Nepal - Second Agricultural Extension Project

 Second agricultural extension project Report No: ; Type: Report/Evaluation Memorandum ; Country: Nepal; Region: South Asia; Sector: Agricultural Extension; Major Sector: Agriculture; ProjectID: P010214 Nepal: Agricultural Extension II Project (Credit 1570-NEP) The Nepal Agricultural Extension II project, supported by Credit 1570-NEP, for US$7.2 million equivalent, was approved in FY85. The Credit was closed in FY95, after three one-year extensions. A total of US$2.1 million equivalent was canceled largely due to changes in exchange rates. The Implementation Completion Report (ICR) was prepared by the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Program and the South Asia Regional Office. The borrower's detailed comments, including some valuable lessons for extension projects, are annexed to the ICR. The objective of the project was to reorganize and strengthen public agricultural extension services in the lowland districts of Nepal. This was to be achieved by introducing the T&V system of agricultural extension; strengthening project management at central and regional levels; introducing monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of project activities; and providing offices, housing, vehicles, equipment, staff training and incremental salaries and operating costs for the extension services. The project achieved its principal development objective of reorganizing and strengthening extension services. In 1990/91, the government abandoned the T&V system of extension and the project was restructured to finance a pilot program of farmer-centered and participative extension built on a process of problem diagnosis and solution and using better qualified technical staff. Project support was also extended and additional districts were added. The original project design was flawed in that it sought to continue to develop an extension service based on the T&V methodology, when experience with earlier projects (Crs. 812-NEP and 856-NEP) using T&V had been disappointing due to difficulties with recruitment of sufficiently qualified staff, provision of adequate useful messages and establishment of effective links with the research system. Borrower ownership of the original project was weak, but improved greatly following its redesign. Implementation of the project initially proved difficult with slow construction of civil works, delayed procurement of vehicles and equipment, weak M&E and ineffective staff training, but gathered speed following its restructuring and supervision ratings improved markedly. The Operations Evaluation Department agrees with the ICR in rating the overall outcome of the project as satisfactory, since the project was well managed in its final two years and did succeed in strengthening extension services through the introduction of a farmer group approach. OED downgrades the ICR rating for institutional development from substantial to modest, since the new system of extension is still in an early stage of development and will need more time to prove its efficacy. In accord with the ICR, sustainability is rated as uncertain and the performance of IDA as satisfactory. Lessons that can be drawn from this project are: (i) the group and participative problem-solving approach to extension may have significant advantages over T&V, and is likely to prove less costly and more sustainable; (ii) orientation meetings and workshops of policy makers, implementers and beneficiaries are important at project inception to ensure full support and cooperation during project implementation; (iii) the impact of project activities on farm income and agricultural productivity is most important in extension projects and should be continuously monitored and evaluated through an active M&E unit; and (iv) synergies can be gained by complementing a face-to-face extension service with mass media, and support should be provided for the development of radio, video and leaflet production. The ICR is satisfactory. It provides a comprehensive account of project implementation and is enriched by the insightful comments of the borrower. The borrower plans to continue to develop its new approach to extension and is preparing a follow-on project for financing by IDA. No audit is planned.