Decentralization and Access to Agricultural Extension Services in Kenya

1
Decentralization and Access to Agricultural
Extension Services in Kenya
Omiti, J.M., Mugunieri, G.L. and E. Nambiro
2
Introduction

• Decentralise to make Extension Services more
  accessible, accountable and also empower
  clientele (farmers).
• Two common forms of decentralisation
• Shift extension provision to other institutions
  - e.g, KTDA for tea, HCDA for horticulture
• Change management of programs through farmer
  participation in decision-making and
  responsibility for extension programs

3
Empowerment and Participation

• Empowerment entails
• Capacity Building
• Raising Awareness
• Greater farmer participation to exert pressure
  on extension services to provide timely and
  relevant advice

4
Extension Delivery Systems

• Public delivery and public finance traditional
  government extension but diminished budgetary
  support (high potential areas)
• Public delivery and private finance
  contracting public staff (high potential
  areas/high value produce)
• Private delivery and private finance
  privatised extension (high value enterprises,
  Agrovets)
• Private delivery and public finance NGOs, CBOs
  (low potential areas)

5
Research Problem

• Decentralisation appears to have been successful
  for high-value produce (tea, Coffee,
  horticulture, etc)
• Some segments have not benefited, e.g.
• Low-value/traditional food crops
• Agro-pastoral livestock production
• Segments of smallholder dairy
• Can these poor farmers afford privatised
  extension services??
• What are the workable delivery models for
  enhanced growth of Rural Economy?

6
Research Objectives

• Identify types, quality, cost and access to
  different extension delivery channels
• Identify opportunities for broader participation
  in a decentralised environment

7
Methods and Data

• Kakamega District - High potential
• Ikolomani Municipality Divisions
• Makueni District - Low potential
• Kibwezi Makindu Divisions
• Random sampling of households - 250 farmers
• Primary and Secondary data
• Logit and Probit models
• Willingness to Pay (Contingent Valuation Method)

8
Major Extension Delivery Systems

• Kakamega (high potential) mainly served by Public
  delivery and private finance
• Makueni (low potential) dominated by Private
  delivery and public finance
• Limited public delivery and public finance in
  both districts
• Increased decentralisation enhanced level of
  awareness (empowerment) by farmers of the
  different channels for extension service delivery

9
Determinants of Access to Extension

• Distance to source (-)
• Gender (favouring male)
• Age (-)
• Education level ()
• Ownership of telephone ()
• Social capital ()
• Income (ability to pay) ()

10
Ranking of Different Extension Channels
11
Effects of Decentralization

• Stimulates formation of farmer organisations
  (social capital), a proxy for participation which
  is believed to facilitate accountability of
  extension to farmers.
• Enhances social capital which is an important
  determinant of access to extension service.
• Encourages a pluralistic approach in the
  provision of extension services, with synergy
  within this pluralism.

12
Conclusions

• Develop strategies to exploit and build on
  partnership and pluralism arising from
  decentralisation
• Strengthen and implement policies that will
  institutionalise pluralistic extension services
• Promote development of social capital so as to
  foster an efficient and sustainable extension
  system
• Emphasize formation and strengthening of farmers'
  groups for sustainable rural development
• Promote mechanisms to enhance co-ordination
  amongst different extension service providers.

13
Acknowledgements

• Farmers
• Enumerators
• SAGA programme
• Colleagues (for comments and suggestions)
• THANK YOU ALL