Listening to farmers - agricultural extension in Senegal

E N V I R O N M E N T D E P A R T M E N T r 63DISSEMIl N AT 1 O N N O T E S .in w TOWARD ENVIRONMENTALLY AND SOCIALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Number 45 August 19% Listening to Farmers Agricultural Extension in Senegal Understanding the perspective offarmers is key to the success of any activity aimed at improving their lives. Agricultural extension, which. provides information to increase farmers' production, is 'particularly related to the point of view of the farmer. Extension work consists of two parts, the message (technical) and the communication (cultural); both have to be effectivefprextension to be of use. In mid-1994 a beneficiary assessmentwas conducted by the National Agricultural Extension Program (PNVA) of Senegal to systematically listen to the viewpoitts offarmers from all parts of the country. The purpose ofthisassessmentwas togain an understanding of how thefarmers appreciated theextension work, which was patternedafter the Trainingand Visit(T&V) approach, and thereby learn messonswith which to enhance the quality of theextension program. The final report, released in March of this year, revealed that when the message was delivered it was perceived as having a beneficial effect on production but that as often as not the message was not transmitted, in large part due to the poorfunctioning of the contact group (CG), and thefact that women were particularly uninformed by the extension program. Methodology not so covered. Roughly one third (34%) of those interviewed were members of contact groups. The methodology employed by the PNVA for this Approximately one third (32%) of the interviewees were work followed the classical lines of the beneficiary women. The team of interviewers was largely (24 of 28) assessment approach. Senegal was divided into nine new recruits to PNVA or temporary recruits not agricultural regions covered by the extension program, identified either in their own-minds or in the minds of each one representing a distinct agro-ecological region the farmers with the agricultural extension agency. This (groundnuts, horticulture, livestock, etc.). . The sample was the first qualitative research done by the PNVA. consisted of ten villages in each region, and, within each village, an average of ten interviews were conducted by . Findings each interviewer. The national assessment team numbered 28, of whom nine were women. The interviews While much useful information was gleaned from were structured around thematic guides which covered: this assessment, three findings stand out as particularly significant. These may be divided by our original * changes observed intheagro-sylvo-pastoralsystem classification of technical (the message) and over the last five years; communication (the CG and women). * constraints to increased agricultural production; * factors explaining improvements in production; . The message. Two pieces of information * sourcesof information on agricultural production; provide testimony to the efficacy of the extension * relationship with extension agents; message. When asked what factors contributed to the * knowledge and operation of contact groups; improvements realized in agricultural production, * concrete benefits of PNVA assistance; farmers put cropping techniques first (32% on average * main local organizathons; .for all regions, compared to 16% for water, the next most * * suggestions for imnproving work of PNVA; frequently mentioned main factor.-.see Table 1. The * other concerns, development needs. fact that much of the PNVA extension work centers on improving farmers' cropping techniques indicates the A total of 2,442 interviews were conducted in all program is having a positive impact. This is corroborated nine regions (from 200 to 400 per region) around these by the low, pereentage (7) of farmers who stated that the themes. An additional 150 focus group sessions were - . . ~~~~message they received from the extensionist was not conducted to get a sense of what an even broader range useful. However, only half (49.5%) of those interviewed of the population felt about these issues. Three quarters stated that he message w useful. The remainder of of the villages sampled were in areas that were supposed the farmers, close to half (43%), stated that they had' to be covered by PNVA'extension work; one quarter was Thtis note was based dn a paper prepared by Lawrence Salnien. For more information call Lawrence Salmen of tile Environment Department, Social Policy and Resettlement Division, The World Bank, Fax (202) 522-3247. @ Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled poper  Table 1: Main Factors Explaining Improvements ExCplanatory Factors Dakar Niayes Souitherni Northern Sylvo. Fleouve Kolda- Bakel Bignona Average Groundnut Basin Zone Regioni Cropping Tech. 3% 36%. 220/ 23%/- 39% 61% 18% 43% 19% 31.7%0/ Mineral & Org. Fert. - 17% 12%_ 8% . 18% 7% 14D%o 27% 9.7%1/o Water Factors 11%: 4/o .15% - 56% - 4% 10% 12% 35% 16.2% IrnputAvailability. 5% 15% - 16% 8% 4% .4% - 5.7% : Others 28%' 8% 1 6% -13% - - 3% - 6.4% No Response - - - - - - - - - 13.6% No Increase iri Prodint 37% 10% 44% 3% 32% 5%,0 1% 19% 9% V 16.7% . received no message. Considering the quarter of the compared to 80% of all non-CG members. Here the sample thatw,as not supposed to be receiving-attention 'contact group is clearly important. For roughly half of from the PNVA, that .still leaves one quarter of the the CG members the extension agent is the most farmers within the area covered by PNVA either totally important source of information on agriciulture; for non- unattended (18%) or dissatisfied with what they are members this drops to a very low 3%. Only 14% of the being provided (7%). The fault appears to lie in the members of CGs across the nation are'women. The imedium more than in the message. - . assessment report.concludes that:- The contact group. The beneficiary assessment . In generaL, one can see a clear differentiation by final report states that "The contact group is one of the, gender and category (member or non-memberof a CG). pillars. of the T&V extension method. The CG is the Women have liffle access to information unless it comes interface between the extension agent and the through the traditionalcircuits. Members of CGs-(men) producers. As the main vehicle of information, its seem to have a monopoly on information coming from functioning determines how:widely extenision themes the field extension agents (p.14). will be disseminated" (p.10). Given this pivotal Conclusion disseminationrole,itissurprisingthatoniy aboutone nclusion third (32.5%) of all farmers interviewed know of the existence of contact groups. A larger percentage (40.8) ' This beneficiary ,assessment of -the' PNVA T&V grous. argr prcetby (40.8), nsion agency in Senegal has'brought to, light three, well over a quarter in areas not covered by the PNVA, exte stated flatly that there was no contact group in, their important ingredients of-success: technical expertise, area, while over one quarter (26.5%) of the sample were communication, and sensitivity to gender. Clearly the not sure whetier CGs were in their area or what they' information.imparted -by PNVA'extension. agents s. not:. : were(seeTable2). WhenweelirninatetheCGmembers, deemed useful by farmers and does enhance were (see Table 2). When we eliminate the CG members, the picture is more bleak: more than 90% of the non-CG y productivity. Just as,clearly, many farmers are not -members do' not know of the existence' or VdenIy the getting this beneficial information. A major weak link existence of contact groups. It would appear fair to say Is the contact group which; if It receives the informati thatthecontact$group isnoteffectiveasadissemination rarely passes It to other farmersin the communitywho v-hicle for:agriculuraiextension wor- in -Senegal- are not in the CG;(generally an 80%. majority). Least ve-hicle for-agricultural.extension work in Senegal. benefited by this extension system are the women who 0 -' Women. The women are the major agricultural are normally excluded'frommembership in the contact producersof Senegalandyettheyaretheleastinformed , groups and are hence ignOrant of the work of the about advances in agriculturalproduction. Onlyone-. '-extension,agency entirely. Verbal communication 7 \ fi*h of the women farmers* knew of itheexistence of between Franz Schorosch (AF5AE), task manager for .contact groups, one half 'the percentage (40f) 'of rnale this work, and the PNVA has revealed thatthis agency. farmers. Only -10% of the wome'n mentioned the is making major changes in its operating procedures as : extension agent as a source of information on 0 a result of the findings of this beneficiary assessment. agriculture, one third of the percentage (30) of men. The These changes include integrating contact groups with great majority (85%) of women interviewed said they village associations and recruiting additional female had not received any message from the PNVA, as.: extensionworkers. Table 2: Existence of Contact Groups: Explanatory Factors Dakar Niayes Southern Northern Sylvo. Fleuve Kolda Bakel Bignona Average Groundnut Basin . Zone Region : - ,CGs Exist 26% 24% 4 43% 430/u 22% 69% 23% 43%/o - 32.5%./0 CGs Don't Exist 27% 28% 2% - 49%/ 78% o 31% - 77% - 75% 4070o Don't Know 47% / 48% 55S% :8% - - - - 57% 24%. 26.5%