The Governance of Service Delivery for the Poor and Women:A Study of Agricultural Extension and Rural Water Supply in Ethiopia

The Governance of Service Delivery for

the Poor and Women:A Study of Agricultural Extension and Rural

Water Supply in Ethiopia

Regina Birner, Mamusha Lemma,

Tewodaj Mogues, Fanaye Tadesse

ESSP-II Policy Conference

22-24 October, 2009

Hilton Hotel, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia

Rationale of the research project

• Agriculture is back on the international development

agenda,

• but providing agricultural and rural services has remained

a major challenge!

• How to reach millions of farmers even in the most remote

areas?

• Governance reforms worldwide

• Decentralization – involving local communities in service

delivery – public sector reforms

• What works where and why?

• What works for the rural poor and for women?

Three-country research project: Ethiopia, India and Ghana

Page 3

Social and economic services

and infrastructure in rural areas

Rural roads

Electricity

Drinking water

Health and

education

Agricultural

extension

Agricultural

input

supply

What are the challenges of providing

rural services?

• 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

• Special challenges to reach women with agricultural services

• Perception bias: ―Women don’t farm.‖

• Key to meeting the challenge: Creating accountability!

Page 5

$

Total costsincurred forachieving adefined outcome

AttributesDiversity of agricultural conditions

Oliver Williamson’s cost-effectiveness approach

to identify the efficient governance structure

Difficultiesofsupervision

TCP

Extension provided under standardized package approach

Extension provided with adjusted packages

TCA

a1

Extension provided with discretion of extension agent

TCD

a2

Page 6

$

Total costsincurred forachieving adefined outcome

AttributesDiversity of agricultural conditions

Oliver Williamson’s cost-effectiveness approach

to identify the efficient governance structure

Difficultiesofsupervision

TCP

Extension provided under standardized package approach

Extension provided with adjusted packages

TCA

a1

Extension provided with discretion of extension agent

with increased accountability

TCD

a2

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 the study in Ethiopia

• 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, and water committees

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

ground?

Study Design and Research

Methods

Page 10





Services

Household Members- Both HH head and spouse

separately (1,761 respondents: 843 men, 238 female-hh-heads, 680 female spouses)

Local Political Representatives- Kebele chair (156)- Kebele council member (312)- Kebele council speaker (156)- Wereda council member (156)

Service Providers- Development agents (312)- Agricultural cooperative head (156)- Water committee head (156)

Household survey Kebele level survey

Kebele level survey

Survey Design

Survey Design

8 weredas total, in 7 regions: Afar, Amhara, Beneshangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Oromia, SNNP, Tigray

Four paired weredas (in proximity to each other): One wereda of a pair in “leading” locally decentralised region, one in an “emerging” region.

In the case of one pair: Amhara and Tigray—de facto differences in history of local empowerment

Page 12

Survey Design

Household survey (quantitative): – in 4 randomly drawn kebeles of each of the 8 weredas– 35 randomly drawn households in each selected kebele– total of planned 1120 households, with up to two respondents in each household

Kebele-level surveys (quantitative):– in all kebeles of each selected wereda– total of planned 156 kebeles

Case studies (qualitative):– in one kebele in each of four weredas (in Amhara, Beneshangul-Gumuz, Oromia,

Tigray); ie weredas are subset of the above 8 weredas– interviews at the wereda and kebele level in these four weredas

In this first set of studies:

We mostly take a descriptive-analytical approach

Page 13

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

en

d

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 poverty and

education

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%E

xte

nsio

nis

t at

farm

/ho

me

Exte

nsio

nst's

co

mm

un

ity

m

eetings

De

mo

nstr

atio

n

plo

ts

De

mon

str

ation

ho

mes

Farm

er

Tra

inin

g

Ce

ntr

e

Serv

ice b

y

coo

pe

rative

Ag

ricu

ltu

ral

in

put cre

dit

Literate

Illiterate

Non-poor

Poor


Access to extension by survey site (percent of respondents)


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

Access to extension and livestock services in India

(Percent households with contract during past year)

27.2

67.8

1.04.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Agricultural extension

Livestock services

Male-headed households (owning land/livestock, respectively)

Female-headed households (owning land/livestock, respectively)

ISEC-IFPRI Survey, 2006

Page 19

11.7% 12.3%10.9%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

1.8% 1.4%0.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Forest Zone Transition Zone Savannah Zone

Male-Headed Households Female-Headed Households

Female Spouses

Access to agricultural extension in Ghana(Percent households visited by agent during the past year)

ISSER-IFPRI Survey, 2008

Gender composition of extension staff(Percentage in sample)

ISEC / ISSER / EEPRI - IFPRISurveys

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

Adoption of new technologiesDuring the past two years, did you start to use some farming

practice for the first time, such as a new variety, new crop, new

input, new cultivation technique, new breed, etc.?

10.33.5

89.796.6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Head Spouses

no

yes

Variables associated with visit by extension

agent and uptake of new practices

Variable Visit by

extension

agent

Started new

agricultural

practice

Gender (1=male) + ***

Education (1=literate)

Household status (1=head)

Wealth (consumer assets owned) + **

Household size + *** + ***

Male dependents

Female dependents - *

District dummies included included

Observations 1,753 1,740

Likelihood ratio chi-square test 250.69 *** 167.08 ***EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009

Conclusions and Policy Implications

• Reducing regional disparity 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

• Evaluating agricultural extension services

• Challenges in measuring farmers’ satisfaction

• High satisfaction rates in spite of low adoption rates

• Need for further methodology development, especially if

satisfaction data are to be used for management purposes

• Measuring adoption rates and productivity

• Further research needed if goal is to establish causality


• Making extension more demand-driven

• Trade-off

• Better supervision in case of package approach

• Limitation to adapt to diverse local conditions

• 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

Subject Matter Specialists

• Increased role for kebele councils/cabinets

• Assessment of new approaches topic for future research

Drinking Water

Access to drinking water

(Primary water source)


National

average:

11%

(2004, WDI 2008)

Primary water source is improved source

Gender -0.287 *

(1 = male) (0.169)

Education 0.017 Afar-D -0.334

(1 = literate) (0.133) (0.217)

Respondent status 0.119 Amhara-D2 0.239

(1 = head, 0 = spouse) (0.127) (0.182)

Wealth (No. of consumer 0.046 * Benesh. G.-D -0.088

asset types owned) (0.024) (0.173)

HH size (No. of -0.019 Gambella-D 0.437 ***

HH members) (0.018) (0.164)

Working age women -0.010 Oromia-D -1.579 ***

(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.241)

Working age men -0.010 SNNP-D -1.193 ***

(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.205)

Female dependents -0.011 Tigray-D 0.165

(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.185)

Male dependents -0.009 constant 0.595

(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.932)

No. of obs.: 960, LR χ2: 196.53***


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


In Ghana:

Less than

30 minutes

Identification of public services with greatest problem, by socioeconomic status

Public service/ infrastructure:

Education status Wealth status

Literate Illiterate Non-poor Poor

Drinking water 28% 34% 28% 36%

Sanitation/drainage 0% 0% 0% 0%Small-scale irrigation 1% 1% 1% 1%

Health 17% 19% 18% 15%

Education 6% 3% 7% 3%

Electricity 14% 8% 17% 13%

Roads 16% 6% 15% 11%

Livelihood opportunities 2% 1% 3% 3%


Identification of public services with greatest problem, by region

Afar- 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%Sanitation/ drainage 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Small irrigation 1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%

Health 21% 31% 22% 31% 8% 9% 11% 14%

Education 1% 8% 3% 3% 1% 9% 2% 5%

Electricity 0% 10% 21% 7% 6% 6% 16% 40%

Roads 0% 10% 22% 9% 6% 8% 33% 1%Livelihood opportunities 2% 4% 4% 1% 2% 1% 6% 3%


Identification of public services of greatest concern, by gender

Public service/Infrastructure: Men Women

Diff. sign.

Drinking water 31% 34%

Sanitation/drainage 0% 0%

Small-scale irrigation 1% 0% *

Health 17% 19%

Education 5% 3%

Electricity 16% 11% **

Roads 14% 12% **

Livelihood opportunities 2% 3% **


Particular concerns with drinking water supply


0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Men Women Men Women

problem 7 years ago problem today

Not enough drinking water supply

Drinking water is of poor quality

Problems with collecting fees for water use

Other problems with water

Satisfaction with quantity and quality of drinking water supply


Tendency to complain when dissatisfied with drinking water

Yes No Never been dissatisfied Yes No Never been dissatisfied

Question: During the past 1 year, did you approach anyone when you

were dissatisfied with the water quantity or quality?

Male respondents Female respondents

5% 3%

6%

16%

77% 91%


Capacity of Water Committees

• Water committees receive limited training on technical

issues concerning water facilities

• But receive no training on ―soft skills‖: Community

mobilisation to maintain water systems; community

education and persuasion to use improved sources; etc.

• In several of the sites, receive little technical and other

support from wereda water desks

• In all case study sites except for one, water committee

heads were men (although other water committee

members included women)

Accountability and consultation in water provision

• Local knowledge and priorities in water service provision

• Sense of a lack of consultation with local water committees in siting and

construction of water facilities

• Found to be the case irrespective of facility provider (government or NGOs)

• Problematic relationship between water committees and

water users

• Water committees unable to persuade users to participate in maintenance

and pay fees

• Collapse of water facilities as well as water committees

• Fall-back to use of unimproved water sources when facilities don’t work,

rather than use complaint mechanism

• In Tigray, better ―short route‖ accountability mechanisms than elsewhere

• Though everywhere, much dissatisfaction about level of financial fees for

construction and maintenance of systems


• 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.


• Water committees, the lowest level service providers, are

still insufficiently inclusive

Take measures to make committees inclusive – or

consider alternatives (Making it a responsibility of

councils?)

• Water committees not able to counter-act 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 “soft skills”

Train water committees on community relations

Page 39

Conclusions

National / State-level Ministries (NM)

National / State-levelPolitical Representatives (NP)

Development Agencies / Advocacy

NGOs (DA)

Community-BasedOrganizations (CO)





Services

PoliticalParties (PP)

Accountability Framework based on World Bank (2004)

Technology

The Governance of Service Delivery for the Poor and Women:A Study of Agricultural Extension and Rural Water Supply in Ethiopia