Making Rural Services Work for the

Poor and Women:An Institutional Analysis of Agricultural Extension

and Drinking Water in Four Districts in Ethiopia

Marc J. Cohen, Oxfam America

Mamusha Lemma, Consultant

Rationale of Research Project

• Agriculture is back on the international development

agenda

• Providing agricultural and rural services has remained a

major challenge

• How to reach millions of farmers even in remote areas?

• Governance reforms

• Decentralization – involving local communities in service

delivery – public sector reforms

• What works where and why?

• What works for the rural poor and for women?

Project Background

• Part of three-country research project

• Implemented by International Food Policy Research

Institute

• Funded by World Bank

• Research in Ethiopia, India, and Ghana

• Focus on agricultural extension and drinking water

• Q-squared approach – quantitative and qualitative

• Ethiopia study carried out in collaboration

with Ethiopian Economic Policy Research

Institute

Ethiopia Research Design

• Research in 8 woredas in Afar, Amhara,

Beneshangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Oromia,

SNNPR, Tigray

• Four pairs of adjoining woredas

• In three pairs, one woreda in a ―leading‖ region

• Woreda government responsible for service provision

• Neighboring woreda in an ―emerging‖ region

• Service provision remains a regional responsibility

• In one pair: Amhara and Tigray—de facto differences in

history of local empowerment

Page 4

Qualitative Research

• Carried out in four woredas (two pairs)

• Amhara–Tigray

• Beneshangul-Gumuz–Oromia

• Methodology

• Semi-structured key informant interviews

• Focus group discussions

• Semi-structured interviews

• Social network mapping

• 108 total interviews

Persons Interviewed in Woreda Capitals

• Administrator

• Council Speaker

• Budget, agriculture, water, women’s affairs

officials

• Cooperative union leader

• Women’s Association leader

• Party leader

Only qualitative case studies at woreda level;

no surveys conducted

Kebele Interviews

• Chairperson

• Manager

• Council Speaker

• Cabinet members responsible for agriculture, water, and

women’s affairs

• Extension agents

• Water committee members

• Women’s Association leader

• Cooperative leader

• Party leader

• Men and women farmers

What are the Challenges of Rural Servcie

Provision?

• Challenges to make the market mechanism work

• Public good – merit good – externalities

• Challenges for the public sector

• Transaction-intensive in terms of space and time

• Requiring discretion – difficult to standardize (extension)

• Challenges of involving local communities

• Local elite capture, social exclusion

• Capacity problems

• Key to meeting the challenge: Creating accountability!

National / State-level Ministries (NM)

National / State-levelPolitical Representatives (NP)

Development Agencies / Advocacy

NGOs (DA)

Community-BasedOrganizations (CO)

Local Political Representatives (LP)

Household Members (HH)

Public SectorService Providers (PS)

NGO / Privateservice providers (NG)

Services

PoliticalParties (PP)

Accountability Framework based on World Bank (2004)

Focus of Ethiopia Study

• Access to agricultural extension

• High policy attention to extension, and increasing adaptation of

packages

• Knowledge gap: How much outreach has been actually achieved so

far in different regions? How well does the delivery mechanism work?

• Gender dimension of agricultural extension

• General government commitment to gender equality

• Knowledge gap: To what extent do agricultural extension services

address the needs of female farmers?

• Drinking water supply

• Government efforts to increase water supply through decentralized

provision, led by community-based water committees

• Knowledge gap: How do these delivery methods actually work on the

ground?

Decentralization: Bringing Government to

the Community

Decentralization in Theory and Practice

• Theory: Woreda as the hub in which bottom-up

kebele development planning is harmonized with

regional and federal policy guidance

But in practice:

• Woreda decentralization only in four regions

• Woredas remain dependent on regional and

federal governments for funds, and planning

guidance is more than indicative

• Personnel costs absorb much of budget

• Woreda governments say they lack discretion

• Many kebeles see a breach of social contract

Agricultural Extension

Access to different forms of extension

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%E

xte

nsio

n v

isits

farm

/ho

me

Att

end

exte

nsio

nis

t's

co

mm

un

ity m

ee

tin

gs

Vis

it

de

mo

nstr

atio

n

plo

ts

Vis

it

de

mo

nstr

atio

n

ho

me

s

Tra

ine

d a

t

Fa

rme

r T

rain

ing

Ce

ntr

e

Se

rvic

e b

y

co

op

era

tive

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral

inp

ut cre

dit

Men Women

EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

Access to extension by survey site (percent of respondents)

EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

54

3937

25 24

118

2

39

27 27

18

24

1513

10

10

20

30

40

50

60

Visited by extension agent at farm or home

Attended extension agent’s community meetings

Satisfaction with agricultural extension(percent of respondents)

92.5 95.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

HH Heads Spouses

Very dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Very satisfied

Extension Agents’ Interaction with Farmers

• Deployment of agents to kebeles increaseas

awareness of community concerns and potential

• Service provision remains top-down

• Accountability is to woreda officials

• Promotion and training depend on enrolling farmers in

extension ―packages‖

• Extension training is technical

• Also need training in community mobilization and

gender issues

• Farmers complain that agents focus mainly on

mobilizing labor contributions

• ―Stone-carrying participation‖

Agents’ Interaction with Female Farmers

• Perception bias: ―Women don’t farm in Ethiopia‖

• Therefore, don’t need extension services

• Cultural barriers make it difficult for male agents

to work with women

• Women’s Associations and female political leaders

may help overcome barriers, e.g. by organizing

women’s extension groups

• Extension agents tend to deal with household

heads, so advise farm wives via their husbands

• Even on women’s activities such as poultry raising

and home gardening

Evolution in Extension Services

• Strong policy commitment to gender equality

• Gender audits and focal points in woreda

governments

• Expansion of extension service means more

women agents (10% in study woredas)

• Packages are now more flexible, but ―women’s

package‖ not tailored to female household heads

• E.g., focus on poultry

• Ignores that female household heads may spend

much time providing weeding services to other

farmers, making poultry raising impractical

Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Reducing regional disparities in access to

extension

• Federal support to emerging regions already ongoing

• What additional strategies could be used?

• Strategies to better target female farmers

• Linking extension with women’s groups

• Increasing female staff among extension agents and

supervisors

• Integrating community development and

gender analysis into extension curriculum

Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Making extension more demand-driven

• Trade-off

• Better supervision in case of package approach

• Allow adaptation to diverse local conditions and farmer

demands

• How to increase discretion of extension agents, while using

other mechanisms to create accountability?

• Recent policy changes (Implemented after this study)

• Development of packages based on ―best practices‖ of local

model farmers

• Shifting of responsibility for monitoring from supervisors to

more highly trained Subject Matter Specialists

• Increased role for kebele councils/cabinets

Drinking Water

Access to drinking water

(Primary water source)

EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

National

average:

11%

(2004, WDI 2008)

Average time to get water from different

water sources (in minutes)

Water source Wet season Dry Season

River, lake, spring, pond 58 91

Rainwater 6 –

Well without pump 74 102

Well with pump 71 82

Public standpipe 30 29Household’s private standpipe/ tap 3 3

Water vendor 63 80

Other 24 153

EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

Identification of drinking water as greatest problem

BY RegionAfar- Amhara- Amhara- Benesh. G- Gambella- Oromia- SNNP- Tigray-

D D2 D3 D D D D D

Drinking water 65% 29% 25% 35% 28% 36% 19% 34%BY Gender

Men Women31% 34%

EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

Satisfaction with quantity and quality of drinking water supply

EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

Capacity of Water Committees

• Water committees receive limited technical training on

operations and maintenance

• No training on getting community ―buy-in‖ on value of

clean water, hygiene, maintenance, fees, etc.

• Many users object to fees

• Strong perceptions of unfairness

• Often little support from woreda water offices

• Limited capital budgets, spare parts, and vehicles

• All water committees included women, but usually

chaired by men

• In Beneshangul-Gumuz, policy is that women chair committees

Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Access to safe drinking water sources is very low

• 32% of study households—which is substantially higher

than nation-wide rural access of 11% (2004, WDI 2008)

• Weak accountability links may be a hindrance in translating

rural residents’ priority concerns into policy priorities

Placing access to safe drinking water higher on the priority

list (noting that it also has implications for productivity)

• Households identify drinking water as their main priority

concern

• Yet they report relatively high satisfaction rates and hardly

take any action to complain

Treat satisfaction data with care

Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Water committees, the lowest level service providers, are

still insufficiently inclusive

Women usually fetch the water – shouldn’t they chair the

committees?

Should councils pay more attention to drinking water?

• Water committees not able to counteract top-down facility

provision

Draw on local knowledge and local considerations in

selecting sites – more discretion

• Water committees have high discretion in setting rules,

fees, etc., but unable to effectively use this discretion due

to nearly no training on community relations

Train water committees on community relations

Page 29