extension personnel. Another was that'a simple transfer of the U.S. public sector extension model, or other developed countrymodel, has serious limitations in many developing country situations.' To supplement andimprove the work of public sector extension operations, USAID proposed a strategy todevelop private sector extension, to intensify the use of mass media communications, andto selectively increase the effectiveness of public sector extension. This was to be done bytaking some or all of the following steps.

(a) Relieving extension agents of non-production responsibilities (e.g.,credit administration, marketing, tax collection and regulatory enforcement).

(b) Strengthening training, technical backup and mobility of extensionworkers;

(c) Focusing research and extension more sharply on improvedtechnologies for priority crops and animals;

(d) Increasing interaction between extension workers and researchers,including joint participation in on-farm research and demonstration andfeedback to research (this is often accomplished under the aegis of farmingsystems research projects);

(e) Supporting farmer training programmes (including literacy,numeracy, basic science and farm management training) and vocationalagriculture programmes;

(f) Closely coordinating public sector extension with mass mediaapproaches and private sector activities;

(g) Improving attention to the needs of low-resource farmers andwomen by increasing the number of female extension agents and developingappropriate techniques to reach these farrners; and

(h) Development of mcore rigorous planning and setting of objectivesand methodology for the public extension service.

The circular concludes by saying that 'The net effect of implementing these reformscould well be a smaller (emphasis) but better qualified (emphasis) public sector extensionservice.'

Despite these shifts in focus, there has been much consistency in USAID's interestin extension. It has, for example, been continually concerned with increasing the outputand incomes of small farmers. It has tried to avoid building up large central extension

35 USAID, -AID Support for Agricultural Extension " (unclassified), Department of State, WashingtonD.C., 1985.

- 28 -

organizations that would have little impact on production. USAID has also consistentlyemphasized the pitfalls in a bureaucratic, top-down approach to extension, the need forclose links between research and extension, and the need to tailor support to localconditions. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, the scale of USAID support forextension has decreased. This is partly in response to the general difficulty of assessingextension impact, but it is also a response to the increasing involvement of the World Bankin supporting national agricultural extension systems.

USAID initiated 1,065 projects between 1975 and 1984 which involved agriculturalextension, though in only 266 of these was agricultural extension a major component.These 266 projects accounted for about $50M p.a. or 7% of the Agriculture, RuralDevelopment and Nutrition budget between 1980 and 1985. However, the share going toagricultural extension is impossible to determine.36 These projects were largelyimplemented in single countries and 64% were with national government organizations. Afurther 14% were with PVOs. Over half of the projects involved technical training ofextension staff and farmers, and a quarter contained technology demonstrations atuniversities and institutes. Sixty-five of the 266 projects incorporated what USAID hastermed 'innovative' approaches, primarily involving improved research/extensioninteraction (including farming systems research). There have also been women farmers'programmes, and extension through private companies has been supported in a few cases.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)

The impact of FAO on agricultural extension has been primarily through itstechnical assistance programme rather than direct financial support. This programme isfmanced in two ways.

The 'Regular Programme' activities of FAO in extension are planned and organizedby FAO Headquarters and Regional Office staff. They concentrate on providing technicaladvisory assistance to member countries, formulating project proposals, developingpublications and training materials, and conducting workshops and consultations onextension. A number of technical guides have been produced for extension staff andtrainers. There are twelve headquarters-based staff responsible for agricultural educationand extension and training (in FAO's Agricultural Education and Extension Service), andfour in the regional offices; other headquarters divisions are also involved in training andcommunications support related to extension activities. The latter formulated 34 projects(total cost $43.8M) in 1986 that mainly provided technical assistance.37

36 In comparison, the World Bank supported 356 agricultural extension projects between 1975 and 1984,with an average annual commitment of new funds for extension of $135.4M.

37 This and subsequent information on FAO has been drawn from "Notes on FAO's Involvement andExperience in Agricultural Extension", Agricultural Education and Extension Service, Human Resources,Institutions and Agrarian Reform Division, FAO, March 1987 (processed).

- 29 -

The largest part of FAO direct support for agricultural extension comes through itsField Programme. Extra-budgetary funds (from the UNDP and country Trust Funds inparticular) finance the programme for agricultural extension which is reported for severalyears in Table 4.2. As that Table shows, 1092 (44%) of the 2,506 FAO field projects in1986 had an extension and/or training component. FAO also provides limited funds forfield projects through its Technical Cooperation Programme. This funding does not exceed$0.4M per project and is confined to selected, small-scale extension and/or traininginitiatives.

Table 4.2: FAO Extension Field Projects, 1981-86

FAO Field ProjectsFAO Field Projects with 25% of Costs

Going to ExtensionExtension With With TotalExperts & Total Extension Training Project Extension

Year Consultants Projects Component Component Budget BudgetNo. No. No. (%) No. (%) $M $M (%)

1986 178 2,506 171 (6.8) 921 (36.8) 143.9 57.9 (40.3)1985 163 2,604 167 (6.4) 810 (31.1) 146.4 57.4 (39.2)1984 159 2,534 138 (5.4) 801 (31.6) 140.8 54.6 (38.8)1983 138 2,450 135 (5.5) 796 (32.5) 136.0 51.5 (37.8)1982 122 2,429 131 (5.4) n.a. .. 84.3 36.7 (43.5)1981 144 n.a. 126 *- n.a. .. 75.1 32.9 (43.8)

Agricultural extension as defined by FAO is a 'service or system which assists farmpeople, through educational processes or procedures, to improve farm methods andtechniques, increase production efficiency and income, and improve the quality of life bylifting the social and economic standards of rural populations.' Thus, has FAO given ahigh priority to promoting a comprehensive, educational co.icept of extension. Thisemphasis on a broad-based approach to extension also reflects the particular long- termconcerns of FAO in land and tenancy reform and rural development generally which werereiterated at the 1979 World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.

Within its broad extension mandate, three specific aspects are currently stressed byFAO. The first is that extension should include problem identification and analysis oftechnology adoption constraints rather than simply disseminate technology or train farmers.The second is institution-building designed to improve the formal and non-formal educationof trainers (mainly extension stafiF) and farmers. The third aspect is the links betweenagricultural research and extension. Given these concerns, FAO's emphasis on the inter-

- 30-

relations between agricultural education and training, extension and research isunderstandable.

FAO also emphasizes its catalytic role in extension support, especially in terms ofits ability to train trainers. In 1984 its 801 field projects with an extension or trainingcomponent provided training for 65,000 participants at the professional, technical,vocational and producer levels. Between 1979 and 1984, at least 350,000 people weretrained by FAO field projects. Beyond training, FAO feels it can best serve membercountries by strengthening their national capabilities in extension planning, manpowerdevelopment and programme design. Thus, assistance is aimed at establishing national andunified agricultural extension systems, often with an extension programme planning unit(responsible for planning, coordinating and monitoring extension activities, and for trainingstaff in these fields) as an integral and vital component of the system. FAO believes that itsextension and training staff and consultants should always work with national counterparts- supported by formal training opportunities - in order to develop a trained, nationalextension cadre. Another feature of FAO extension policy is that national extensionsystems should deliberately seek to work with smaller and 'harder-to-reach' farmers.There is also a strong emphasis upon working with women and youth.

In terms of the extension methods it supports, FAO is catholic. It has providedtechnical assistance to 82 countries and has supported a range of extension approaches,which it categorizes as T&V, commodity-specific, animation rurale, Land Grant/university,participatory, general agricultural advisory, area development, cooperative (cost-sharing)and audio-visual communication orientation. FAO's position on the promotion ofparticular extension methods 'is flexible and as a technical agency of the UN prefers topresent alternative extension approaches to member countries and assist them in adapting achosen approach and set of methodologies to the specific local conditions and capabilitiesof each country.' FAO does, however, believe that 'the participatory extension approach'has the greatest potential in reaching large numbers of male and female farmers, and favorsthe 'cooperative funding' of extension with central, regional and local participation.

In reviewing its experience with agricultural extension, FAO has identified ninerequirements for sound and effective extension. They can be summarized as follows.

(i) Policy Commitment. A strong and specific policy is required providinga clear direction to, and authority for, the establishment and operation ofagricultural extension and training activities as an integral part ofinstitutionalized agricultural development programmes.

(ii) Adeguate Infrastructure. There should be adequate logistical andmanagement support for extension staff, who should also have clear andrealistic work programmes and supervision.

- 31 -

(iii) Appropriate Extension Approaches. The extension approach usedshould be responsive to local country and client needs, and may be acombination of approaches.

(iv) Extension Programme and Messaae Relevance. Extension pro-grammes and messages must be relevant to the problems and needs offarmers. Functional and operational links between research, extension andfarmers are needed for this end, as is attention to farming systems research-related practices.

(v) Media Support for Exte nsion. Multi-media extension methods shouldbe an integral part of the extension programme.

(vi) Appropriate Extension and Training Materials. These are required byfield staff and trainers.

(vii) Trained Agricultural Personnel. Formal and informal trainingprogrammes are needed to upgrade the quality of extension staff.

(viii) Strategies for Reaching Women Farmers. Specific extension andtraining programmes are needed for women farmers, even where they arecovered by extension programunes more generally.

(ix) Evaluation for Extension Programme Improvement. Changes infarmers' knowledge, attitudes and practices as a result of extension shouldbe measured and the results utilized for programme planning.

As regards its future work, FAO has a number of new priorities. One is thestrengthening of national extension services by increasing the attention given to assistingeducational institutes to provide pre-service extension training, and to improving themanagement, monitoring and supervision of extension programmes. The development ofextension methods that take advantage of progress in communications technology isanother area of priority, and one that FAO believes closely fits its brief as a technicalassistance agency. Finally, FAO hopes to give priority to improving its own ability to actas an informnation clearing house on extension approaches and methodologies and toincreasing coordination among international agencies involved with agricultural extensionin developing countries.

CHAPTER 5

THE DESIGN OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEMS

The preceding two chapters describe the evolution and nature of World Banksupport for extension and the approaches of other agencies that support agriculturalextension. Although there are differences in approach, there are also similarities; togetherthey suggest a number of important issues that require careful reflection during the planningof investments in extension.

The Policy Framework38

In developing effective research and extension systems, a basic concern is thenational policy framework in which they operate. Policy should indicate nationalagricultural development priorities; outline the organizational structures necessary toimplement these priorities and the corresponding institutional linkages; and the extent andnature of the commitment to encouraging farmers to act in a manner supportive of nationalpolicy. An important issue in national agricultural development policy is the priority givento agricultural research and extension. The need to support research, particularly basic andapplied research, is usually not disputed. However, the case for agricultural extension isnot always so easily made. Reasons for this include a belief that researchers areresponsible for disseminating their results or, more commonly, that applicable, usefulresearch results will be disseminated independently of institutional support because of theirinnate attractiveness to farmers. This notion also reflects the difficulty of effectivelyorganizing and managing an extension system and attributing to extension an impact onproduction (see Chapter 6), as well as confusion over different approaches to extension.Coupled with limited resource availability, these factors help explain why the role ofextension in agricultural development is not usually made explicit in national agriculturalpolicy statements.

National agricultural development policy should indicate the contribution ofresearch and extension to agricultural development and to a country's particular agriculturaldevelopment strategy, and should show how the two activities are interrelated inimplementation and institutional arrangements. It is not for national policy statements todetail the modes of extension or research, but basic parameters should be established. For

38 This section draws extensively on M. Baxter and W. Thalwitz, in Cemea, Coulter and Russell (eds.).,1985., op.cit..

- 33 -

extension, these might include its professional and technical orientation, basic workresponsibilities and management principles, criteria by which its effectiveness should bemonitored, ways in which extension contributes to national policy formulation andimplementation, and the basic institutional arrangements linking it with other developmentalservices, such as agricultural research.

Even where a comprehensive policy for agricultural research and extension exists,its translation from the national level to the field is not easy. Not only are there manyinstitutions and levels of administration, but farmers frequently have priorities differentfrom those of national governments. Moreover, in contrast to policy at the national level,research and extension activities become increasingly locally oriented as they move into thefield, particularly in their response to farmers' production conditions and needs. Indeed, anational policy is likely to be only as successful as the degree to which it coincides with theinterests of (and incentives received by) farmers. A national policy is unlikely to findacceptance with producers unless t]here are appropriate economic incentives for them tofollow it. For example, without adequate prices for their crops farmers are unlikely tosupport a national policy of self-sufficiency in food production. Although policy makersmust take a longer and broader view of priorities than farmers, national policy cannot beoblivious to farming conditions and farmers' practices and priorities; ways must bedeveloped to take account of them - including the use of farmer-oriented research andextension services.

Just as national policy on agricultural development should be supported by realisticincentives to farmers, so should adequate resources be deployed for its implementation.The absolute level of resource allocation is significant, but so also are the timing ofinvestments (expenditure) and regional priorities. Investment in extension rarely has animmediate, directly attributable impact, a factor that can lead to frequent changes inorganization and strategies and to uncertain financial support. To tailor and adapt anextension system to a specific set oif environmental, economic, or administrative conditionsoften requires many years. Consistent long-term policy and financial support is animperative.

These considerations highlight the need for any investment in extension to beframed in the light of particular national agricultural policy and economic circumstances.Although seemingly obvious, this injunction is all too often ignored. Systems of extensionare introduced without adequate attention being given to the policy and resourceenvironment with the consequence that adequate commitment remains elusive. Equallyserious, however, is the unquestioning acceptance of a given policy environment. This canlead to extension services being created or expanded and becoming desirably efficient andprofessional yet left to operate in a policy environment which meets few of the conditionsnoted above. The reform and development of extension brings with it an obligation notonly to address the technical issues of good extension practice and organization but also aresponsibility to address complementary policy and institutional issues.

- 34 -

The Technological Base

The World Bank's experience with extension shows that effective extension musthave a solid technological basis. The basic functions of agricultural extension are to advisefarmers on how to increase their production and income and, to advise those who operateother agricultural support services how to improve the support they offer farmers. To dothis, extension agents must offer advice on crops and activities that are relevant to farmers.If such information is not readily available, there is little justification for significantexpenditures on extension. This does not mean, however, that there should be extensiononly where a significant stock of technology is available. There is sufficient variation infarming practices and standards in most farming communities for extension to work evenwhen significant 'improved' technology is not available. Moreover, in such situations,extension has a major responsibility to ensure that research services, as well as otheragricultural services, remain aware of farmers' problems and work towards relevantsolutions. Just as extension cannot operate for long without strong agricultural research,neither can farmer-related research survive for long without extension.

While the need for a technological base for extension might seem a truism, it ismore frequently than not poorly handled in the design of extension systems. It is oftenassumed that there is a backlog of 'messages' that most farmers do not know (or that theydo not understand them); that the adoption of information is relatively simple and largelycost-free; and that an extension service is required to simply diffuse messages. There israrely a detailed analysis of current farmer practices (particularly analyses specific todifferent resource conditions) and of the suitability of messages. Where such analyseshave been done, it has been shown that few 'messages' of immediate relevance to farmersare available. As much as other organizations, the Bank's experience with extension ismarked by projects that have had limited success because of a poor technological base, forexample, the Sine Saloum Project in Senegal and the Thaba Bosiu Rural DevelopmentProject in Lesotho.

Often this is less the result of poor applied research in areas such as plant breedingand more a result of what Byerlee calls the poverty of adaptive research.39 The latter isnormally considered to be the final stage (before farm level demonstrations) of the researchcontinuum - aiming to take the fruits of applied research and evolve good or better ways ofmanaging new or changed technologies at the farm level. Adaptive research, partly becauseresponsibility for it is often diffused, is frequently poorly managed and is generally theweakest, most neglected and most confused aspect of national research systems.40 Theconsequence is that extension is required to disseminate information that is often irrelevant

39 See Derek Byerlee in John Howell (ed.)., forthcoming, op. cit..

40 World Bank, AgdcultuW Research, Sector Policy Paper, World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1981.

- 35 -

(e.g., in Nigeria during the 1970s) or uneconomic, excessively packaged (that is, farmersare encouraged to adopt a complete 'package' of interrelated technologies even thoughfarmers rarely adopt changes in this way)41 or is insufficiently adapted to localcircumstances. This last point is a weakness commonly found in India.

These weaknesses are a main factor behind the development of farming systemsresearch and the growing recognition that farmers themselves are also a good source ofinvention and problem solving. However, as yet research systems have not been modifiedto create the localized structures in which farming systems research can flourish. Whilethis is now a growing focus of World Bank efforts, progress has been and is likely to beslow.

Plans and projects for extension, must explicitly recognize these problems andavoid over-ambitious expectations. This done, attention can turn to the matter of theappropriate organizational form of extension.

The Organization of Extension

The World Bank's involvement with agricultural extension, like that of otherorganizations, suggests that there is no one extension system suited to all conditions.Rather there is a standard set of procedures that should be used to determine the type ofextension service for a particular location. There are two main steps to be undertaken tothis end, in each of which there must be a high level of participation by staff of the existingextension service and department of agriculture. The first step is to understand the currentsystem of extension (since there are few places without one) and the local administrative,cultural and agricultural conditions since they have an important bearing on the objectivesand implementation of extension operations. Rural settlement patterns and culturaldynamics (whether, for example, there are traditional groups that may be utilized for farrnertraining and information diffusion), the range and seasonality of agricultural activity, thedistribution of factors of production, the orientation and effectiveness of agriculturalresearch and other agricultural services, the availability of useful technical messages forfarmers, the numbers and skills oi staff available for extension, as well as government andfarmers' financial resources, can all have significant impact on the design of an effectiveextension organization. If such factors are properly taken into account, extension activitiesare likely to be consistent with the technical and operational realities of the countries inwhich they take place.

Once the organizational structure has been settled, the design of an extension projectshould turn to objectives and operating principles. Here, extension's role relative to otheragricultural services should be established and its basic orientation determined. From theseobjectives, relevant principles of extension organization and operation should be

41 See Bruce R. Crouch and Shankariah Chamela (eds.)., 1981., op. cit..

- 36-

elaborated. For example, the basic principles of an effective technology - based extensionservice normally suggest that extension staff of all levels should have relevant, feasible andmonitorable work programs and, in particular, the work programs of field staff should beknown to farmers. Their work should be focused almost entirely on informationdissemination and improved understanding of farm practices and problems in theirterritory. Furthermore, the product of extension is knowledge and its focus should be aconcern for the way in which agricultural services can enhance farmers' understanding ofnew and relevant ideas. Thus, extension staff should receive frequent and regular training,be supported by technical specialists, and be in frequent two-way contact with agriculturalresearch and other farmer services. Finally, as extension's client is the farmer, extensionactivities should take place primarily at the farmers' place of work and should cover allaspects of a farmer's production activities. Farm visits should be the chief extensionmethod, supplemented where possible by other means of communication.

Once the technical and organizational aspects of extension operations have beendetermined and the objectives and principles of extension established, the design of anextension system is relatively straightforward. Ignoring the basic principles of extensionoperations can, however, be perilous. For example, an extension service burdened withthe responsibility for input distribution and sales, general data collection or regulatoryprograms, clearly has limited time to devote to its two-way knowledge transfer andeducation function. Similarly, an extension service that rarely meets farmers or operates toa schedule or with a purpose unknown to farmers has little chance of understanding whatfarmers really need from agricultural services, and so cannot usefully advise farmers, letalone advise other services on how to improve their support to farmers. It was mainly thisconcern with objectives and organizational principles that led the World Bank to advocatethe training and visit method for organizing and managing extension. As noted elsewherein this paper, the T&V method is an approach in which basic principles of management areapplied to agricultural extension. Thus, the methods of extension used by a "T&V system"(none of which are new or unique to T&V) are not as important as the way in which theyare managed.

The T&V method focusses on management because management is often the leastsatisfactory aspect of an agricultural extension system. The simplicity of the managementprinciples embodied in T&V are appealing but widely assumed to be rigid and inflexible.This is incorrect. Although the basic principles of T&V have remained essentiallyunchanged, there have been numerous changes in its method of operation. For example, insome countries (e.g., Turkey, Nepal), T&V was first applied using paid farmers as thefinal stage in formal technology diffusion - they were paid to teach other farmers what theyhad learned. This system proved to be unworkable even in the short-term. Moreover,where appropriate technology is available, this practice has been found to be unnecessarysince extension workers in regular contact with many farmers are able to ensure thewidespread dissemination of extension's recommendations.

- 37 -

Experience has also shown the importance of frequent working sessions involvingboth agricultural research and extension staff in order to discuss farmers' technicalrequirements and to develop suitable extension messages. In the early years of T&V suchmeetings were biannual or seasonal but this proved to be too infrequent to ensure thatproductive pressure was maintained on both the research and extension services; a monthlyinterval has proven the most effectiive. Another change in T&V has been the emphasisgiven to contact farmers as the link between the extension worker and farmers at large. Inthat an extension worker cannot, and need not anyway, have direct contact with all farmers,some system must be developed to ensure that he does meet farmers representing the mainlocal economic and production conditions in a regular and monitorable fashion. Incommunities with strong individualistic traditions, individuals may be used; where there isa tradition of group activity, formal or informal farmers groups may be a more appropriatecontact medium. Another way in which T&V operations have evolved is the increasingattention given to the training of staff and to developing the role of mass media tocomplement field extension activities.

The Bank's experience with T&V extension methods highlights a number of designissues requiring careful attention. One is the need to isolate in extension project design andimplementation the principles of extension operation from the means by which theprinciples are implemented. For example, a principle of T&V is that farmers should knowthe extension worker responsible to them and his work program. Whether extensionagents' visits are weekly or to some other schedule is not as important as the fact that theytake place in accordance with a regular schedule appropriate to the farming conditions of thearea and which is known to all iarmers. Similarly, farmer:extension agent ratios inthemselves are not immutable - they should represent a balance between the needs offarmers, communications, staff availability (including cost considerations), and thepossibility of mass media complementing extension field activities; clearly, they shouldchange with time to reflect changes in these considerations.

A second difficult design issue is the establishment of the two- way function ofextension. On the one hand, this means that farmers must be actively involved in thedesign of agricultural extension activities and that their preferences must be a majorconsideration in designing the topics to be covered by extension. On the other hand, itmeans that extension must take an active stance in advising all agricultural services offarmers' conditions and needs, and in helping these services design programs that will meetthose needs. This role is increasingly recognized in relation to agricultural research, butextension should also work with services such as input suppliers (including banks andirrigation systems) and marketing organizations to help improve their responsiveness tofarmers. Through its provision of regular staff training and work review sessions, T&Vattempts to create a venue where such contact can take place on a regular, sustained basis.

A third issue for design is to accept that strengthening extension on any scale andespecially on the scale often implied by T&V entails significant institutional reform and

- 38 -

manpower development. The World Bank's experience with T&V has shown that this canbe costly. Hence the Bank now focuses considerable attention on the resource implicationsof extension development at an early stage in the design process.

From the foregoing it follows that the design of effective systems of extension isnot simply a narrow matter of ensuring a simple one way flow of technology to farmers. Itis much more than that. In essence it requires first that there be a clear articulation ofnational agricultural policy from which the basic strategy of extension and its relationship toagricultural research can be deduced. Once this has been done a formal commitment bygovernment to efficient extension must follow and, with that, will come the requisiteresources. These resources must then be deployed and managed in a manner whichensures that extension not only delivers in a systematic and monitorable way the fruits ofresearch to farmers but also, by accurately reflecting farmers concerns and difficulties,helps to ensure the relevance of new agricultural research. That the resulting system maybe expensive (need extensive resources - both human and material) is obvious but this is oflittle account if the return to such expenditures is, as it should be, substantially greater thanthe cost.

CHAPT ER 6

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

This chapter first considers rnethods of economic analysis and their utility in bothextension project appraisal and evaluation studies of the productivity effects of agriculturalextension. It then discusses the role of monitoring and evaluation work in extensionprojects. Finally, the chapter briefly discusses the separate issue of cost recovery and thetransfer of the costs of extension to private sector alternatives.

The World Bank's concern with the economics of extension began, in effect, withthe advent of projects that were devoted exclusively or almost so to extension development.Hitherto, because extension was merely a component in larger and usually wider-rangingprojects (e.g., rural development) the economics of extension were ignored or the costs andbenefits were subsumed within the calculations of rates of return for the larger project.

The basic economic issue can be put very simply, but hypothetically. If in acountry without an extension service of any kind a decision is to be made on whether sucha service is worthwhile it would be necessary to first identify the full cost of establishingsuch a service and then to identify (estimate) the benefits that are expected to result. Oncethese two streams of costs and benefits have been defined using the conventional rubric ofbenefit-cost analysis4 2 it is a simple matter to calculate, for some accounting rate of interest(opportunity cost of capital), the economic or internal rate of return. In principle this wouldallow decision-makers to assess the utility (value to society) of the investment and,comparing it with alternatives (other projects), make a judgement as to whether it isworthwhile.

Such a situation is never found in practice. All countries with a significantagricultural sector have an extension service; and most extension projects as defined andfinanced by the World Bank involve modifications (usually additions) to existing publicly-financed services. Hence, the basic issue in practice involves clearly defining the realchoices at appraisal. If (as is typically the case) the only decision to be made is whether to

42 No attempt is made here to define this term further, to examine the underlying economic theory or todescribe the derivation of the efficiency prices used in such analyses. For such information the reader isreferred to J. Price Gittinger, Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore,1982, for the simplest exposition and to Ian Little and James Mirlees, Proiect Appraisal and Planning forDeveloping Countries, Basic Books, New York, 1984, Edward J. Mishan, Cost Benefit Analysis, Allen andUnwin, London, 1975, or Lyn Squire and Herman G. van der Tak, Economic Analysis of Projects. JohnsHopkins, Baltimore, 1975, for more comrplex explanations.

- 40 -

approve or deny an expansion, reorganization or intensification of an existing extensionorganization, then the concept of benefits must refer to the additions (with time) to the netvalue of farm output over and above those expected in the absence of the project. Therelevant costs are those required to bring about the reorganization or intensification (i.e.,incremental costs). To the extent that the project calls for government employees notpresently involved in extension, to be reassigned to extension work, the cost of theseemployees should be attributed to the project.

Thus, the primary concern is the estimation of incremental costs and benefits. Onlyin the very unlikely situation (owing to bureaucratic rigidities) of a government consideringthe abolition of its existing structure would it be necessary for a cost-benefit analysis to takeinto account both the costs of the existing extension system and the incremental costs andthe benefits due to that system plus those from the proposed project.43

Bank Practice

The essentially conventional approaches outline above are not often followed inpractice. Among recent pure extension projects, most (thirteen of seventeen) do notcalculate a rate of return in this way. Five do not calculate one at all. Why is this so?

The answer is that although costs can be readily identified, calculating benefitspresents a serious problem. Some projects simply regard the benefits as being toointangible to permit reasonable and realistic quantification while others (the majority) argueas follows:

"Economic Benefits. Attributing a precise level of benefits to thistype of project is difficult since it is not possible to determine whatproportion of benefits are due to extension alone and what are due toadditional purchased inputs and other factors. In practice, it is thecombination of a number of factors, with extension playing the role ofcatalyst, that brings desired benefits. It is also difficult to estimateacceptance rates of recommended practices. However, since the projectrelies primarily on reorganization and strengthening of an existing extensionstructure the incremental cost is low per hectare and per farm family.Hence, even very small and slow production increases in the project areawould generate a high rate of return. This project would be able to generatea 50% rate of return if, by 1988, yields of foodgrains (which cover 75% ofcropped land area) increase by only 1.3%. Per hectare yields of paddy andmillets would have to increase by 65 kg/ha and 22 kg/ha, respectively."(World Bank Staff Appraisal Report, Tamil Nadu (India) Extension Project.March 1981).

43 In this situation it is theoretically possible for the incremental project to be viable but the overallbenefits to extension to be insufficient to justify the overall costs. If so, the 'first best' solution would beto discontinue all extension activities, while the 'second best' solution, if scrapping extension altogether isnot feasible, would be to approve the incremental project.

- 41 -

Such arguments amount to an appeal to plausibility and, by taking a minimalistapproach, suggest that extension may have modest effects. Their main weakness,however, is that they fail to fully think through the chain of cause and effect as it operatesin extension and hence find a practical method for estimating the benefits or show morestrongly than they do why positive and sufficient economic benefits are plausible.44

Cause and Effect in Extension Project Analysis

Ex-post, in contrast to the ex-ante situation of an appraisal, demonstrating thatextension has a positive effect on output requires that a clear cause and effect relationshipbe demonstrated. The following five conditions must be satisfied. First, it must be shownthat the extension service is well organized, adequately staffed, mobile and properlytrained. Second, that the extension agents reach the majority of farmers. Third, thatfarmers learn of innovations from contact with extension agents and that farmersunderstand these innovations and find them useful.4 5 Fourth, the cause and effectrelationship requires that farmers apply the knowledge they have acquired. And, fifth, as aresult, output must be demonstrably higher. It is in establishing these last two steps thatsevere identification problems arise owing to the presence of many other variables whichadd to, or subtract from, output.

It is not possible to establish such cause and effect relations ex-ante, of course, butthe argument still holds. By aclequately providing human and other resources thepossibility of delivering information is reasonably assured. At appraisal, it must then beassumed that knowledge is effectively transferred and freely disseminated. Next, however,explicit attention should be given to estimating realistic trajectories for the incrementaladoption profiles. That is, the rate that improved husbandry practices are likely to be takenup.46 Such a process makes transparent the thinking underlying any attempt to attributeproduction increases ex-ante. The latter, however, may still not be possible owing to thereasons outlined above. Even giving explicit attention to adoption profiles is complex andprecise quantification difficult. Consider the following.

44 In this process more general problems of the correct efficiency prices to use in profect appraisal mayarise, as well as the way in which benefits are distributed between consumers and producers. Theseproblems, however, are not uniquely fouind in extension projects and are extensively discussed in the moregeneral texts on agricultural project analysis.

45 Up to this point the chain of cause and effect is uncomplicated by large numbers of exogenousinfluences, except the presence of other knowledge disseminating media.

46 This necessarily requires a rigorous examination of the existing and foreseeable technologies that arelikely to suit the present farming system. The World Bank SAR for The Zimambwe Extension andResearch Project provides an example of where this was done.

- 42 -

When there are only one or two major crops and very few elements in thetechnology to be diffused, (i) the relation between adoption and increases in output, and (ii)the calculation of the incremental adoption profiles which might justify the project, mayboth be discernable and feasible. But when there are several crops and many technologicalelements (not all of which need to be adopted simultaneously), the calculations becomeintractable. In a project financed by the World Bank in Haryana, India, for example,wheat, rice, sugarcane, cotton, pearl millet, sorghum and pulses are all major crops. Thetechnical package for each one of these includes more than a dozen recommendations, someof which are composite recommendations involving more than one element. For most ofthe crops some of the recommendations were known to at least some farmers before theproject through the pre-project extension system. Moreover, some diffusion wouldprobably have taken place even if the extension system had not been intensified.

In such a case it is not feasible to estimate incremental adoption profiles for eachpractice for each crop. Nor would it be possible to relate them to production increases inthe absence of a detailed production function specifying the relevant interactions. Hence,unless the crop - technology situation is very simple, the estimation of incremental adoptionprofiles and hence production increases is infeasible.4 7 Therefore, an appraisal shouldcontain a detailed discussion of the technology which extension is expected to promote, aswell as an indication of the technologies currently under development and likely to beavailable for diffusion in the short and medium run. The incremental output increases formajor crops which would be sufficient for project justification can then be specified and anassessment made of the feasibility of realizing such gains considering the available andexpected technology.

However, a target minimum incremental adoption profile can be specified only if amajor component of a technology package for a major crop can be isolated. Of course, theamount of guesswork involved in defining the "without project" diffusion path could bereduced if experience in similar regions elsewhere has been documented. But this is almostnever so. In any case, the importance of such a "minimum incremental adoption profile"should not be over-emphasized, since it ignores possible gains due to other components ofthe technology. In many cases, the adoption of more than one element of the technologymay need to be speeded up sufficiently to justify the investment, but the calculations toshow this may not be tractable.

If, then, these problems are, to a large degree, intractable ex-ante are they less soex-post? Experience of evaluating extension both within and outside the Bank in the 1970ssuggests that they are.

47 Nevertheless, some indication of the effects of adoption on farm production and profitability can bederived from farm budget analysis, or better still, linear programming models, for representative farms.

- 43 -

Studies in the Ex-Post Evaluation of Extension

Extension is heavily concerned with the adoption of technology on which there is avoluminous literature. From a survey of this literature48 it is possible to conclude thatstudies dealing with the evaluation of extension are a distinct sub-set. Many of thesestudies, also extensive, have recently been summarized.49 Those who have attempted toevaluate extension have done so from a variety of perspectives with mixed results. Some,usually aggregative studies50, recognizing the dependence of extension on agriculturalresearch, combine the two and have shown a positive relationship between them andagricultural productivity. Other studies have concentrated on estimating the effects ofextension by comparing farmers who have contact with extension agents with those whodo not.51 These evaluations underestimate the effects by not taking into account the way inwhich information, once acquired by one farmer, can be passed on to others.

Other studies have concentrated on assessing extension performance by measuringthe extent of farmer-extension agent interactions.52 Other studies have examined the extentto which extension agents visits to farmers are biased in favor of the rich and influential.53

Some evaluators see the internal efficiency of the extension system as the crucial parameterand study farmer to agent ratios and ithe quality and motivation of extension agents,54 or the

48 Gershon Feder, Richard E. Just and David Zilberman, Adoption of Agricultural Innovation inDeveloping Countries: A Survey, Staff Working Paper No. 542, The World Bank, Washington D.C.,1982.

49 Francois Orivel, 'The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Review of the Literature' in Hilary Perraton,D. Jamison, J. Jenkins, F. Orivel and L. Wolff (eds.)., Basic Education and Agricultural Extension, StaffWorking Paper No. 564, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1983.

50 See for example, Robert E. Evenson and D. Jha, 'The Contribution of the Agricultural ResearchSystem to Agricultural Production in India', Indian Joumal of Anricultural Economics. Vol. 28, No. 4,1973.

51 For example, B.R. Harker, 'The Contribution of Schooling to Agriculture and Modernization: AnEmpirical Analysis', in P. Foster and RJ. Sheffield (eds.)., Education and Rural Development, Evans Bros,London, 1973.

52 For example, D. Giltrow and J. Potts, 'Agricultural Communication: The Role of the Media inExtension Financing', The British Council, London, 1978, and Robert Chambers and M. Wickremanayake,'Agricultural Extension: Myth, Reality and Challenge', in B.M.Farmer (ed.)., Green Revolution?Technology Change in Rice Growing Areas of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. MacMillan, London, 1977.

53 See D. Leonard, 'Why do Kenya's Agricultural Extension Services Favor the Rich Farmer'. Paper readat 16th Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association, Syracuse, New York, 1977.

54 Bernhard Hoeper, 'Selected Results of an ADO and VEW Survey in Jind, Karnal and Mahendragarh,Districts of Haryana, India', Institute of Socio-Economics and Agricultural Development, Working NoteNo. 1, Berlin, 1983, (processed).

- 44 -

location and mobility of extension workers.55 In the context of exploring the relationshipbetween education and farmer productivity, some investigators have sought to establishwhether extension is a substitute for, or a complement to, education.56

Even when they yield unambiguous results, such studies shed little quantitativelight on the net benefits of extension. To do so requires not only rigorous comparativeanalysis but a formal means of establishing whether, if positive effects are observed, theeffects are commensurate with the costs incurred to produce them. Such studies have beenundertaken in developed countries, of which Griliches' (1958) study of hybrid corn in theUSA is perhaps the most well known.57 Studies in developing countries have usually beenless rigorous, evaluating extension through a simple before and after comparison of cropyields.58 Such studies, however, do not identify and hence evaluate, the contribution ofextension to increases in output because they do not separate out the contributions offactors such as material inputs, soil quality, supply constraints and other variables likely toinfluence output. Nor do they take into account the possibility that, with time, there may beautonomous growth in productivity.

These weaknesses, together with the difficulties noted in earlier sections, led theWorld Bank to fund a substantial research project designed to estimate directly theproductivity effects of incremental investment in extension. This project was undertakenbetween 1981 and 1984 in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, India, in conjunction with theHaryana Agricultural University.

The Productivity Effects of Extension

The research project noted above followed closely and in a comparative manner thechain of cause and effect mentioned earlier. It was conducted in two agro-climaticallysimilar and geographically adjacent areas -- Karnal district and Kairana tehsil in north westIndia -- with different extension systems.59

55 S.A. Rahim, 'The Comilla Programme in East Pakistan', in C.M. Wharton (ed.)., SubsistenceAgriculture and Economic Development Aldene, Chicago, 1966.

56 M. Lockheed, D. Jamison and L. Lau., 'Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency: A. Survey', EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, Vol 29, No. 1,1980.

57 Zvi Griliches 'Research Costs and Social Returns: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations', Journal ofPolitical Economy. Vol. 66, 1958.

58 See for example Daniel Benor and James.Q. Harrison, op cit., and U. Lele, The Design of RuralDevelopment Lessons from Africa. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1975.

59 For a full account see Gershon Feder, L. Lau and R. Slade., The Imnact of Agricultural Extension. StaffWorking Paper No. 756, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1986. The rest of this section draws heavilyon this work.

- 45 -

In the state of Uttar Pradesh, in which Kairana is located, the extension system atthe time of the study consisted of the traditional network of village level workers (VLW).These workers provided extension advice, regulated the supply of inputs and credit, andprovided links to the rural population for several government agencies. In the adjacent stateof Haryana, of which Karnal is a part, the extension system was changed to the T&Vsystem from late 1979. The reorganization reduced the ratio of villages to VLW andcreated higher level extension positions (e.g., supervisors and subject matter specialists).Village level workers were relieved of non-extension duties and renamed village extensionworkers (VEW).

The main thrust of the study was an analysis of productivity differentials betweenthe two areas for two crops - HYV wheat and rice - and the extent to which any estimateddifferences could be attributed to the introduction of T&V extension. A more precisedefinition of a productivity differential will be helpful. To compare the output obtained bya farmer in Karnal with that of a farmer in Kairana, any differences in soil types, farmercharacteristics, irrigation variables and the production environment must be controlled.Any remaining difference in output between the two farmers when they apply the samequantities of physical production inputs is called the disembodied productivity differential.It does not depend on the level of physical production inputs; rather, it involves betterutilization and/or timing of inputs, the adoption of better practices and more timelyresponses to production problems. Thus, if extension increases farmers' knowledge aboutimproved cropping methods, it will increase the disembodied productivity differential. Incontrast, extension information can increase crop yields by expanding the use of physicalproduction inputs. The resulting change in output is called the embodied productivitydifferential.

Using farm level survey data and econometric estimation procedures, productionand supply functions were fitted which explicitly incorporated, and hence controlled for, anumber of variables which might cause productivity differences. The resulting estimatesshowed that in 1982/83, after three years of T&V extension, HYV wheat yields in Karnalwere about 9% higher than in Kairana. This estimate of the disembodied differential wascompared to a combined, but separate, estimate of the disembodied and embodieddifferential plus price effects of about 13%. Owing, however, to an inability to separatelyestimate the price effects the additional difference of about 4% was ignored. However,sufficient additional analysis was performed to suggest that the embodied differential wassmall. The results for rice although similar were not statistically significant. The rest of theanalysis, therefore, focused only on wheat.

The disembodied differential of 9% was, however, gross of any differentialbetween the two areas that existed before the more intensive T&V system was introduced.Thus the next step in the analysis was to estimate the initial or baseline differential. In the

- 46 -

absence of comparable farm level survey data for the immediate pre-project period,secondary data were utilized to estimate the productivity differential in HYV wheat yieldsbetween the two areas in the baseline year (1979/80). This established that there was abaseline productivity differential of between 2 and 3% in favor of Karnal which should besubtracted from the post-project productivity differential. Thus, the end result was thatafter three years of T&V extension, there was a gain in productivity for HYV wheat ofbetween six and seven percent which could be attributed to T&V extension.

The final step in the evaluation required that the value of the 6.3% increase in farmoutput be set against the additional costs incurred to make the additional output possible.The stream of incremental extension costs was constructed using data on the actual costs ofthe first four years of T&V extension in Karnal and projections made at the time of projectappraisal.

The increase in yield attributable to T&V extension was estimated for the third yearof the project. In the absence of data with which to estimate future extension-inducedgains, a dynamic model to simulate the future evolution of the change in productivity, bothwith and without T&V extension was constructed. The model assumed that in the absenceof T&V extension, the average yield grows at a constant rate and that after a few years theinitial impetus to productivity resulting from the introduction of T&V slows down. Thefinal results showed that there was a 90% probability that the actual rate of return to theincremental investment in T&V extension was at least 15% over the project life60, and atleast 18% over an efficient project life.

This account of the research shows clearly that even the ex-post evaluation ofextension, although possible, is difficult and requires special conditions. It also indicatesthat a full and rigorous evaluation of extension's impact on productivity would require acomparative approach along two dimensions of 'before and after' the project and 'with andwithout' the project. Rarely is this possible for either practical or administrative reasons.Sometimes, however, it is possible to work along only one dimension, most commonlystudies of the situation in the area where the project is undertaken both before and after (aswell as during) implementation. Even this somewhat inadequate approach is not possiblein areas where monitoring and evaluation work is not done prior to the project andsubsequent implementation covers the entire country or state. In these situations evaluationmust remain, as it were, within a single cell of the matrix - the situation in the area of theproject during and after implementation. Such a restricted form of evaluation, common inmany project situations, is unable to yield definite answers about the effects of extension.

60 Calculations were performed for hree assumed lives: 7,10 and 17 years.

- 47 -

Monitoring and Evaluation in Extension

Parallel with the emergence of free standing extension projects and the concern withhow to evaluate them (both ex-ante and ex-post) has come the realization that monitoringand evaluation work could also play a useful role. At an early stage, and based onanticipated Indian experience with the implementation of T&V extension, Cernea andTepping 6 l developed a system for monitoring and evaluating agricultural extensionprojects. This system, novel in many ways, was not seriously implemented because itwas later found to be too complex and did not offer sufficiently detailed guidance topractitioners on the ground. Subsequently, and as part of the research into the productivityeffects of extension (see above) Slade and Feder62 prepared a manual on the monitoringand evaluation of T&V extension. This document defined more clearly than its predecessorthe nature of M&E in extension and the role that it should play. It also provides detailedstep-by-step guidelines on how to plan and conduct monitoring and evaluation work.

More recently, in the context of introducing T&V extension into Kenya anothersystem was developed by Marchant.63 Although similar in style and objectives to the workof Slade and Feder, Marchant's approach places the study of adoption rates at center stage.There are also less formally defined methods that have been introduced elsewhere such asin Thailand.6 4 These various systems, now being applied in countries as diverse asSomalia and Sri Lanka, all tend to emphasize monitoring rather than evaluation.

Some Governments, most notably India, and the World Bank have recognized theimportance of reliable information in implementing effective extension and have increasedthe priority accorded to M&E. There are now active and reasonably well staffed andequipped Monitoring and Evaluation Units in fourteen of the seventeen states in Indiawhere extension has been reformed along T&V lines. These units have produced over 300reports and added greatly to the evidence of what extension is achieving and how it doesso. There are indications from Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Somalia and Zambia that asimilar process is under way. Nevertheless, there are still considerable shortcomings inmany places.

61 Michael Cemea and B. J. Tepping, A System for Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural ExtensionProjecs, Staff Working Paper No. 272, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1977.

62 Roger Slade and Gershon Feder., 'The Monitoring and Evaluation of Training and Visit Extension: AManual of Instruction', The World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1981, (processed).

63 Josette Murphy and Tim Marchant, Monitoring and Evaluation in Extension Agencies, TechnicalPaper No. 79., The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1988.

64 See for example Adisak Sreensunpagit, 'Monitoring and Evaluation of Extension: Experience inThailand', in M. Cernea, J. Coulter and J. Russell (eds.)., op.cit..

- 48 -

Monitoring and evaluation is a technical activity requiring highly developed andspecialized skills in the social sciences and statistics, combined with substantial knowledgeof the extension system and the constraints surrounding its development. However, themost serious and frequently encountered weaknesses are in staffing, and particularlystaffing in the senior ranks. In some situations, insufficient professional and supervisoryposts have been provided, while in others posts have been created but remain unfilledowing to a lack of qualified staff or grading difficulties. This can have severeconsequences on both data quality and work output. In one large state in India, extensiveand apparently acceptable data have been collected and satisfactorily tabulated but remainunreported owing to a shortage (unfilled positions) of economists to interpret andsummarize these results.

While M&E is making substantial progress and its technical proficiency isimproving overall performance remains handicapped by two weaknesses: (i) a lack ofunderstanding by extension managers of M&E; and (ii) inadequate and sometimes veryslow analysis and report production. Managers of extension are not yet sufficientlyfamiliar with M&E and tend to either regard its products as uncalled for criticism or aquestioning of objectives or try to use it as an internal police force to identify and reportwrongdoing. Management in extension is not yet committed to the notion of objectivereporting of progress and unprepared to request and use imaginatively the information itprovides.

Although, the evaluation of extension and the attribution of productivity changes isdifficult, a more rigorous approach to the analysis of monitoring and evaluation data isrequired. There is a growing realization that this objective can be greatly aided byintroducing more sophisticated data processing facilities. As a result, micro-computers arebeginning to be deployed in extension projects and eventually these will help to improveanalysis and report-writing. Nevertheless, they are not a substitute for improved humaninput. M&E staff, now that basic systems are in place and functioning, still need toimprove their intellectual grasp of the complexities of extension and farmer response andally this understanding to the creative analysis of the data they collect.

Although monitoring and evaluation work is now quite widespread in extensionprojects, much of it is too recent for its results to have become widely available. Anexception is India, where as earlier noted some 300 monitoring and evaluation studies havebeen completed. Although some of these deal with special issues affecting particular stateextension services many contain the results of sample surveys conducted routinely eachseason on the basis of virtually identical questionnaires and sampling designs. Their sheer

- 49 -

volume precludes individual summary. Fortunately, however, researchers have analyzedand published some of the data in many of these reports.65

Cost Recovery and the Role of the Private Sector

As this paper has made clear, extension services, which are mainly public services,are intensive users of manpower. Hence, the costs of running an extension service aredominated by wage costs and other expenditures directly related to the number of staff.Unfortunately, few data to demonstrate this point are available but World Bank appraisalreports show that about 75-85% of the recurrent costs of running an extension serviceshould be devoted to wages and non--discretionary allowances, that is, allowances that mustbe paid as part of the explicit contract governing employee terms of service. The remaining15-25% of recurrent costs consists of expenditures such as travel allowances, petrol, oiland repairs for vehicles and other miscellaneous operating costs which are discretionary;that is, payment or non-payment will not affect the incomes of staff. Inadequate provisionfor such items, however, has a disproportionate effect on the efficiency of extensionoperations which obviously depend on well trained and mobile staff. There is muchevidence that the provision for such items in some projects is inadequate.66

Such events typically reflect more widespread budgetary problems - depressedgovernment revenues and weak national and sectoral planning - which result in a failure toproperly prioritize government investments and service expenditures. These problemscontribute to the need for economy in resource use and a questioning of whether servicessuch as extension should continue to be provided free of charge. Of equal importance,however, is the growing realization worldwide that the public sector is not always the bestand certainly not the only, actual or potential, supplier of extension services. As a result,there is a search for ways to recover the costs of public services and to explore ways ofincreasing private sector involvement. Extension is no exception. To what extent,therefore, is it possible to consider user charges or other forms of cost recovery inextension?

Information on new technology, including some farmer-specific advice, is typicallythought to be a public good: that is the provision of information to one user does notexclude other users from obtaining the information. Indeed, effective extension, becausenot all farmers can be provided with information individually, depends on the free

65 See Gershon Feder, R. Slade and A. Sunderam, 'The Training and Visit Extension System: An Analysisof Operations and Effects', AgrcultyS Administration, Vol. 21, 1986, and Roger Slade, G. Feder, and R.Chikkara 'Reforming Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System in India', Ouarterly Journal otIntmmpional Agjjcult=., (forthcoming).

66 See for example John Howell, ecrent Costs and Agricultural Development, ODI, London, 1984.

- 50 -

dissemination of information amongst farmers. This feature provides a powerful argumentfor free public provision of agricultural information implying that cost recovery should bemade only indirectly through general taxation or a user tax or fee on all actual or potentialbeneficiaries. However, as a given level of agricultural technology becomes well known,extension agents are likely to be most valuable when they provide a more individualadvisory service - solving particular problems for particular farmers. Such services areless of a public good providing there is, with time, a steady sophistication in the nature ofthe problems and the quality of the advice. Under these circumstances, the intensity andmechanisms with which more generalized technology is disseminated may change or bereduced - implying, of course, some cost savings.

However, a 'market' may also begin to open for skilled and specific agriculturaladvice. At this juncture, the possibility of introducing specific user charges arises. At thesame time, however, government must reconsider its role in this market and carefullyevaluate its comparative advantage. If it is a monopoly purveyor of such advice it canexploit its position. This is unlikely, however, as the private sector, especiallymanufacturers and distributors of agricultural inputs, may have equally good information.Thus, it is sensible for government to create conditions in which private suppliers of advicecan emerge and flourish. If demand for such services is strong enough, governments mayhave only to ensure a free but also a well regulated environment to prevent abuse andensure quality control. If initial demand conditions are less certain but the prospects appearpromising in the longer run, government may wish to use short-term tax or other incentivesto encourage response in the private sector. This may be a particularly valid approach forspecialized agricultural advice to poor and small farmers as such advice has many of thecharacteristics of what economists call merit goods. These goods are a form of public goodin as far as they may bestow externalities - in this case positive ones - but theirdistinguishing feature "is not that third parties benefit from the provision of such goods,but that the recipients themselves benefit to a greater extent that they themselves believe".67

It follows that they would tend to under-purchase such goods if no incentive wereprovided.

In agriculture these goods may emerge in the form of specialized farrn advisorycompanies or inputs suppliers providing information as part of the price competition in themarket they serve. This is now a common feature of developed agricultural economies anddeveloping countries are likely to follow suit. Thus, commercial agents specializing incertain types of information will operate side by side with a more generalized public sectorextension service.

67 Gabriel Roth, The Private Provision of Public Services in Developing Countries, Oxford, New York,1987.

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS

It is evident that much remains to be learned about the process of transmittingagricultural technical knowledge and the role of extension services in the process. But theapparently more manageable task of assessing the impact of public investment in extensionservices raises formidable problems. For example, it is not possible on the basis of currentevidence to isolate the effects of 'extension' as a component of public agriculturalinvestment. No government or public extension service is readily able to indicate the totalrecurrent and capital cost of its extension operations. Even where approximations can bemade, there remain legitimate questions about which parts of an agricultural service systemas a whole, and its administration, constitute 'extension' expenditure. Without suchinformation, it is difficult to justify unequivocally different levels of investment inextension or to present definitive statements on the cost of one extension approach incomparison to others, even assuming that the different objectives of, and approaches to,extension would allow valid comparisons.

While there is inevitable ijmprecision over the costs and benefits of agriculturalextension, two general points enjoy wide acceptance. The first is that the advance oftechnical knowledge is a prerequisiite of agricultural development, and without some systemof field-based involvement with farmers, improved agricultural technology cannot bediffused effectively and agricultural research (and other farmer services) will not focussufficiently on farmer concerns and priorities. There are, of course, major questions of theparticular form that this field-based involvement and support should take; the relative roleof public extension operations in relation to private systems, and the relative roles of publicextension and educational development of the rural population are cases in point. Theappropriate mix of direct contact between extension agents and farmers, and the use ofmass media is another fundamental issue. But these are not questions that impinge onacceptance of the importance of extension in agricultural development.

The second point is that while extension operations can and should be organized ina variety of ways in response to local conditions and objectives, there are a number ofconditions that are necessary for successful extension investment, and these are constantfor all agricultural extension operations. One is the need to acknowledge and facilitate thedual function of extension - to advise farmers on how to increase their productivity andincomes, and to learn from farmers their production conditions and priorities in order to beable to advise and guide agricultural research. Another fundamental condition is thatextension must have a deliberate technological basis. The prime function of extension staffis to help farmers increase the product of their farm activities. Unless extension staff have

- 52 -

means to do this, they can serve little purpose. A third condition is that just as extensionmust have a close two-way relationship with agricultural research, so must it be with allother agricultural support services - such as input supply, rural credit, marketing andirrigation system management.

A further requirement of successful extension is effective management. Given thegeographic dispersal of extension staff and their clients, the contributory role of extensionto agricultural production, and the reliance of extension on other agricultural supportservices, there are few other activities that make a greater demand on management thanagricultural extension. The best extension methods, staff, research and input support canhave little impact on farmers unless they are effectively managed.

It is evident that there is a wide range of contexts in which extension operates:different production systems, client diversity, changing requirements of clients andtechnology with time, different support from the private sector and different policyobjectives are ready examples of such contexts. Agricultural extension must be organizeddifferently to reflect these variations. Similarly, there are different entry points for externalagencies wishing to support agricultural extension. Depending on the needs and prioritiesof the extension service and government on the one hand, and on the skills, experience andresources of the external agency on the other, such support could focus on overall systemmanagement, specialized training needs, or agricultural research development and co-ordination with extension. Some external agencies may be better suited to provideintensive specialist support for extension staff in a specific area than others. Whatever theform of support, it will only be effective if it is responsive to the priorities of the extensionservice it is designed to assist and then, only if it is in a form that is sustainablemanagerially and financially once the external support is terminated.

Despite this diversity in extension approaches and in environments in whichextension takes place, the experience of extension - and not simply the World Bank'sexperience - is that principles of effective organization and field management relevant to allextension operations can be identified and should be stressed in programme design. Thesenormally include the following. First, extension staff of all levels should have feasible andmonitorable work programmes, and the work programmes of field staff should be knownto farmers. Second, the product of extension should be knowledge that enables farmers toincrease the productivity and profit of their work and assists other agricultural services toimprove their support to farmers. To enhance this knowledge, extension staff shouldreceive frequent and regular training, support from technical specialists, and have frequentcontact with agricultural research and other services for farmers. Third, extension activitiesshould take place primarily at a farmer's place of work and should cover all aspects of afarmer's production activities.

Much has been learned over recent decades which is relevant to the establishment ofeffective agricultural extension systems and considerable experience in programme design

- 53 -

for a range of approaches to the organization of extension in different administrative andagro-ecological environments has been gained. Nevertheless,there are a number ofimportant areas where much more must be learned. In part, this is because any extensionorganization must be continuously adapted to serve the changing needs of its clients, andbecause there are a number of other iissues which donor experience in extension has shownto require a further period of experimentation and learning.

Three broad categories of issues can be distinguished. The first is operational anddesign issues within public extension services and their relationship with other extensionservices. The second, those issues which relate to the relationships between extension andother components of agricultural knowledge systems. Thirdly there are issues concerningthe strategic nature for extension services and agricultural development policy moregenerally. In this last category one of the most important issues appears to be the problemsof access to resources and services which specific groups encounter. These, for example,may be women farmers in some areas, or very poorly endowed farmers unable to takeadvantage of technical opportunities. In both cases, the possibility of bias in extensionservices towards relatively more privileged farmers needs to be scrutinized. Such issuescannot be treated as exclusively 'extension' questions, however, as they are also issuesrelated to national agricultural priorities.

The operational and management issues are more various. They involve thedevelopment of approaches to the design, monitoring and evaluation of national extensionprogrammes. This is closely linked to extension financing, particularly the possibilities ofcost recovery, cost reduction, or even cost transfer by giving extension responsibilities tothe private sector or farmers' organizations. But it is also linked to questions aboutextension methods as there are major operational implications for extension in the growinguse of improved communications technology and ways in which they can be coordinatedwith field operations. The linking of extension to research and improving extension'saccountability to farmers is the other main area requiring development and experimentation.

While these issues may appear daunting there are encouraging signs that they can beaddressed. The foundation for effective agricultural extension operations has now beenestablished in many countries. In most cases, the basic administrative structure of a fieldoriented extension service is in plaLce; field staff, supervisory and specialist functions havebeen defined and the requisite staff appointed. A system for work programme formulationand for the development of technical recommnendations is also present Links in some formgenerally exist between agricultural extension and research, as well as with otheragricultural services and the agricultural planning process. There is widespread recognitionthat extension agents should be trained to listen to, and learn from, farmers; thoughachievements in this field are everywhere inadequate. In most countries, a staff trainingprogramme operates; some use is already made of media support for field extensionactivities; and some form of monitoring and evaluation is in operation. The challenge is to

- 54-

improve on this beginning while recognizing that there is no single 'best' extension systemsuited to all circumstances. It is difficult to imagine a situation where the quality ofextension services cannot be improved.

REFERENCES

Baxter, M. and W. Thalwitz, 'National Policies and Institutional Constraints to LinkingResearch with Extension in Asia', in Cernea, Coulter and Russell (eds.), 1985.

Benor, D., and M. Baxter. Training and Visit Extension, The World Bank, WashingtonD.C., 1984.

Benor , D., and J. Q. Harrison. Agricultural Extension: The Training and Visit System,The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1977.

Benor., D., J. Q. Harrison and M. Baxter. Agicultural Extension: The Training and VisitSystem, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1984.

Blankenburg, P. von. Agricultural Extension Systems in Some African and AsianCountries, FAO Economic and Social Paper 46, Rome, 1984.

Boyce, J. K., and R. E. Evenson. National and International Agricultural Research andExtension Programs, Agricultural Development Council, New York, 1975.

Byerlee, D., 'Extension in Post Green Revolution Agriculture', in Howell (ed.),(forthcoming).

Cernea, M., and B. J. Tepping. 'A System for Monitoring and Evaluating AgriculturalExtension Projects', Staff Working Paper No. 272, The World Bank, WashingtonD.C., 1977.

Cernea, M., J. Coulter and J. Russell (eds.). Agricultural Extension by Training and Visit:The Asian Exerience. The World Bank, Washington DC., 1983.

Cernea., Michael., J. Coulter and J. Russell (eds.). Research-Farmer-Extension: A Two-way Continuum for Agricultural Development. The Worll Bank, Washington D.C.,1985.

Chambers, R. and M. Wickremanayake. 'Agricultural Extension: Myth, Reality andChallenge' in B.M.Farmer (ed.) Green Revolution? Technologv Change in RiceGrowing Areas of Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka. MacMillan, London, 1977.

Chambers, R. Settlement Schemes in Tropical Africa. R.K.P., London, 1969.

Collinson, Michael. Farn Management in Peasant Agriculture. Westview, Boulder, 1983.

Crouch, B. R. and S. Chamala (eds.). Extension Education and Rural Development. 2Vols, John Wiley, Chichester, 1981.

Evenson, R. E. and D. Jha. 'The Contribution of the Agricultural Research System toAgricultural Production in India', Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol.28, No. 4, 1973.

- 56 -

Evenson, R. E. 'IARC Investment, National Research and Extension Investment andField Crop Productivity.' Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, undated,(processed).

FAO. Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. Rome, 1972 (first edition prepared byD. Bradfield) and 1984 (much revised second edition prepared by Interpaks,University of Illinois).

FAO. "Notes on FAO's Involvement and Experience in Agricultural Extension",Agricultural Education and Extension Service, Human Resources, Institutions andAgrarian Reform Division, FAO, March 1987 (processed).

Feder, G., L. Lau and R. Slade. The Impact of Agricultural Extension. Staff WorkingPaper No. 756, The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1985.

Feder, G., R. E. Just and D. Zilberman. Adoption of Agricultural Innovation inDeveloping Countries: A Survey, Staff Working Paper No. 542, The World Bank,Washington D.C., 1982.

Feder, G., R. Slade and A. Sundaram. 'The Training and Visit Extension System: AnAnalysis of Operations and Effects' Agricultural Administration, Vol. 21, 1986.

Giltrow, D., and J. Potts. 'Agricultural Communication: The Role of the Media inExtension Financing', The British Council, London, 1978.

Gittinger, J. Price. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects, Johns Hopkins,Baltimore, 1982.

Griliches, Z. 'Research Costs and Social Retums: Hybrid Corn and Related Innovations',Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 66, 1958.

Harker, B.R. 'The Contribution of Schooling to Agriculture and Modernization: AnEmpirical Analysis' in P. Foster and R.J. Sheffield (eds.) Education and RuralDevelopment, Evans Bros, London, 1973.

Howell, J. (ed.). Agricultural Extension in Practice. ODI, London, (forthcoming).

Howell, J. 'Making Agricultural Extension Effective', in Howell (ed.), (forthcoming).

Howell, J. Recurrent Costs and Agrcultural Development, ODI, London, 1984.

H6eper, B. 'Selected Results of an ADO and VEW Survey in Jind, Karnal andMahendragarh Districts of Haryana, India', Institute of Socio-Economics andAgricultural Development, Technical University, Working Note No. 1, Berlin, 1983(processed).

Hunter, Guy and A. F. Bottrall (eds.). Serving the Small Farmer: Policy Choices inIndian Agriculture, Croom Helm, London, 1974.

Jones, G. E.(ed.). Investing in Rural Extension. Elsevier, London and New York, 1986.

Jones, G. E., and M. Rolls. Progress in Rural Extension and Comrnunity Development,Vol.2, John Wiley, Chichester, 1982.

- 57 -

Judd, A. M. et al., Investing in Agricultural Suppl. Economic Growth Centre, YaleUniversity, New Haven, Connecticut, 1983.

Lamb, G. and L. Muller. Control. Accountability and Incentives in a SuccessfulDevelopment Institution: The Kenya Tea Development Authority. World Bank StaffWorking Paper No.550., Washington DC., 1982.

Lele, U. The Design of Rural Development: Lessons from Africa. Johns Hopkins,Baltimore, 1975.

Leonard, D. 'Why do Kenya's Agricultural Extension Services Favor the Rich Farmer'.Paper read at 16th Annual Meeting of the African Studies Association, Syracuse,New York, 1977.

Little, I. and J. Mirlees. Project Appraisal and Planning for Developing Countries, BasicBooks, New York, 1984.

Lockheed, M., D. Jamison and L. Lau. 'Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency: A.Survey'. Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol 29, No. 1,1980.

Mahdavi, G. 'A Commodity-Driven Approach: the Experience of the CompagnieFrancaise pour le Developpnient de Textiles', in Nigel Roberts (ed.) AgriculturalExtension in Africa. The World Bank, Washington D.C., (forthcoming).

Mishan, E. J. Cost Benefit Analysis, Allen and Unwin, London, 1975.

Moris, J. Extension Alternatives in Tropical African Development. ODI, London,(forthcoming).

Moris, J. Managing Induced Rural Development. International Development Institute,Bloomington, 1981.

Mosher, A.T. An Introduction to' Aericultural Extension. Agricultural DevelopmentCouncil, New York, 1978.

Murphy, J. and T. Marchant. Monitoring and Evaluation in Extension Agencies, TechnicalPaper No. 79., The World Bank, Washington D.C., 1988.

National Council of Applied Economic Research. Impact of Indo-German FertilizerEducation Project, New Delhi, 1979.

Orivel, F. 'The Impact of Agricultural Extension: A Review of the Literature' in H.Perraton, D. Jamison, J. Jenkins, F. Orivel and L. Wolff (eds.)., Basic Educationand Agricultural Extension, Staff Working Paper No. 564, The World Bank,Washington D.C., 1983.

Rahim, S. A. 'The Comilla Programme in East Pakistan' in C.M. Wharton (ed.)Subsistence Agriculture and Economic Development, Aldene, Chicago, 1966.

Rice, E. B. Extension in the Andes: An Evaluation of Official US Assistance toAgricultural Extension Services in Central and South America. USAID, WashingtonD.C., 1971.

- 58 -

Rivera, W. M. and S. G. Schram. Agriculture Extension Worldwide, Croom Helm,London, 1987

Roling, N. G. Extension Science: Agricultural Information Systems in AgriculturalDevelopment. Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).

Rolls, M. J., G. E.Jones and C. Garforth. 'The Dimensions of Rural Extension', in Jones(ed.), 1986.

Roth, G. The Private Provision of Public Services in Developing Countries. Oxford, NewYork, 1987.

Saunders, H.C. (ed.). The Cooperative Extension Service, Prentice Hall, New York,1986.

Slade, R. H. and G. Feder. 'The Monitoring and Evaluation of Training and VisitExtension: A Manual of Instruction', India Department, The World Bank,Washington, D.C., 1981 (processed).

Slade, R. H., G. Feder and R. K. Chikkara. 'Reforming Agricultural Extension: TheTraining and Visit System in India', Ouarterlv Journal of International Agriculture.,(forthcoming).

Squire, L. and H. G. van der Tak. Economic Analysis of Projects. Johns Hopkins,Baltimore, 1975.

Sreensunpagit, A. 'Monitoring and Evaluation of Extension: Experience in Thailand' inCernea, Coulter and Russell (eds.)., 1983.

True, A.C. A History of Agricultural Extension Work in the United States 1785-1923. USDept. of Agriculture, Washington D.C., 1929.

USAID, "AID Support for Agricultural Extension " (unclassified), Department of State,Washington D C., 1985.

World Bank, Agricultural Research and Extension: An Evaluation of the World Bank'sExperience. Operations Evaluation Department, The Wor1d Bank, Washington D.C.,1985.

World Bank. Agricultural Research. Sector Policy Paper, World Bank, Washington D.C.,1981.

STATISTICAL ANNEX

WORLD BANK LENDING F'OR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

Tables

1. World Bank Lending for Agricultural Extension in Current Dollars.

2. World Bank Lending for Agricultural Extension in Constant 1985 Dollars.

3. Extension Components in World Bank Livestock, Forestry and FisheriesProjects, 1975-1986.

4. World Bank Agricultural Extension Projects Currently Being Inplemented.

5. World Bank Agricultural Extension Projects Compared with Agriculturaland Rural Development Projects Pre-1965 to 1986.

6. World Bank Lending for Agricultural Extension by Quinquennia1965 - 1986.

7. World Bank Lending for Agricultural Extension by Different ExtensionMethods.

8. World Bank Agricultural Extension Projects: Number of Projects withDifferent Extension Methods.

9. World Bank Lending for Agricultural Extension: Number of Countriesusing Different Extension Methods.

10. World Bank Lending for Agricultural Extension: Number of Countries withCurrent Projects using I)ifferent Extension Methods.

11. World Bank Agricultural Extension Projects: Extension Cost Relative toProject Cost.

12. World Bank Agricultural Extension Projects: Families Affected andExtension Cost per Family for Different Extension Methods.

13. World Bank Agricultural Extension Projects: Total Extension Cost andWorld Bank Share.

14. World Bank Lending: Ten Largest Borrowers for Agricultural Extension.

-60 -

Note on Data

The source of all data- unless otherwise indicated is a survey of the documentationfor all World Bank-supported68 agriculture and rural development projects presented to theBank's Board on or before June 30, 1986. An agricultural 'extension project' was definedto be any project having some agricultural extension activity. 'Agricultural extension' isextension for general field agriculture; it excludes livestock, farm forestry and farmfisheries extension activities. Because the primary data source for the survey was the StaffAppraisal Report (SAR) for each project data refer to planned actions rather than actualexperience.

The conventions used in the tables follow:

'n.a.' indicates data are not available.

All years are World Bank financial years (1975, forexample, is July 1974 - June 1975).

The year of a project is that in which it was approved by theWorld Bank's Board.

All costs are in current US dollars unless otherwise noted.

'Project cost' is the total estimated cost of a project, at thetime of project appraisal.

'Extension cost' is the estimated cost of extension activitiesin a project, at the time of project appraisal.

'Bank Loan/Credit amount' is the amount of the BankLoan/Credit at the time of Board approval.

'Bank extension support' is the estimated amount of Bankdisbursement against project extension cost, at the time ofproject appraisal, based on the disbursement rates estimatedin the SAR.

The extension method of a project was determined from the SAR and its relatedannexes and working papers. Five categories are defined.

'Commodity Specific,' for commodity based extension systems (i.e., multi-function operations for a commercialized crop).

68 Unless otherwise stated the tenn "World Bank' includes IDA.

-61 -

Training and Visit' (T&V) extension when this was explicitly noted assuch in the SAR.

'Modified T&V,' where the method is specifically identified in the SAR as a'modified' T&V system (though rarely with precise details of modification)or where the methodology is not specifically mentioned but the extensionsystem as described incorporates key features of the T&V method.

'Other,' where Commodity Specific, T&V or Modified T&V methods arenot indicated but reasonable detail is presented of the proposed extensionmethodology.

'No Methodology,' for cases where there is no reference to extensionmethod or activities in the SAR or related documents.

Since the SAR is the source of extension method information, changes in extensionmethodology during project implementation are not reflected in the tables.

Table 1: WORLD BANK LENDING FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN CURRENT DOLLARS (June 30th 1986)

Project Costs World Bank ShareNo. of Total Extension Total Extension Countries with a Bank Share of Extension

Region Projects Cost ($m) Cost ($m) Cost ($m) Cost ($m) Cost greater than $25.0 million

EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA 75 2207 418 1035 174

WEST AFRICA 97 4880 666 2072 273 Nigeria

EUROPE. MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 70 6224 469 2308 173 Turkey

LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN 80 13854 1349 5153 524 Brazil, Mexico

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC 64 5012 476 2324 265 Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia

SOUTH ASIA 74 4622 649 2357 397 India, Bangladeshl Pakistan

TOTAL 460 36798 4027 15249 1807

Table 2: WORLD BANK LENDING FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN CONSTANT 1985 DOLLARS (June 30th 1986)

Project Costs World Bank ShareNo. of Total Extension Total Extension Countries with a Bank Share of Extension

Region Projects Cost ($m) Cost ($m) Cost ($m) Cost ($m) Cost greater than $25.0 million

EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA 75 2564 475 1275 211 Malawi

WEST AFRICA 97 5356 758 2352 324 Nigeria, Cote d'lvoire, Burkina Faso, Senegal

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 70 7214 479 2662 180 Turkey

LATN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN 80 14681 1416 5477 551 Brazil, Mexico

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC 64 5675 531 2619 290 L-donesia, Thailand. Philippines, Malaysia

SOUTH ASIA 74 5753 693 2881 421 India, Bangladesh, Pakistan

TOTAL 460 41243 4351 17267 1978

Table 3: EXTENSION COMPONENTS IN WORLD BANK LIVESTOCK, FORESTRY AND FISHERIES PROJECTS, 1975-1986

EASTERN & EUROPE MIDDLE LATIN AMERICA EAST ASIASOUTHERN WESTERN EAST & NORTH AND SOUTH AND ALLAFRICA () AFRICA AFRICA CARIBBEAN ASIA (5*) PACIFIC REGIONS

LIVESTOCKExtension Cost (Sm) 16.5 15.2 0.9 2.5 11.9 1.6 48.6No. Couttries 8 5 2 2 6 2 25No. Projects 8 5 2 2 4 2 23

FORESTRYExtension Cost ($m) 2.7 0.3 0.9 0.1 1.6 5.9 11.5No. Coautries 3 2 1 1 4 1 12No. Projeet 3 2 1 1 1 1 9

FISHERIESExtension Cost (Sm) 0.2 0 0.2 0 5.9 0 6.3No. Countries 1 0 1 0 1 0 3No. Projects I 0 1 0 1 0 3

TOTALExtension Cost (Sm) 19.4 15.5 2 2.6 19.4 7.5 66.4No. Countries 12 7 4 3 11 3 40No. Projects 12 7 4 3 6 3 35

NOTE: (*) Includes one Livestock Project in one country with an Extension Cost of Sl.lm that is included in all other tables.(**) Includes four livestock Projects in two countries with Extension Costs totalling S8.3m that are included in all other tables.

SOURCE: World Bank Agricultural Projecta Database

- 65 -

Table 4: WORLD BANK AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECTSCURRENTLY BEING IMPLEMENTED (June 30th 1986)

PROJECTS WITH EXTENSION COMPONENTS

NO. OF NO. OF PROJECT EXTN BANK SHAREREGION PRO- COUNTRIES COST COST PROJECT EXTENSION

JECTS W/PROJECTS (Smn) (Sm) COST ($m) COST (Sm)

EASTERN & SOUTHERN AFRICA 35 15 1416.90 287.57 617.23 101.67

WESTERN AFRICA 41 16 3303.40 449.60 1339.70 166.83

EMENA 44 10 4385.82 395.20 1643.10 142.58

LATIN AMERICA AND CARTBBEAN 49 13 7856.00 699.95 2882.40 249.10

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC 33 10 3151.57 131.65 1485.30 85.86

SOUTH ASIA 29 6 2134.96 83.36 1149.10 64.73

TOTAL 231 70 22248.65 2047.33 9116.83 810.77

'PURE EXTENSION PROJECTS

NO. OF NO. OF PROJECT EXTN BANK SHAREPRO- COUNTRlES COST COST PROJECT EXTENSION

IECTS W/PROJECTS (Sm) (Sm) COST (Sm) COST (Sm)

EASTERN & SOUTLIERN AFRICA I 1 28.60 28.60 15.00 15.00

WESTERN AFRICA 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

EbENA I 1 33.80 33.80 7.50 7.50

LATINAMERICAANDCARIBBEAN I 1 349.10 315.65 155.00 140.64

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC 2 2 152.00 152.00 87.00 87.00

SOUTH ASIA 8 2 326.50 326.50 199.30 199.30

TOTAL 13 7 890.00 856.55 463.80 449.44

TOTAL (COMPONENT AND 'PURE" PROJECTS)

NO. Ol NO.OF PROJECT EXTIN BANK SHAREPRO- COUNTRIES COST COST PROJECT EXTENSIONJECTS WiPROJECTS (Sm) (Sm) COST (Sm) COST (Sm)

EASTERN& SOUTHERN AFRICA 35 15 1445.50 316.17 632.23 116.67

WESTERN AFEUCA 41 16 3303.40 449.60 1339.70 166.83

EMENA 45 10 4419.62 429.00 1650.60 150.08

LATINAMERICAANDCARIBBEAN 50 13 8205.10 1015.60 3037.40 389.74

EAST ASIA AND PACL:IC 3 10 3303.57 2S3.65 1572.30 172.86

SOUTH ASIA 37 6 2461.46 409.86 1348.40 264.03

TOTAL 244 70 23138.65 2903.88 9580.63 1260.21

NOTE: Projects with extision components ae projecl inwhich exteison oomprises 90% or more of total project costs.

- 66 -

Table 5: WORLD BANK AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECTS COMPARED WITHAGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS PRE - 1965 TO 1916.

Anic and Rural Dev Proiecta Extension ProiectsTota WoeAJ Wadd Bank

No. of Project Banu No. of Extension ExtensionREGION PERIOD Projeps Coat Sm Share Sm Projects Cost Sm Share Sm

EASTERN Total (al year) 192 na 2885 75 418 174

AND Total (1975-1986) 135 5137 2391 59 376 149SOUTHERN Pre-1965 6 n.a. 75 0 0 0

AFRICA 1965-69 15 na. 2 3 6 41970-74 36 n.a. 368 13 37 211975-79 55 1913 818 26 91 411980.84 54 2363 1157 23 219 731985-86 26 860 416 10 65 35

WESTERN Total (all years) 180 na. 3112 97 666 273AFRICA Total (1975-1986) 136 7198 2860 83 617 249

Pre-1965 0 n.a. 0 0 0 01965-69 5 n.a. 57 1 3 01970-74 39 n.a. 195 13 47 241975-79 69 2044 947 43 170 851980-84 48 4236 1545 36 410 1501985-86 19 919 368 4 36 14

EUROPE, Total (all years) 171 na. 7137 70 469 173.IDDLE EAST Total (1975-1986) 142 22608 6562 65 462 170

AND Pre-1965 4 n.a. 30 0 0 0NORTH AFRICA 1965-69 5 na. 73 1 0 0

1970-74 29 niL 473 4 6 31975-79 63 8247 2207 32 54 391980-84 60 9096 2999 33 321 1171985.86 19 5265 1357 8 87 23

LATh4 AMERICA Total (all years) 209 n.a 9597 so 1349 524AND Total (1975-1986) 129 20691 8524 74 1343 521CARIBBEAN Pre-1965 25 na. 127 0 0 0

1965-69 20 n.a. 311 0 0 01970-74 35 na. 635 6 7 31975-79 58 5976 2214 29 441 1751980-84 52 10859 3912 35 442 1601985-86 19 3856 2398 10 460 187

EAST ASIA Toal (all years) 201 n.a. 8010 64 476 265AND Total (1975-1986) 153 15850 4685 55 458 258PACIFIC Pre-1965 3 na. 27 0 0 0

1965-69 11 na. 202 1 1 01970-74 34 n.L. 550 S 17 71975-79 64 5290 2546 23 183 901980-84 64 6980 3116 22 249 1451985-86 25 3580 1568 9 D7 23

SOUTH ASIA Total (all years) 247 n.a. 10816 74 649 397Total (1975-1986) 194 29832 9799 67 641 392Pre-1965 16 n.a. 212 0 0 01965-69 8 n.a. 185 0 0 01970-74 i9 n.a. 620 7 8 61975-79 89 5729 2638 35 247 1401980-84 88 11584 4742 26 224 1491985-86 26 12518 2419 6 169 103

GRAND TOTALS Totl (all years) 1200 nma 41558 460 4027 1807Total (1975-1986) 889 101314 34821 403 3896 1738Pre-1965 54 na 471 0 0 01965-69 64 n.a 879 6 9 51970-74 193 n.a 2842 51 122 631975-79 389 29199 11369 181 1187 5621980.84 366 45118 17471 175 1865 792198546 134 26998 8527 47 844 385

NOTh Data for Agric. and R.D. Proje' are from the Banks Agriculural Project Data Base

- 67 -Table 6: WORLD BANK LENDING FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION BY QUINQUENNIA 1965-86

1965-69 1970-74No. of Project Extension Bank Ext No. of Project Extension Bank Ext

REGION Projects Cost Sm Cost $m Share Sm Projecs Cost $m Cost Sm Share Sm

EASTERN AND 3 13.7 5.6 4.4 13 198.2 37.1 20.9SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN AFRICA 1 29.1 2.6 0.3 13 162.1 46.6 24.2

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 1 63.0 0.3 0.3 4 414.4 6.4 2.5AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 417.3 6.9 29AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA 1 3.3 0.5 0.3 8 242.9 16.9 7.0AND PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 565.2 7.8 5.6

TOTAL 6 109.1 9.0 5.3 51 2000.2 121.7 63.1

1975-79 19s0-84No. of Project Extension Bank Ext No, of Project Extension Bank ExtProjects Cost Sm Cost $m Share Sm Projects Cost Sm Cost Sm Share Sm

EASTERNAND 25 655.5 91.4 41.4 23 1011.1 219.0 72.5SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN AFRICA 43 1403.1 170.3 85.2 36 2948.9 410.4 149.8

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 24 1789.7 54.4 30.3 33 3361.7 320.7 116.9AND NORTH AlRICA

LATINAMERICA 2 3919.2 440.9 174.7 35 7452.0 4420 159.6AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA 24 1706.5 182.8 90.2 22 2144.3 248.6 144.6AND PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 35 17655.7 247.5 139.9 26 1922.5 224.2 148.6

MOTAL 181 11244.6 1187.2 561.7 175 18840.5 1864.9 79Z0

1985-86 TOTALNo. of Project Extension Bank Ext No. of Project Extension Bank ExtProjects Cost $m Cost Sm Share Sm Projects Cost Sm Cost Sm Share Sm

EASTERN AND 2L0 328.0 65.2 34.7 75 2206.5 418.3 174.0SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN AFRICA 4 331.3 36.1 14.0 97 4879.5 666.0 273.4

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 8 S95.5 87.0 22.7 70 6224.3 468.8 17Z8AND NORTH AFRICA

LATINAMERICA 10 2065.1 459.6 187.0 80 13853.6 1349.4 524.2AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA 9 914.8 26.8 22.8 64 5011.8 475.6 265.0AND PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 6 369.0 169.1 103.4 74 4622.5 648.5 397.4

TOTAL 47 4603.7 843.9 384.7 460 36798.1 4026.6 1806.9

Table 7: WORLD BANK LENDING FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION BY DIFFERENT EXTENSION METHODS

COMMODITY SPECIFIC T & V MODIFIED T & VNo.of No.of No.ofPro- Extension Cost $m Pro- Extension Cost Sm Pro- Extension Cost $m

REGION jects Total Mean Min Max jects Total Mean Min Max jects Total Mean Min Max

EASTERN AND 13 46.0 3.5 0.1 8.8 5 63.0 12.6 2.3 27.6 12 82.2 6.8 0.9 27.6SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN 22 145.5 6.6 0.4 22.67 14 92.6 6.6 2.8 41.1 9 101.0 11.2 1.4 79.0AFRICA

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 1 1.7 1.7 - - 9 215.5 23.9 1.6 176.8 10 86.6 8.7 0.2 22.5AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA 2 3.3 1.6 1.2 2.1 3 37.2 12.4 2.5 29.5 6 124.3 20.7 7.5 54.3AND CARIBBEAN

EASTASIA AND B 41.7 3.2 0.6 12.3 9 259.2 28.8 0.4 71.2 11 141.2 12.8 0.2 61.6PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 3 26.4 8.8 0.1 21.6 44 621.1 14.1 0.1 83.6 6 7.4 1.2 34.0 3.6

TOTAL 54 264.6 4.9 - - 84 1288.5 15.3 - - 54 542.6 10.0 - -

ON00

OTHER METHOD NO METHOD SPECIFIED ALL METHODSNo.of No.of No.ofPro- Extension Cost $m Pro- Extension Cost $m Pro- Extension Cost $mjects Total Mean Min Max jects Total Mean Min Max jects Total Mean Min Max

EASTERNAND 34 259.0 7.6 0.2 117.3 11 24.4 2.2 0.5 7.5 75 474.6 6.3 0.1 117.3SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN 34 339.3 10.0 0.4 79.0 18 79.7 4.4 0.1 16.2 97 758.0 7.8 0.1 79.0AFRICA

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 23 110.2 4.8 0.2 33.8 27 64.8 2.4 0.1 33.8 70 478.7 6.8 0.1 176.8AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA 52 1176.8 22.6 0.4 302.6 17 74.7 4.4 0.5 23.8 SD 1416.2 17.7 0.1 302.6AND CARIBBEAN

EASTASIA AND 13 49.6 3.8 0.1 12.8 18 39.1 2.2 0.3 8.9 64 530.8 8.3 0.1 71.2PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 13 31.5 2.4 0.4 2.6 8 6.3 0.8 0.0 2.6 74 692.7 9.4 0.1 83.6

TOTAL 169 1966.3 11.6 - - 99 288.9 2.9 - - 460 4351.0 9.5 - -

Table 8: WORLD BANK AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECTS: NO. OF PROJECTS

WITH DIFFERENT EXTENSION METHODS

1965 - 69 1970 - 74 1975 - 79

Exeznsion Meahod = (1) (2) (3) (2)4(3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2)+(3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2)4(3) (4) (5)

EASTERN AND I 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 7 3 5 2 3 S 13 3

SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERNAFRICA I 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 5 13 0 3 3 18 9

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 1 3 6 15

AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 3 3 16 10

AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA I 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 6 9 3 9

AND PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 2 20 5 25 4 4

TOTAL 3 0 0 0 2 1 12 0 2 2 19 18 23 27 21 48 60 5)

19U0 - 84 1985 - 86 TOTAL

ExtensionMethod= (1) (2) (3) (2)4(3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2)(3) (4) (5 (1) (2) (3) (2)4(3) (4) (5

EASTERN AND 4 2 4 6 10 3 0 1 5 6 2 2 13 5 12 17 34 11

SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN AFRICA 3 14 6 20 10 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 22 14 9 23 34 IS

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 0 4 5 9 14 10 0 3 2 5 3 0 1 9 10 19 23 27

AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA 2 3 3 6 24 3 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 3 6 9 52 17

AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA 4 6 4 10 4 4 2 0 1 1 4 2 13 9 11 2 13 18

AND PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 1 19 1 20 3 2 0 5 0 5 1 0 3 44 6 50 13 8

TOTAL 14 48 23 71 65 25 2 9 8 17 23 5 54 84 54 138 169 99

NOTE: Extensbnmethods are: (1) Comnodity Specific (2) T&V (3) ModifliedT&V (4) Oth:rMedhod (5) No Method Specified

Table 9: WORLD BANK LENDING FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION: NUMBER OF COUNTRIES USING DIFFERENT EXTENSION METHODS

1965 - 69 1970 - 74 1975 - 79Euaesio-Method= (1) (2) (3) (2)"(3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2)4(3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2)+(3) (4) (5)

EASTERN AND I 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 5 2 2 4 8 3SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN AFRICA I 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 3 7 0 3 3 9 7

BUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 9AND NORTH AFRICA

LATINAMERICA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 2 2 5 9AND CARIBBEAN

EASTASIA I 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 1 4 2 6AND PACIFIC

SOUTHASIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 6 3 6 4 3

TOTAL 3 0 0 0 1 1 8 0 1 1 12 13 16 12 12 20 31 37

1980 - 84 1985 - 86 TOTAL OEimuin Method= (1) (2) (3) (2)+(3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2)(,3) (4) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2)4(3) (4) (5)

EASTERN AND 4 2 3 5 7 3 0 1 4 5 2 2 8 4 7 10 10 7SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERNAFRICA 3 10 6 11 5 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 9 10 8 13 10 10

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 0 3 4 5 6 7 0 3 2 3 3 0 1 6 5 8 8 11AND NORTH AFRICA

LATINAMERICA 2 1 2 3 8 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 2 3 11 9ANDCARIBBEAN

EASTASIA 1 2 3 5 3 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 7AND PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 1 6 1 6 2 2 0 3 0 3 1 0 3 6 3 6 4 5

TOTAL 11 24 19 35 31 18 2 7 7 12 15 5 25 30 29 45 48 49

NOTE: Exiension mediods are: (1) Commodity Specific (2) T & V (3) Modified T & V (4) Ow Method (5) No Method Specified

Table 10: WORLD BANK LENDING FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

NUMBER OF COUNTRIES WITH CURRENT PROJECTS USING DIFFERENT EXTENSION METHODS (June 30th 1986)

PROJECTS WITH EXTENSION COMPONENTS "PURE" EXTENSION PROJECTS COMPONENT AND "PURE" PROJECTS

NO. OF COUNTRIES NUMBER OF COUNTRIES NO. OF COUNTRIES NUMBER OF COUNTRIES NO. OF COUNTRIES NUMBER OF COUNTRIES

PROJ- WnH USING MEJHOD:- PROJ- WITH USING ME'HOD:- PROJ- WITH USING MElHOD:-

REGION ECTS PROJECTS (1) (2) (3) (2+3) (4) (5) ECTS PROJECTS (1) (2) (3) (2+3) (4) (5) ECTS PROJECTS (1) (2) (3) (2+3) (4) (5)

EAS'ERNAND 35 15 5 1 6 7 7 5 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 36 15 5 2 6 7 7 5

SOUrHERNAFRICA

WESTERNA HRA 41 16 4 9 6 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 16 4 9 6 10 6 2

EMENA 44 10 0 5 5 7 8 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 45 10 0n5 5 7 8 4

LATINAMERICA 49 13 2 1 2 3 10 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 50 13 2 1 2 3 10 5

AND CARIBBEAN

EASTASIA 33 10 3 2 4 5 3 5 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 35 10 3 2 4 5 3 5

AND PACIFIC

SOUTHASIA 29 6 1 6 2 6 3 2 8 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 37 6 1 6 2 6 3 2

TOTAL 231 70 15 24 25 38 37 23 13 7 0 4 1 5 2 0 244 70 15 25 25 38 37 23

NOTES: Pure extension projects are projects in which extension comprises 90% or more of total project costs.

Extension methods are: (1) Commodity Specific (2) T&V (3) Modified T & V (4) Other Method (5) No Method Specified

Table 11: WORLD BANK AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECTS: EXTENSION COST RELATIVE TO PROJECT COST

1-9% OF PROJECT COST FOR EXTENSION 10-29% OF PROJECT COST FOR EXTENSION 30-69% OF PROJECT COST FOR EXTENSIONNo.of Bank Funnce for Total Extension No.of Bank Fmane for Toat Extension No.of Bak Finae for Total ExtensicaPw- Extension $m Cost Sm Pn- Extension Sm Cost Sm Pro- Extension $m Cost Smjeds Total Mean Tol Mean jes Total Mean Total Mean jecs Total Mean Tol Mean

EASERN AND 34 34.6 1.0 61.9 1.8 26 49.0 1.9 77. 3.0 12 58.9 4.9 206.4 13.8SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN 35 33.7 1.0 89.6 26 53 210.4 4.0 51Z9 9.7 9 29.4 3.3 63.4 4.2AFRICA

EUROPE MIDDLE EAST 54 63.2 1.2 141.8 Z6 9 23.7 2.6 82.6 9.2 5 17.9 3.6 31.0 2Z1AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA SD 178.5 3.0 481.3 8.2 18 94A 5.2 275.6 15.3 1 13.0 13.0 324 2.2AND CARIBBEAN

EASTASIAAND 48 60.8 1.3 100.7 21 8 15.1 1.9 26.6 3.3 2 4.2 2.1 7.0 0.5PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 47 35.8 0.8 56.4 1.2 6 22.7 3.8 31.8 5.3 5 58.9 11.8 81.7 5.4

TOTAL 277 406.6 1.5 931.7 3A 120 415.3 3.5 1007.0 8A 34 182.2 5A 498.6 33.2

70-89% OF PROJECT COST FOR EXTENSION 70-89% OF PROJECT COST FOR EXTENSION TOTALNo.of Bank Fnance for Total Extension Noof Bank Fnane for Total Extension Noof Bank Fnane for Total ExtensionPr- Extension Sm Cost $S Pro- Extension $m Cost Sm Pro. Extension Sm Cost Smjeas Total Mean Total Mean jecs Total Mea Total Mean jecs Total Mean Total Mea

EASTERN AND 2 16.5 8.2 43.8 21.9 1 15.0 15.0 28.6 28.6 75 174.0 2.3 418.3 5.6SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97 273A 2.8 666.0 6.9AFRICA

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST 1 60.6 60.6 179.6 179.6 1 7.5 7.5 33.8 33.8 70 172.8 2.5 468.8 6.7AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 238.3 119.1 560.2 280.1 SD 524.2 6.6 1349.4 16.9AND CARIBBEAN

EASTASIAAND 2 60.3 30.2 103A 51.7 4 124.6 31.1 237.9 59.5 64 265.0 4.1 475.6 7APACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 7 55.7 8.0 98.7 14.1 9 224.3 24.9 380.0 42.2 74 397A 5.4 648.5 8.8

TOTAL 12 193.1 16.1 425.5 35.5 17 609.7 35.9 1240.5 73.0 460 1806.8 3.9 4026.6 8.8

Table 12: WORLD BANK AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION PROJECTS: FAMILIES AFFECTED AND EXTENSION COST PER FAMILY FOR DIFFERENT EXTENSION METHODS

COMMODITY SPECIFIC T & V MODIFIED T & V

No.of No of Farm Average No. Extn Avoage No.of No of Farm Average No. Extn Avenge No-of No of Farm Average No. Extn Avrage

Pro- Families FFAffected Cost EXL Cost Pro- Families FFAffected Cost Ext. Cost Pr- Families FFAffected Cost EXL Cost

REGION jects Affected '00 per Proj '000 $ m per FF in S jects Affected '000 per Proj '000 $ m per FF in $ jects Affected 000 per Proj '000 $ m per FF in $

EASTERN AND 13 1033 79 45.9 44 5 2270 454 63.0 2S 17 2925 172 145.2 5D

SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN 22 285 13 145.5 510 4 909 227 92.6 102 23 1672 73 193.6 116

ARI.CA

EUROPE, MIDLE EAST 1 5 5 1.7 378 9 1985 221 215.5 109 19 2241 118 302.0 135

AND NORTH AFRICA

LAT-NAMERICA 2 !! 5 3.3 313 3 431 144 37.2 86 9 611 6S 161.5 264

AND CARIBBEAN

EAST ASIA AND 13 231 18 41.7 181 9 25742 2860 259.2 10 20 31701 1585 400.4 13

PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 3 1123 374 26.4 24 44 208896 4748 621.1 3 50 209057 4181 628A 3

TOTALS 54 2688 5) 264.5 98 74 240234 3246 1288.5 5 138 248206 1799 1831.1 7

OTIIER METIIOD NO METIIOD SPECIFIED ALL METIIODS

No.of No of Faun Average No. Extn Average No.of No of Farm Average No. Extn Avesge No.of No of Farm Average No. Extn Aveage

Pro- Families FF Affected Cost EXL Cost Pro- Families FFAffected Cost Ext. Cost Ptn- Families FF Affeted Cost EXL Cost

jects Affected'000 per Proj '000 $ m per FF in $ jects Affected '00 per Proj '000 S m per FF in $ jects Affected '00 per Proj '000 $ m per FF in S

EASTERN AND 34 3133 92 259.0 83 11 71S7 653 24A 3 75 16548 221 537.5 32

SOUTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN 34 3022 8S 339.3 112 18 346 19 79.7 230 97 6234 64 850.6 136

AFRICA

EUROPE,MIDDLEEAST 23 1237 54 110.2 89 27 583 22 64.8 111 70 6051 86 694.2 115

AND NORTH AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA 52 4387 84 1176.8 268 17 237 14 74.7 316 80 5675 71 1453.4 256

AND CARIBBEAN

EASTASIAAND 13 15280 1175 49.6 3 18 1141 63 39.1 34 64 74095 1158 790.0 11

PACIFIC

SOUTH ASIA 13 2644 203 31.5 12 8 1127 141 4.3 4 74 422847 5714 1311.7 3

TOTALS 169 29703 176 1966.3 66 99 10621 107 286.9 27 460 531451 1155 5637.4 11

Tabl 13: WORLD BANK AGRICtJLTURAL EXTENSION PROJECTS:TOTAL EXTENSION COST AND WORLD SANM SlAREUnI,NE 36TH IoU (Cotmt 19S5 dgener)

1985 TOTAL EXENSON COST EUNK SHARE EXT COSTPPLATION COST PER C5PNTA COST PER CAP1TA

REGION AND COUNTRY IN MIlONS USS m USS US S m USS

EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA: 205.0 474.3 2.32 211.5 1.03

BUUNDI 47 12.4 2.64 10.1 2.15COMOROS 14 0o9 132 a9 2.32EIHI8'A 42.3 38.7 (192 23.4 as5KENYA 20.4 44.4 21 23.5 1.16LEsalo L. 4.9 3.22 1.1 Q73MADAGASCAR 10.2 7.5 074 62 (161MALAWI 7.0 56.0 0.06 38.4 5.45MAURITIUS L0 (8 (178 4 037RWANDA 6.0 26.1 4.32 20.3 3.36SOMALIA 14 34.4 6.39 11.3 2 10SUDAN 21.9 51.7 236 22.1 1.01SWAZILAND (s 7.5 9.89 3.2 4.25TANZANIA 22.2 32.4 1.46 16.4 0.74UGANDA 15.5 3.0 0.19 1.5 a1oZARE 30.6 10.5 0.60 11.1 0.36ZAMBI 6.6 17.2 250 13.5 2.03ThIABWE 0.4 117.3 13.95 &01 096

WESTERN AFRICA: 190.1 7S8.0 3.99 325.9 1.72

BENIN 4.0 27.4 6.77 &1 2.00BURIONAPASO 7.9 44.8 5.69 27.8 3.52CAMEROON 10.2 34.3 3.37 17.2 1.69CL.A. z6 OA 3.27 (10 o.0CHAD 20 1.4 (128 1.4 0.23OTmEDIVO1RE 10.1 71.0 7.03 28.6 234TIEMGAMBIA a7 5A 7.33 4.1 552GHANA 12.7 25.0 2.03 11.4 (0s9GUINEA 6.0 1.3 21 (4 0.06LMEIA 212 19.5 &86 0.1 3.71MAU 7.5 31.3 4.17 13.0 1.99MAURITANIA 1.7 10.2 6.01 23 1.30NI.ER 64 11.5 1.00 4.5 (171N.IA 99.7 390.s 3.92 147.9 1.48SENBGAL 66 36.6 5.57 26.0 3.97SIERRA LEONE 2.7 10.4 2.70 5.5 1.47TOGO 3.0 27.9 9.17 17.8 2.4

EUROPE, MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA: 215.4 478.7 2.20 130.1 0.82

AFGHANISTAN M. 4.8 M. 3.0 M.ALGEUIA 21.9 6.9 0131 23 0.24CYPRUS (17 0.4 12.69 5.5 030BG`fPT 47.1 22.9 0.49 23 0.11GREPECE 9.9 3.3 033 L (11sJORDAN 2.5 04 all a( (103MOROCCO 21.9 40.6 1.65 20.5 094POKIXAL 10.2 10.0 090 4.3 0.42SYRIA 10.5 41.6 3.97 9.7 (192TUNISIA 7.1 31.4 4.39 15.1 2.11TURKEY 49.4 232.6 4.71 81.1 1.64YEMEN, ARAB REPLUC &O 54.7 6.07 16.3 2.03YEMEN, PEOPLES DEMOCRAnC REP. I 1 7.0 3.37 4.2 2.03YUGOSLAVIA 23.1 13.9 0.60 0.O 0.34

LATIN AMERICA AND CARIBBEAN: 312.2 1416.2 4.54 551.5 1.77

BOLIVIA 64 2.7 0.42 2.0 32BRAZIL 1325 869.4 6.41 345.0 2.55CHn0E 12.0 16.5 1.38 0.3 069CttOM 23.4 53.9 1.90 20.4 (172COSTA RICA 26 2.5 as97 (17 (126DOMINICAN REPUEBrC 03 .6 0.58 1.3 (21ECUADOR 94 11.7 1.25 3.4 0.36CRENADA (l 1.0 10.31 19 0.96GuYANA as 0. 1.04 a( 0.06HAm 25 3.4 (62 as 0.1JAMAICA 22 5.1 2.29 3.0 1.3LMEICO 78.8 401.5 5.09 143.7 1.82PANAMA Z2 (17 0.33 (14 (117PARAGUAY 24 2.8 (0.2 1.0 (130PERUi 18.7 40.5 z217 19.7 1.06

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC: 1332.3 530.6 0.40 289.5 0.22

CHNA 1041.1 12.2 (1o0 10.9 (101INMD E4EA 162.2 211.2 1.30 105.5 (65LAOS 326 1.0 0.27 (1s (123MALAYSrA 15.6 86.1 5.52 37.3 2.39PAPUANEWGUINEA 3.5 19.5 258 13.9 3.99PHILIPPINES 34.7 69.9 1.28 44.9 (162SOLOMONISLANDS (3 2.8 1(164 2.8 10.34IHaILAND 51.0 125.0 2.45 70.7 1.39VA.NUATU (11 1.5 11.46 1.5 11.39WESTERN SAMOA (12 1.5 9.37 1.0 6.30

SOTITH ASIA: 1030.2 692.7 0.67 421.4 0.41

BA3OLADESH 10(16 S7.0 (16 67.4 (167BURMA 36S. 0.6 (23 2.2 0.09INDIA 7621 301.9 0.60 29(12 0130NEPAL 16.5 18.9 1.14 15.6 (194PAISTAN 94.9 52.3 a55 30.1 (132

UILANXA 16.1 23.9 1.4S 14.9 (192

TOTAL 3285.0 4350.9 1.32 1980.0 0.60

NOM1R Popalio&nu mfm Is WVdd Bwk AIa 1987.

- 75 -

Table 14: WORLD BANK LENDING:TEN LARGEST BORROWERS FOR AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

Total Borrowings for Agricultural Extension

Current ConstantDollars 1985 Dollars

$m Sm

Brazil 328.39 345.85

India 279.17 290.18

Nigeria 137.64 147.85

Mexico 132.92 143.74

Indonesia 93.34 105.51

Turkey 76.32 81.06

Thailand 65.39 70.03

Bangladesh 57.05 67.43

Philippines 49.6 44.94

Malaysia 29.9 37.32

TOTAL 1249.72 1333.91

Distributors of World Bank PublicationsARGENTINA FINLAND MALAYSIA SRI LANKA AND THE MALDIVESCaios Hinch, SRL Akateedine, Kirjakauppa Un verdity of Madya Cooperative Lake Houe BoohkhopGabenaG uere P.O. Box 128 Bookahop, Liited P.O Bo 244Flolida 165,4th Floorik. 453/465 SFcmOI P.O Bo. 1127, Jalan Pantai Baru 100, Sir CttPamd A. Garder1333 Bunio Airot Helsinki10 Kuoa liupur Mawabha

Cudomibo 2AUSTRALIA, PAPUA NEW GUINEA, FRANCE MEXICOFIJI SOLOMON ISLANDS, Wod Sank Publication INFOTC SWEDENVANUATU, AND WESTERN SAMOA 66,avonued'1ns Apartado Potal 22-60 FornrgtitltDA. Book Journals 75116Padc 14060Tlalp n,MtiDonD. Fitz- Fadibokaforetaget11-13 Stabon Street Regaiogogatan 12, Boo 16356Mitcha 3132 GERMANY. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF MOROCCO S10327 cttdnholVidoria ULNO-Ve&ag Sodete d'Etuder Marketing Marxaine

Poppedorfer Allo 5 12 rue Moart, Bd. d'Anf FPaeasii4ln nfeTAUSTRIA D-5300 Bonn I Casablnca Wemoirersn-Wiffaon ABGe,old and Co. Boo 3004G-abo 31 GREECE NETHERLANDS S-10425 StockbidA-1011 Wien KEME InOe-Pubhikatiinbv

24, Ippod StnouEtoretPSlmt MPlataa P.O. 3. 14 SWITZERLANDBAHRAIN Athn-11635 7240 BA Lchem ornirgerrJBaheahi Reoeatch and Connultany LUbedde Payot

Asodalte lAd. HONG KONG MACAO NEW ZEALAND 4 rue GrnurP.O Bo. 22103 Aia 200 Ltd. Hill Library and ffrmaion Service Cae potal 381M-nama Town 317 6 FL 146 Pnc Edward Road, W. PvateBag CH 1211 Gena 11

Kowloo New MarkeBANGLADESH Hong Kong Aukdand Foroeece*t-inms ion:MiRr findu-tni Devdopment Libraiie Payt

Asitance Sodety (MIDAS) HUNGARY NIGERIA Servie denAbonn-n--t.House 56, Road 7A tuluac Uai..ity P- Liid C.- po4 3312Dhanoondi R/Aea P.O. Box 139 Th Crwn-BuidingJUridh CaaHes2sLa3 eDhaka 120° 1389 Budapert 62 Private Mail Bag 5095

Ibadan TANZANIABELGIUM INDIA O-ford Unversity PronPubcahti do Nation Union Allied Pubhhen Pvahte Ltd. NORWAY P.O. Box 1299Av du Rht 202 751 Mount Road Narveren Itfoemation Cinh rDar On B Saam1060 Bru"ss Madra - 600 002 Bert-and Narreenr vei 2

P.O. Boo 6125 Enerstad THAILIANDBRAZIL Boch jfa N-0602 Oslo 6 Cenht-I Departmnnt StorePublicco Te-ica Int-cadonai- 1IS.N. Heredia Mag 3D65ilm Road

Ltda. Balard Ertte OMAN BangkokRua Peixota Gomide, 279 Bombay -400 038 MEMRB infoeraton Ser-i-c01 409 San Paulo, SP P.O. Boo 1613, Seb Airport TRIIDAD & TOBAGO, ANTICiUA

13/14 Aaf A13 Road Mut BARBUDA, BARBADOS,CANADA New Dlhi - 110 02 DOMINCA, GRENADA, GUYANA.LeDiffuaseu PAKISTAN JAMAICA, MONTSERRAT, ST.C.P. 55, 11B-reAmpbre 17 Chitaranjan Avoue Mia Book Ageny XITTS & NEVIS, ST. LUCiABoudh-rviDe, QOebc Calcutta- 700072 63, Shiaah-e-Quaid-Aza ST. VINCENT tkGRENADINESJ4B 5E6 P.O. BSo No. 729 Sypteonatic Studieo Unit

Iyadera Honth Bulditg Lahore 3 5S Estern Main RoadCHINA 5th Main Road CGodhinagar Carepe(lies F.oandal & Eonomic Publishing Bngalore- 560009 PERU Trinidad, Wont Indiec

Hous Sdio,al Donarll 5,AH, Da PoSi OgJie 3-5-1129 Kaciguda Croo Road Apartado 3824 TURKEY

Beijr,.g Hyd-abad -103027 r Haet KVtapei. AS.DavotpasaCaddoni

COLOMBIA Prathana Flab 2nd Floor PHILIPPINES SergekanSokak,115EnlceLtd.. Nr ThakoreiB Navragpura National BokStore TopkapiApartadoAereo34270 Ahrnedabad-313009 701 RizadAvenue IbtulBogota D.E. P.O. BSo 1934

Pati.a Houre Metro Manila UGANDACOSTA RICA 16-A Arhok Mag Uganda BookohopLiberia Tqr.os Lucknow - 226 001 POLAND P.O. So 7145Cale111-13 ORPAN KampalaAv. FernandezGull INDONESIA PatacKlthryyiNaukiSanJone Pt Indra limitcd 002-1 Warcawa UNIfED ARAB EMLRATES

31. Sow Ratolangi 37 MEMRB Gulf Co.COTE a'IVOIRE Jakarta Puast PORTUGAL P.O. Bo 6097Cotte dEdiin et de Diffiaon P.O. Box 181 Lvria Portugal Sharjah

Afhicainot (CEDA) Ra Don Carmo 70l-7404 B.P. 541 IELAND 120 Lisbon UNITED KINGDOMAbidjan 04 Plateau TDC Publishers Mi t Ltd.

12 North FPdick Sheet SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR PO Boo 3CYPRUS DNbu, I Jrir Book Store Alton, Hanphire GU34 2PGMEMRB Information Services P.O Bon 3196 EnglandP.O. Bon 2099 ISRAEL %ydhll471Nico-ia Thejeru-aodt Pont LRUGUAY

TheJetnales Pont Building SINGAPORE, TAIWAN, BURMA, Instituto Mactonal dd LibroDENMARK PO BoxSI BRUNEI Sanjoaell16Sa-frndLittmarahr Rome jerusalem91000 hIormation Publicadons MesvigyideoRoatouea AIR I I Private. Ltd.DK-I970 PFrdemikabex C ITALY 02-06 1st Ft Pt-Fu InduUtrial VENEZUELA

liuts Comumisiomaia Sairnoni SPA Bldg. lb-ria de EonDOMINICANREPUBLIC Via Bndetto Foemi 120/10 24NewIndutrialRoad Aptdo. 60337Editors Taler, C. pe A. Caella Pstale 552 Sungj- 1953 Caaca 106-ARotta-rn -on e LNabel I Catoica 309 50125 HornerAparlado Pontal 2190 SOurrH AFRICA YUGOSLAVIAS-to Dom-g. JAPAN Forli,,gkldW: Jugonlovenik.nKpga

Eariern Book S-ior Onford Univerdty P-ert Soathern YU-11000 Blgrade Trg RepublikeEL SALVADOR 37-3, Hongo 3-Chome Bunkyoku 113 AfricaFaades Tokyo P.O, B.o 1141 ZIMBABWEEdifi La Centro Americana 6. Pisw Cape TownM00 Long-n ZimbabweApartado PontaI01-278 KENYA P.O Box SST 125, SoutwertonSa Sa3adr 01I Afica Book Svie (EA) Ltd. Fr omib n,ss:

P.O. Boo 45245 Int-tna lnal Sobsription ServieEGYPT, ARAD REPUBLIC OF Naibi P.O, Boo 41095Al Abeam CraighallAl Gala Strt KOREA, REPUBLIC OP Johanmesburg 2024Catr Pa Knots Book Corporathin

P.O. Box 101, Kw-mgwh-aun SPAINThe Middle Knot Observer Seou1 Mondi-Prsa LiUroc, SA.8 Chaw-rbi Streer Ctello 37Cairo IKUWAIT 28001 Madrid

MEMRBPO. Boo 5465

RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL FAPERS (continued)

No. 77. Gunnerson, Wastewater Management for Coastal Cities: The Ocean Disposal Option

No. 78. Heyneman and Fagerlind, University Examinations and Standardized Testing: Principles,Experience, and Policy Options

No. 79. Murphy and Marchant, Monitoring and Evaluation in Extension Agencies

No. 80. Cernea, Involuntary Resettlement in Development Projects: Policy Guidelines in World Bank-Financed Projects (also in Spanish, 80S)

No. 81. Barrett, Urban Transport in West Africa

No. 82. Vogel, Cost Recovery in the Health Care Sector: Selected Country Studies in West Africa

No. 83. Ewing and Chalk, The Forest Industries Sector: An Operational Strategy for DevelopingCountries

No. 84. Vergara and Brown, The New Face of the World Petrochemical Sector: Implications forDeveloping Countries

No. 85. Ernst & Whinney, Proposals for Monitoring the Performance of Electric Utilities

No. 86. Munasinghe, Integrated National Energy Planning and Management: Methodology andApplication to Sri Lank-a

The World Bank

Headquarters European Office Tokyo Office UI818 H Street, N.W 66, avenue d'lena Kokusai BuildingWashington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 75116 Paris, France 1-1 Marunouchi 3-chomeTelephone: (202) 477-1234 Telephone: (1) 40.69.30.00 Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo I00, JapanFacsimile: (202) 477-6391 Facsimile: (1) 47.20.19.66 Telephone: (3) 214-5001Telex: WUI 64145 WORLDBANK Telex: 842-620628 Facsimile: (3) 214-3657

RCA 248423 WORLDBK Telex: 781-26838Cable Address: INTBAFRAD

WASHINGTONDC

ISSN 0253-7494Cover design by Bill Fraser ISBN O-8213-1193-X