South African Forestry Handbook, Fifth Edition

South African Forestry Handbook

Role of Extension in Forestry

Michael Jacobson

School of Forest Resources, PennsylvaniaStateUniversity

Introduction

Considering the large number of land claims by rural communities on forestry land and that fact that most land available for forestry expansion is situated in communal areas,the forestry industry will have to consider ways of dealing with an expanding number of rural forest owners. To ensure a stable supply of forest products these emerging forest owners will have to be supported through various extension systems. The reality is that sustainable forestry development will depend on how communities are enabled and willing to manage their forests in partnership with other stakeholders.

This chapter looks at the evolution and types of extension models and discusses new approaches to extension with a special focus on forestry and Africa. There are many definitions of extension but it essentially combines the transfer of technology and exchange of knowledge (content) in various systematic processes that communicate this information to various beneficiaries such as farmers, forest landowners and communities. Terms such as diagnosis and design, advisory services, communication dissemination, delivery, diffusion, adoption, and demonstration are used in the content of extension education.

There are two distinct extension structures: 1) the university based Cooperative Extension System that has flourished in the United States but had origins in Britain, and 2) the government driven national extension systems, most commonly found in developing countries such as Africa. The common features in both systems are that they are primarily government-funded with a history of top-down linear linkage of research delivered via technology transfer from the messenger (extension worker) to the beneficiary (client).

Recently, due to problems in public funding and a lack of participation by beneficiaries in the extension programs there is a shift toward more participatory, bottom-up and private outsourcing of extension activities. Extension was originally developed to assist agricultural development, while forestry extension either evolved as a separate branch of extension programs (as in the U.S) or more commonly is integrated in agricultural extension programs (as in many African countries).

United States university-driven model

Extension evolved in the United States in the late 1800s after the creation of land grant universities and agricultural experiment and research stations in each state. Experiment stations were charged with disseminating research findings beyond the universities into neighboring communities. A formal Cooperative Extension System was established with the mission to disseminate research-based information on topics as varied as nutrition, agriculture, forestry, horticulture, small business and personal finance.

The Cooperative Extension System involves federal, state and local governments and a state land-grant university working together. Each state Extension serves its residents through a network of local or regional offices staffed by professionals in their field. Cooperative Extension as practiced in the U.S. is now the single biggest educational delivery system in the world. Often the proportion of forestry extension in a state is a function of the forest resource based in that state. Many states have an extension forester or specialist housed at the university with extension agents working in regions or counties of that state. However, forest extension agents are a distinct minority compared to agricultural agents. Therefore, it is not uncommon to see agricultural extension agents deliver forest extension programs.

International government-driven model

This section focuses on forestry extension in developing countries, and specifically Africa. Historically, forest management in developing countries focused on protection of government owned forests, limiting the extension educational audience to forest managers and forest guards, and essentially ignored local communities. As rural development projects evolved extension activities began reaching rural communities and farmers. Until recently, in most countries extension was delivered by government agencies, typically through government research institutes providing extension resources that may include extension workers in the field. Extension was typically housed in Ministries or Departments of Agriculture or Forestry, and funded primarily by donor-specific projects. For example the World Bank may have a five-year forestry project that has an extension component. The objective was to provide specific technical knowledge to farmers and rural communities to meet project objectives. Much of the research and technologies were developed by applied research institutes in these countries, also in many cases project funded. The problems with this approach were that extension had no process for adaptation, innovation or flexibility in what was delivered to beneficiaries. The extension worker was usually the only government representative in the village, and often asked to perform other functions. The attitude and motivation of extension workers is critical to successful extension programs.

The specific a hoc project component driven approach, the lack of consistent national extension strategy, and inflexible nature of the extension services led the World Bank and several major donor countries to introduce the Training and Visit extension system (T&V) in the 1970s and 1980s. The T&V system was designed to unify and improve extension services by transforming extension administration, being more adaptive to client needs (including women), emphasizing frequent in-service training for extension personnel, regular visitation to farmers’ farms, promotion of extension/research linkages, and improved extension management. T&V still assumed that top-down was best and that the technologies developed off-farm and in research institutes were appropriate for farmers. In some countries such as Ghana and Kenya the T&V system did integrate national extension systems, improved staff quality through training improved research extension linkages. But overall the benefits were short lived. By the 1990s a lack of visible results in performance limited participation by beneficiaries in extension programs and a lack of motivation by extension workers was a major cause for T&V system to fail.

A commonly cited issue of many extension programs was that they were developed for large farmers and export driven crop production and did not address the subsistence and livelihood needs of most poor farmers in developing countries. A Word Bank review of the T&V system showed that the inappropriate transfer of simple off-farm research results to complex on-farm land use systems. Essentially there was mismatch between what farmers want (advice on complex practices) and what they actually got (simple agronomic practices). Also, farmers wanted demonstrations but the T&V systems promoted home visits. Ironically, the World Bank review found that farmers were willing to pay or at least cost-share targeted interventions. Lessons from the T&V approach led to a shift toward alternative extension approaches that are more participatory, pro-poor, and bottom-up.

New approaches to extension administration and delivery

One can categorize 4 options for extension delivery structures:

1)Public sector (traditional model)

2)Private sector with public funding

3)Private sector through direct donor funding (by-passing public sector)

4)Private sector through direct private funding (e.g. contract farming or cooperatives)

Today, there is a distinct swing to private sector approaches that are more user demand-driven, pluristic and interactive. Development workers and governments now acknowledge the failure of top-down supply driven extension and the importance of demand driven and local participation in the extension process. Recent innovations involve farmer to farmer learning techniques, outsourcing, and privatizing agricultural advisory services. Numerous factors have facilitated these new trends. They include: 1) decreasing public sector budgets and less donor funding, 2) more political democracy and economic liberalization leading to decentralization and privatization of forestry and agricultural sector services, 3) increasing privately funded NGO projects and 4) growing farmer organizations and small scale enterprise initiatives.

Decentralization of extension implies the shift of the provision of services from national centralized government to local governments. In this process a number of service providers including NGOs, private entrepreneurs and civil society organizations are filling the void left by less national government involvement. Using local and indigenous knowledge, empowering farmers, determining farmer needs and building community networks are seen as key factors in planning extension programs. In this scenario, there is a two-way flow of information; extension workers become facilitators and brokers of knowledge not just teachers.

A major thrust in new extension approaches is limiting the role of the government. It relies more on private entities providing alternate ways of reaching farmers and providing education and resources to rural poor. The main approaches are:

1)by national agency – efficiencies no duplication at local level;

2)contracting by local governments;

3)contracting directly by clients e.g. farmer field school;

4)public private partnership funds;

5)privatization of extension services – increased cost sharing by farmers.

Outsourcing changes the accountability and incentive structure. Farmers begin to cost share and pay for services. Competition for providing advisory services among private entities increases and in theory there are efficiency and effectiveness gains. Issues include making sure the services provided are focused and meeting beneficiary needs. Too many providers may dilute the overall objectives of meeting rural poor needs. The question becomes how to mobilize this multiple approaches of these providers to share innovative knowledge. This suggests a role for public sector oversight and ensuring these needs are met. As one begins to develop extension programs, one can define specific roles for government, private sector and beneficiaries. These include:

Central and local government
Develop regulations, contract with private entities, and ensure quality control, monitoring and evaluation.
Private service providers
Co-fund services, bring entrepreneurial skills.
Beneficiaries, including farmers, women, community organizations
Identify types and services needed, cost share activities

Specific issues in forestry extension

In the United States most states have extension foresters, but in developing counties extension on forestry or agroforestry extension activities are commonly carried out by agricultural agents with little training in forestry. Problems with this are that forestry has some unique issues different to agriculture. These include:

long time scales for tree growing;
access rights and tenure (more publicly owned and common property rights then agriculture);
not full time occupation of most rural poor but important for livelihoods;
forest products are generally lower value products;
significant ecological considerations.

Forestry extension in developing countries emerged due to concerns about forest degradation and environmental concerns, and less to meet human needs. Unlike agricultural extension which emerged as a government priority for food security. Later as rural development projects included social and community forestry projects there became a clearer need for forest extension to address poverty and livelihood issues.

The currently promoted bottom-up farmer led approach to extension implies that forestry extension should not be seen in isolation for other sectors and rural development initiatives. Many forestry activities are closely linked to agriculture, energy and health sectors. Instead of using the traditional vertical top-down model, forest extension need to capture horizontal networks including local knowledge and resources from private entities, NGOs and other rural development sectors. Depending on the context and location, targeted audiences should include farmers, private forest landowners (including industry), and various community groups and organizations (e.g., farmer cooperatives). In the United States, planning extension programs now involves sometimes complex logic models to determine audiences and outcomes (see

Communication has grown exponentially especially with access the cell phones and the internet. Forest extension must find ways to use these technologies efficiently. Tools are going beyond the more commonly used workshops and publications toward use of webinars, blogs and podcasts, and online videos. In developing counties tools may include less technically savvy activities such mass media (radio, slogans), village theater skits, puppets traveling shows, booklets, posters, group discussions, etc.

Conclusion

The future of extension will be driven more by external forces, such a budgets then anything else. Extension programs will also need to shift focus as new initiatives emerge such as carbon markets. Extension will still come in many shapes and sizes but there are some common themes emerging that are keys for successful extension program. These include:

Have pluristic institutional arrangements that include local control and multiple actors. For example, in the United States there are county extension advisory boards comprised of local residents;
Ensure clear policies that promote dialogue among stakeholders;
Incorporate the multiple sources of information;
Transparency in information sharing and delivery;
The need for adaptive and participatory learning due to constantly changing local needs.

Resources

In Africa specifically, policies that facilitate this transition to pro –poor pluristic approaches to extension are seen in multiple documents including:

Poverty Recovery Strategy papers (PRSPs)
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)
New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD)
Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP)
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA)

Networking resources for extension workers

ODI's Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AgREN)
Association of Nature Resource Extension Professionals (ANREP)
African Network for Agriculture, Agroforestry and Natural Resources Education (ANAFE)

References

FAO (1996) Special Issue on Forestry Extension, Unasylva. 47(1)

Falconer, J. (1987) Forestry extension: a review of the key issues. ODI Network paper 4E

Ham C., Chirwa P. and Theron F. (2008) The forester as a change agent – from trees between the people to people between the trees. In Theron F. (Ed) The development change agent: a micro-level approach to development. Van Schaik, Pretoria: 173 – 201.

Heemskerk, W.S. Nederhof, and Wennik. (2008)Outsourcing agricultural advisory services: Enhancing rural innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Bulletin 380. KIT Publishers.

Ntifo-Siaw, E. and Agunga R.(1998) A Comparative Study of Management Effectiveness Under the Training and Visit and General Extension Systems in Ghana. Journal of Agricultural Education Volume 35, No. 4 41:36-41

World Bank. (1999)World Bank Agricultural Extension Projects in Kenya. Operation Evaluation Department Report No. 19523