Revisiting Extension Systems R. K. Malik CSISA Project, CIMMYT-India 1
National Demonstrations: 1970-84 BETWEEN 1970 to 1984- yield increases were invariably more than now. All such increases were with all possible inputs at that time- 210 kg CAN IN FACT, between 1966 to 2004 fertilizer consumption increased 65 times compared to 25 times in developing countries and 2 times in developed countries. WHEREAS, 1970 to 1980 stage was set for pest specialization Mission oriented or Top-down 1965-66 Wheat yield: 6.0 t/ha EEI-NILOKHERI 2
Why the success differs? 1993 to 1998 were critical years for wheat. 1996 to 2001 were critical years for cotton 1990 onwards rise in actual earnings fell short of rise in input costs. BUT, rent value of land increased much faster in late 1990s and now counts for almost 50% of cost of cultivation Diffusion oriented or bottom- up Team work is more important now than ever Integrate farmers with subsidiary occupation, marketing and faster information flow. 3
Degree of convergence between ND scheme, T & V and now ATMA East India company cotton development 1839 Community Development Program -1952 Intensive Agriculture District Program -1961-62 Intensive Agriculture Area Program -1964-65 High Yielding Varieties Program 1966-67 Farmers Training and Education Program 1966-67 Integrated Agriculture Development Program Small Farmers Development Agency- SFDA Marginal farmers and Agricultural labor Development Agency-MFAL Drought Prone Area Program-DPAP Integrated Rural Development Program- IRDP) Training and Visit -1975 Front Line Demonstration -FLD Operational research Project ORP, Lab to Land and National demonstration (ND). Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) Institutional Village Linkage Program- IVLP National Agricultural Technology Project NATP- 1998. Agricultural Technology Management Agency (ATMA) Agricultural Management and Extension Training Institute (SAMETI) Still the majority of delivery is through farmers to farmers and dealers to farmers (National Sample Survey) 4
Extension is greater than sum of its parts Why green revolution scaled-out in late 1960s and 1970s Because imported seed directly went to farmers field and because of ND scheme Why BT cotton adoption was more rapid and pervasive? Because it brought big advantage out of crisis and farmers created pressure Why zero tillage is more transformational? Because it was a paradigm shift and mind-set issue? Why hybrid rice adoption is more in Bihar and Jharkhand? Because we were not able to replace any competitive variety against MT 7029. Also hybrids could fit the stress environment Why laser land levelling was adopted with not research in India? Because it had a business case and tested and adopted at the same time. Why early sowing changed improved the wheat productivity growth in Haryana? Because every thing was tried and tested at farmers fields? Look at the inventory of technologies not accepted by farmers. Why MTU group of rice varieties and PAU/IARI group of wheat varieties? How the evolution of management based technologies have slowed down? Date of sowing in wheat, plant population in rice, seed rate in rice. Strengthen the data collection and statistical packages on why some technologies fly and some flop. There is more investment but less contact with farmers especially on demonstrations. When we outsource technologies there is risk but there are returns. KVKs can bring authenticity to what works and what doesn t work. Technologies that did well in the past were from institutions developed elsewhere. MTU, zero-tillage, LLL. 5
Processes involved in System Approach Knowledge of a circumstance hence to act researchers are involved. Matching technology with farmers requirement farmers are involved Seeking more precision from the subject of enquiry e.g., new technology market opinion as to how the technology will be accepted extension agencies, farmers and other stakeholders. 6
Agricultural innovation for impact at scale Needs & Opportunity Identification Entry-points for innovation Experimentation on delivery methods Tested & tried promising new practices Bringing into routine use Gildermacher & Mur, 2013 Impact at scale 7
Scepticism to Enthusiasms- Zero-tillage Innovations- product and process. We can replace the system. Happened with Zero Tillage introduction Exiting system does not allow innovation. We need innovations to be aligned with KVKs In India, technologies are borderless Delivery of technologies has to be borderless too. 8
Yield against Planting Date 80 70 SDR Area (%) SDR Farmer (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 By 15th November 16-30 November 1-15 December 16 December onwards Wheat Sowing Date Use of short duration rice (SDR), differentiated by sowing date of wheat 9
Zero Tillage Service Providers Extension 725, 1269 & 1660 in 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively 10
Crisis of herbicide resistance in wheat 10000 8000 Karnal Sonipat Net return (Rs ha -1 ) 6000 4000 2000 0 1993-94 1994-95 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 -2000-4000 11
Crisis of insecticide resistance: Cotton in Haryana 10000 Net return (Rs ha -1 ) 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001-2000 -4000-6000 12
Grain yield (Kg ha -1 ) Reverse Yield gaps in wheat in North-West & EIGP 6000 Bottom 15% Top 15% Gap 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 (n=686) (n=1932) (n=1168) 13
Government-led Extension Potential Strengths Technically competent Concerned with farmer needs, but these often assumed May be supply-driven Difficulty adapting to change Trusted by farmers. Human Resource Infrastructure Potential Weaknesses. Technology-focus rather than farmer-focus Selling technologies that may not meet farmer needs Limited capability in participatory methods Ignore farmer needs for which they do not have a product Research and Extension process may be top-down and linear 14
NGO-led Extension Potential Strengths Participatory methods and social capital building in farmer groups Farmer Livelihoods focus Partnership approaches with farmers Intensive farmer contact at local level May be demand driven Poor understanding of other extension models Potential Weaknesses Technically weak Geographically isolated impacts Short term commitments Competition with other NGOs may hinder collaboration 15
Business-led Extension Potential Strengths Focus on farmer needs to sell product Technical competence is product-focussed May be demand-driven Intensive farmer contact Can be very adaptive Poor understanding of other extension models Potential Weaknesses Narrow technical competence Profit motive can override farmer needs Ignore farmer needs for which they do not have a product Product, or organisation, may not be trusted by farmers 16
Training, training and training Technology development and the process of delivery can not be separated Diversification without value chain management. Mechanization without business development services like SPs Capacity building without dealers, and other stake holders How to make farmers the centre of information flow? Delivery process in increasingly being driven by trainings with less emphasis on demos. There is limited flexibility to respond to climate change and system approach in trainings. 17
Closing the Gender Gap Could increase yields on farms by 20 30 percent which Could raise total agricultural output in developing countries 2.5 4 percent which Could reduce the number of hungry people in the world by 12 17 percent State of Food and Agriculture FAO 2011 18
Gender & Nutrition Agriculture Production-Nutrition: increasing availability and access through own production. Introduction of pulses in the cereal based cropping system Rice-Wheat-Summer Moong, Rice-Mustard- Moong, Rice-Moong, Maize + Potato/Maize + Peas Agriculture Income-Nutrition Pathway: income from agriculture wages / commodity sales being used to purchase more nutrient-rich foods. Creating market surplus. Women s Empowerment-Nutrition: Agriculture affects women s social status and empowerment Agriculture affects women s time Agriculture affects (and be affected by) women s health and nutritional status 19
Organizational Changes - Why? Efficiency to Effectiveness Agricultural scientists live in two quite distinct places at the same time: one inside their campuses, labs and experimental farms which is more aspirational than reality (Researchers) and the other the larger day to day world of stakeholders without nurturing themselves in the literature and research (Extension scientists). Greatest achievement comes if we can bring the two aspects together. Scientists and managers give their allegiance to their commodities, their disciplines and their institutions rather than to beneficiaries as the appropriate drivers of research, extension and marketing etc. 20
Processes involved in System Approach 21
Sustainably improving cereal productivity in South Asia www.csisa.org Thank You! 22
Direct Seeding & Weed Dynamics EUP, 2014 PARTICULARS DSR with presowing irrigation DSR without pre-sowing irrigation Variety/Hybrid JK 401 BPT 5204 DOS 10-Jun 11-Jun Seed rate (kg/ha) 18 30 Number of irrigation 1 1 Fertilizer (kg/ha) (N:P2O5:K2O:ZnSO4) 125:115:30:25 150:115:30:25 Herbicide Bispyribac Bispyribac Labour for Weeding 6 35 No. of weeds/m 2 84 232 Yield (t/acre) 7.7 6.3 23
Grain Yield (t/ha) Transplanting Times values in EIGP Bihar & EUP, 2014 7 Paddy yield of Arize 6444 at different dates of transplanting (n=41) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 to 15 Jun 16 to 30 Jun 1 to 15 July 16 to 31 July 1 Aug onwd 24
Yield Acceleration of management gains The rice revolution in South America Agronomic Revolution (management gain 2 t / ha, ) Variety revolution (semi-dwarfs 2 t / ha) 350 new varieties released Creation of FLAR Peter Jennings, FLAR, 2005...1968 1995 2002... Courtesy of A. Dobermann 25