Francis Chilenga's Master dissertation focused on the assessment of the effectiveness of the Sasakawa Global 2000 Programme approach to agricultural technology delivery in northen Malawi

1. UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
SASAKAWA GLOBAL 2000 PROGRAMME APPROACH TO
AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY DELIVERY IN NORTHERN MALAWI
BY
FRANCIS WAKISA CHILENGA
THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL
ECONOMICS AND EXTENSION OF THE SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURE,
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY
DEGREE IN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
AUGUST 2008

2. DECLARATION
Candidate’s Declaration
I hereby declare that this thesis is the result of my own original work and that no
part of it has been presented for another degree in this university or elsewhere.
Candidate’s Signature: ………………………………….Date: …………………...
Name: ………………………………………………………………………………
Supervisors’ Declaration
We hereby declare that the preparation and presentation of the thesis were
supervised in accordance with the guidelines on supervision of thesis laid down
by the University of Cape Coast.
Principal Supervisor’s Signature: …………………………..Date: ………………..
Name: ………………………………………………………………………………
Co-Supervisor’s Signature: ………………………………… Date: ………………
Name: ………………………………………………………………………………
ii

3. ABSTRACT
Sufficient food production remains an important condition for alleviating
food insecurity in Malawi. However, achieving sustainable food security requires
that farmers continually adopt improved agricultural production technologies in
order to realize yield potentials from a decreasing land resource base. An effective
and efficient extension system is, thus, very essential to the dissemination and
adoption of improved agricultural technologies. This study was carried out to
assess the effectiveness of the Sasakawa Global 2000 approach to agricultural
technology delivery in Northern Malawi. Using a descriptive correlational survey
design, data were collected from 194 Sasakawa Global 2000 participant-farmers
using a proportionate stratified random sampling method from two purposively
sampled districts, namely Rumphi and Chitipa in Northern Malawi. The results
revealed that the Sasakawa Global 2000 approach attracted a high level of
participation by farmers in planning, monitoring and evaluation of programme
activities. The management training plot and access to farm credit were the two
important factors found to explain the effectiveness of the Sasakawa Global 2000
approach. Results also revealed a high level of adoption of the technologies
disseminated under the Sasakawa Global 2000 Programme.
Based on these key findings, it is recommended that the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS) should mainstream the management
training plot into public extension programmes. In addition, MoAFS should
promote the use of participatory extension approaches in agricultural services
iii

4. delivery. Improving smallholder farmers’ access to farm credit through
appropriate government interventions will also help smallholder farmers ensure
food security at household level.
iv

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my Principal
Supervisor, Dr. Ismail bin Yahya and Co-supervisor, Dr. Albert Obeng Mensah,
for their constant guidance and encouragement, without which this work would
not have been possible. For their unwavering support, I am truly grateful. I am
also grateful to all the lecturers in the School of Agriculture, Department of
Agricultural Economics and Extension in particular, especially Professor Joseph
Kwarteng and Dr. Festus Annor-Frempong for their support towards the
successful completion of my studies in Ghana.
Without the financial support of the Sasakawa Africa Fund for Extension
education (SAFE) which offered me a scholarship for graduate studies, this work
would not have been possible. Special thanks go to Dr. Deola Naibakelao, and
Mr. Nick Sichinga, National Coordinator for SG 2000 in Malawi for granting me
that rare opportunity. I also would like to express my heartfelt gratitudes to the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security in Malawi for granting me study leave
and for supporting me during the entire data collection period. Many thanks also
go to Messrs M. Lweya, M.T.W Hara, D. Nyirenda and N. Mwenibungu for their
assistance and dedication during the field work. I am really grateful to them.
I would also like to thank my friends, and colleagues at the University of
Cape Coast for their encouragement and moral support which made my stay and
studies in Ghana more enjoyable. To them I say “we meet to part, but more
importantly we part to meet.”
v

6. DEDICATION
To my parents, Kingsley Wakisa Chilenga and Rozalia Nandeka
vi

7. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADD Agricultural Development Division
AEDC Agricultural Extension Development Coordinator
AEDO Agricultural Extension Development Officer
ASP Agricultural Services Project
BES Block Extension System
DADO District Agricultural Development Office
DAES Department of Agricultural Extension Services
EPA Extension Planning Area
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
GoM Government of Malawi
IPM Integrated Pest Management
MDGS Malawi Development and Growth Strategy
MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NRIA National Research Institute for Agriculture
SAA Sasakawa Africa Association
SG 2000 Sasakawa Global 2000
T&V Training and Visit
ToT Transfer of Technology
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WB World Bank
vii

8. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
DECLARATION .................................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................... v
DEDICATION....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ xvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION1
Background to the Study......................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem........................................................................................ 6
Objectives of the Study........................................................................................... 8
General Objective ................................................................................................... 8
Specific Objectives ................................................................................................. 8
Research Hypotheses .............................................................................................. 9
Variables in the Study........................................................................................... 11
Rationale for the Study ......................................................................................... 12
Delimitations......................................................................................................... 13
Definition of Key Terms....................................................................................... 14
Description of Study Area .................................................................................... 15
Country Profile...................................................................................................... 15
viii

9. Sampled Districts .................................................................................................. 16
Chitipa District: A Brief Profile............................................................................ 17
Rumphi District: A Brief Profile........................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction........................................................................................................... 21
Agricultural extension: Meaning and its significance .......................................... 21
Agricultural Extension in Malawi: An Overview................................................. 24
SG 2000 and Agriculture Development in Malawi .............................................. 25
Agricultural Extension Models: A Comparative Overview.................................. 27
The Technology Transfer Model .......................................................................... 28
Farmer First Model ............................................................................................... 29
Participatory Model .............................................................................................. 30
Sustainable development extension model ........................................................... 31
Extension Communication Methods..................................................................... 32
A Comparison of Individual and Group Methods ................................................ 33
Farmer Participation in Extension Programmes ................................................... 35
Definition of Participation .................................................................................... 35
Types and Levels of Participation......................................................................... 35
Benefits of Participation ....................................................................................... 37
Costs of Participation............................................................................................ 38
Key Elements in Promoting Participation............................................................. 39
Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations ................................................................ 40
Stages in the Adoption Process............................................................................. 40
ix

10. Adopter Categories and their Characteristics ....................................................... 42
Determinants of Adoption..................................................................................... 42
Economic Factors.................................................................................................. 44
Farm Size .............................................................................................................. 44
Cost of Technology............................................................................................... 46
Level of Expected benefits.................................................................................... 46
Off-farm hours ...................................................................................................... 47
Social Factors........................................................................................................ 47
Age of Adopter ..................................................................................................... 47
Education .............................................................................................................. 49
Gender Issues and Concerns ................................................................................. 49
Institutional Factors .............................................................................................. 50
Extension Contacts................................................................................................ 50
The Combined Effect............................................................................................ 51
Adoption of Maize Production Technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa .................. 53
Use of Inorganic fertilizer and Improved Varieties .............................................. 53
Adoption of Other Crop Management Practices................................................... 54
Conservation Tillage............................................................................................. 55
Definition of Conservation Tillage ....................................................................... 55
Impact of Conservation Tillage on Yield.............................................................. 55
Adoption of Conservation Tillage ........................................................................ 56
Conceptual framework.......................................................................................... 57
Introduction........................................................................................................... 57
x

11. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction........................................................................................................... 63
Research Design.................................................................................................... 63
Population of Study............................................................................................... 64
Sampling and Sample Size.................................................................................... 64
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 65
Validation of Instrument ....................................................................................... 67
Pilot-testing the Instrument................................................................................... 67
Training of Interviewers ....................................................................................... 68
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 69
Data Management and Analysis ........................................................................... 69
Hypotheses Testing............................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction........................................................................................................... 72
Demographic and Socio economic Characteristics of Farmers -.......................... 72
Sex......................................................................................................................... 72
Age........................................................................................................................ 73
Formal Education.................................................................................................. 74
Household size ...................................................................................................... 76
Farm Labour.......................................................................................................... 77
Land holding size.................................................................................................. 78
Years of Farming Experience ............................................................................... 79
Income level.......................................................................................................... 80
xi

12. Major crops grown................................................................................................ 81
Utilisation of cultivated crops............................................................................... 82
Access to credit ..................................................................................................... 84
Use of credit.......................................................................................................... 84
Reasons for not accessing credit ........................................................................... 85
Sources of credit ................................................................................................... 86
Sources of agricultural extension services............................................................ 87
Extension teaching methods experienced by farmers........................................... 88
Farmers’ Perceptions of the Level of Participation in SG 2000 Programme ....... 90
Farmers’ Perceptions of the Effectiveness of the Management Training Plot as
used under SG 2000 Programme Approach.............................................. 92
Farmers’ Perceptions of the Level of Satisfaction with Technologies
Disseminated under SG 2000 Programme................................................ 94
Farmers’ Perceptions of the Level of Adoption of Technologies Disseminated
under SG 2000 Programme....................................................................... 95
Constraints to adoption of agricultural technologies disseminated under SG 2000
Programme................................................................................................ 96
Independent sampled t-test –comparison of means of level of participation,
perception on management training plot effectiveness, level of satisfaction
with technologies and level of technology adoption by districts.............. 98
Independent sampled t-test –comparison of means of perception on level of
participation, perception on management training plot effectiveness, level
xii

13. of satisfaction with technologies and level of technology adoption by sex
of respondents ......................................................................................... 100
Relationship between overall effectiveness of SG 2000 Programme Approach to
agricultural technology delivery and selected variables ......................... 102
Relationship between level of participation and farmers’ demographic and socio-
economic characteristics ......................................................................... 105
Relationship between level of technology adoption and selected farmers’
demographic and socio-economic characteristics................................... 106
Predictors of the overall effectiveness of the SG 2000 Programme Approach to
agricultural technology delivery ............................................................. 112
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction......................................................................................................... 114
Summary of Thesis ............................................................................................. 114
Conclusions......................................................................................................... 123
Recommendations............................................................................................... 126
Future Research Direction .................................................................................. 128
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 130
APPENDIX I: FARMERS’ INTERVIEW SCHEDULE ................................... 145
xiii

14. LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1: Reliability Coefficients ..................................................................................... 68
2: Davis Conversion for correlations .................................................................... 71
3: Sex distribution of respondent-farmers in the study area ................................. 73
4: Age distribution of respondent-farmers in the study area................................. 73
5: Formal education level of respondent-farmers in the study area...................... 75
6: Household size distribution of respondent-farmers in the study area............... 76
7: Frequency distribution of farm labour sources as reported by farmers ............ 77
8: Frequency distribution of landholding size as reported by respondent-farmers
................................................................................................................... 78
9: Frequency distribution of years of farming experience as reported by
respondent-farmers ................................................................................... 80
10: Frequency distribution of income levels of respondent- farmers ................... 81
11: Summary statistics of major crops grown as reported by respondent-farmers82
12: Utilization of major crops grown as reported by respondent-farmers ............ 83
13: Distribution of respondent-farmers who have ever accessed credit in the study
area............................................................................................................ 85
14: Use of credit as reported by respondent-farmers ............................................ 85
15: Frequency distribution of respondent-farmers’ reasons for not accessing credit
................................................................................................................... 86
16: Sources of credit by respondent-farmers ........................................................ 86
xiv

15. 17: Respondent-farmers’ sources of agricultural extension services in the study
area............................................................................................................ 87
18: Extension teaching methods as experienced by respondent-farmers in the
study area .................................................................................................. 89
19: Respondent-farmers perceptions of level of participation in SG 2000
Programme................................................................................................ 91
20: Respondent-farmers perceptions of effectiveness of management training plot
as used under SG 2000 Programme Approach ...................................... 93
21: Respondent-farmers’ perceptions on level of satisfaction with technologies
disseminated under SG 2000 Programme.............................................. 94
22: Respondent-farmers’ perceptions of level of adoption of technologies
disseminated under SG 2000 Programme.............................................. 95
23: Frequency distribution of the constraints to adoption of technologies
disseminated under SG 2000 Programme as reported by farmers......... 97
24: An independent samples t-test analysis by selected district ........................... 99
25: An independent samples t-test analysis by sex of respondent-farmers ........ 101
26: Correlation matrix showing the relationship between overall effectiveness of
the SG 2000 approach and related variables........................................ 104
27: Relationship between respondent-farmers’ level of participation in the
programme and related selected demographic and socio-economic
characteristics....................................................................................... 106
28: Relationship between level of technology adoption and selected respondent-
farmers’ demographic and socio-economic characteristics. ................ 108
xv

16. 29: Regression coefficients ................................................................................. 112
xvi

17. LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1: Map of Malawi Showing Location of the Sampled Districts ........................... 19
2: Location of Focal Study Areas in the Districts Sampled.................................. 20
3: The Sustainable Development Extension Model.............................................. 32
4: A Conceptual Framework of the Perceived effectiveness of SG2000
Programme Approach to agricultural technology delivery....................... 60
xvii

18. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Agriculture is the single most important sector of Malawi’s economy.
Thus, the performance of the economy depends critically on the performance of
the agricultural sector. The agricultural sector accounts for about 90 per cent of
export earnings, provides 85 per cent of total employment and contributes about
39 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product (FAO, 2005).
Malawi’s development policy for the medium term continues to
recognize the agricultural sector as the pillar of the economy, with priority
centered on ensuring food security, increasing export earnings and providing of
employment, incomes and livelihood for the population (GoM, 2006). For the
agricultural sector to play this crucial role in the economy in a sustainable way,
rapid growth in output and productivity within the sector is critical. It is widely
recognized that the sustained flow of and utilization of improved technologies is
the key to increased growth and productivity (Maunder, 1973; Swanson & Claar,
1984; Frank & Chamala, 1992).
According to Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (GoM, 2000)
agriculture occupies about 56 per cent of the total land area covering 5.3 million
hectares of the country’s 9.4 million hectares. The agriculture sector is dualistic,
1

19. consisting of smallholder farmers and an estate sub-sector. The smallholder sub-
sector is based on a customary land-tenure system and is primarily subsistence,
providing the bulk of food production. The smallholder sub-sector occupies about
80 per cent while the estate sub-sector occupies the remaining 20 per cent of the
agricultural land. Due to high population pressure on land, some 2.6 million
smallholder farmers cultivate less than a hectare of land of which half cultivate
less than 0.5 a hectare (GoM, 2000).
Agriculture in Malawi is mainly rainfed, of single season with low input
investment and low output. Moreover, it is vulnerable to changing climatic and
policy conditions. Small farms, low yields and unpredictable policies result in
chronic food shortages. Declining staple food production has moved Malawi from
being a net exporter in the 1980s to being a net importer in recent years (GoM,
2007). Nationally, about 40 percent of the rural households are not able to
produce enough food to meet the household food consumption needs.
Sufficient food production remains an important condition for alleviating
food insecurity in the country. Moreover the demand for food is likely to increase
in the near future with ever-increasing population growth. Malawi’s population is
estimated at around 12.5 million as compared to 8 million in 1987 representing an
annual growth rate of 3.2 percent (GoM, 2007). This means that much of the
increased food production will have to be realized on land that is already under
cultivation. The availability of new land suitable for agriculture is limited.
Therefore, agricultural production has to be intensified in diverse and risk prone
rainfed areas.
2

20. The Agricultural Services Project (ASP) spearheaded the main agricultural
technology development and dissemination efforts in Malawi in the late 1980s
and 1990s (Esser, Øygard, Chibwana and Blakie (2005). Under this project
farming systems methodologies were introduced with technical assistance from
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The extension
efforts were based on the Block Extension System (BES), a modified form of the
Training and Visit (T&V) system. The BES entailed the establishment of
systematic message-based extension management system (MoAFS, 2000).
Embodied in this approach was a regular training programme intended to improve
the professional skills of staff and enhance their knowledge across disciplines. In
addition the approach emphasized use of contact farmers for technology
dissemination. But the hierarchical nature of technology development and
dissemination made it very difficult to create a farmer responsive system. A more
recent reorientation of agricultural extension emphasizes on a pluralistic, demand-
driven and decentralized participatory extension approach (MoAFS, 2000).
Small scale food producers in Malawi urgently need to improve total
factor productivity which can raise output to meet the country’s food consumption
needs. Existing low levels of productivity and low use of modern farming
practices hinder efforts to achieve progress in this direction. Various efforts by
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been made to raise agricultural
productivity by helping farmers to reduce technical inefficiency and fostering the
adoption of improved production technologies. A prominent example has been the
Sasakawa Global 2000 (SG 2000) agricultural programme which featured a strong
3

21. extension component directed at the dissemination of improved technology to
small scale producers and the improvement of farmers’ practices (Langyintuo,
2004).
SG 2000 is a non-profit organization established to develop programmes
for technology demonstration in various African countries in cooperation with
national extension services (Dowswell and Russel, 1991). Since 1986, SG 2000
has helped African farmers to improve their livelihoods through better farming
practices. It is an agricultural initiative of two non-governmental organizations
namely; Sasakawa Africa Association (SAA) and the Global 2000 Programme of
the Carter Centre in the USA. The SG 2000 programme is based on the principle
that “agricultural development cannot be achieved unless farmers have greater
access to science-based knowledge and technology, namely, improved varieties,
chemical fertilizers, and crop protection products, and improved crop
management practices” (Dowswell and Russel, 1991). The main features of SG
2000 programme are as follows;
• Close collaboration with partner country’s Ministry of Agriculture,
• Direct farmer participation in technology transfer, and
• Promotion of agricultural intensification with appropriate, financially
viable technology (Nubukpo and Galiba, 1999).
SG 2000 has adopted seven (7) important principles of best practice through its
experiences. The working principles are that:
• extension messages should be delivered to farmers as a package rather
than as isolated individual interventions;
4

22. • focus should be on single enterprise (main staple crop) first then on the
farming system;
• improved production technology should demonstrably and significantly
increase yield and productivity on the farm so that its monetary benefits to
the farmers are measurable in farmers’ terms (bags);
• demonstration plots should give farmers a first hand opportunity to test
improved production technologies on a commercial scale in their own
fields;
• inputs required for adoption of improved technologies should be pitched at
levels that are accessible through the private sector in rural areas, and
• farmers’ participation in testing improved technologies should be based on
their own conviction rather than on the promise of credit for inputs or
coercion; and
• farmers should therefore be encouraged to use their own resources for
demonstrations from the outset (Breth, 1998).
The SG 2000 Programme in Malawi was implemented in 1998 (SAA,
2006) and operated in partnership with the regional agricultural development
divisions of MoAFS and the National Research Institute for Agriculture (NRIA).
The focus of partnership was on disseminating improved maize production
technologies to resource-deficit farmers. Activities of SG 2000 Programme in
Malawi included:
5

23. • demonstration of on-shelf and ‘best bet’ maize production practices
(timely planting, correct plant spacing, correct ridge spacing, timely
harvesting, correct fertilizer application, use of improved maize varieties);
• demonstration of conservation farming in maize production (use of pre-
emergence and post emergence herbicides); and
• demonstration of improved post-harvest practices that reduce grain losses
(use of drying cribs and grain storage cribs) (Breth, 1998).
It is clear that sustainable agricultural development is the key to the future
for sub-Saharan African countries including Malawi. Throughout its years of
operation in Malawi, SG 2000 has been able to demonstrate that, given access to
available inputs and using them more efficiently with better farming practices,
small-scale farmers can easily double or triple their yields of staple food crops.
For example, farmers who have practiced conservation tillage as recommended by
extension workers have profited from the practice through significant increases in
yields obtained from 0.1 hectares mini plots (Ito, Matsumoto and Quinones,
2007).
Statement of the Problem
Achieving sustainable food security in Malawi requires that farmers
continually adopt improved agricultural production technologies in order to
realize yield potentials from a decreasing land resource base. An effective
extension system is central to the dissemination of any improved technologies.
Several NGOs have intervened in agricultural services delivery using diverse
6

24. approaches (Farrington, 1997). SG 2000 is one of the organizations that have
worked actively to alleviate food security by demonstrating to farmers how yield
potentials can be obtained by following recommended practices.
Although some programme reviews have been conducted about SG 2000
Programme activities in Malawi, they focused specifically on SG2000
contributions to increased crop yields; the government’s commitment to taking up
SG 2000 technology transfer activities; and recommendations for improving on-
going country programme activities (SAA Report, 2001-2002; Plucknett,
Matsumoto and Takase, 2002). After nine years of SG 2000 Programme
interventions in Malawi (1998-2006), it is logical and important to conduct an
assessment of the effectiveness of the SG 2000 Programme approach in
agricultural technology transfer focusing primarily on the perceptions of the
programme beneficiaries. This study was, therefore, an attempt to answer the
following questions:
• what was the extent of farmers’ participation in SG 2000 Programme
activities?
• how did participant-farmers perceive the effectiveness of the use of the
management training plots as a method for technology transfer under SG
2000 Programme?
• what are the reactions of farmers’ to the technological package
disseminated under SG 2000 Programme?
• what are farmers’ adoption levels of the technologies disseminated to-date
under SG 2000 Programme?
7

25. • what were the major challenges and constraints preventing farmers from
adopting the technological recommendations? and as a central question
• how effective was the SG 2000 Programme approach to agricultural
technology delivery?
Objectives of the Study
General Objective
The primary objective of this study was to assess farmers’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of Sasakawa Global 2000 Programme approach to agricultural
technology delivery in Northern Malawi.
Specific Objectives
In order to achieve the above primary objective, the following specific objectives
were formulated, to:
1) describe the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of
participating farmers in terms of sex, age, formal education, household
size, farm labour sources, land holding size, years of farming experience,
level of income, major crops grown in the area, access to farm credit,
sources of extension services and extension teaching methods.
2) examine farmers’ perceptions of their level of participation in the SG 2000
Programme activities,
3) examine farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the management
training plot as a method for technology delivery in SG 2000 Programme,
8

26. 4) examine the degree of farmers’ satisfaction with the technological package
disseminated under the SG 2000 Programme,
5) examine farmers’ adoption levels of the technologies disseminated under
SG 2000 Programme
6) identify the constraints to non-adoption of technological recommendations
under the SG 2000 Programme, and
7) examine the relationships between selected farmers’ demographic and
socio-economic characteristics and their perceptions of the effectiveness
of the SG 2000 Programme approach to agricultural technology delivery.
Research Hypotheses
The following are the hypotheses that were tested in the research.
Hypothesis 1
H0: There are no significant differences in farmers’ perceptions of level of
participation, effectiveness of MTP, level of satisfaction and level of adoption
between Rumphi and Chitipa districts
H1: There are significant differences in farmers’ perceptions of level of
participation, effectiveness of MTP, level of satisfaction and level of adoption
between Rumphi and Chitipa districts
9

27. Hypothesis 2
H0: There are no significant differences in perceptions of level of participation,
effectiveness of MTP, level of satisfaction and level of adoption between male
and female participants
H1: There are significant differences in perceptions of level of participation,
effectiveness of MTP, level of satisfaction and level of adoption between male
and female participants
Hypothesis 3
H0: There is no significant relationship between farmers’ level of participation
and their socio-demographic characteristics such as age, gender, level of income,
years of farming experience, level of formal education, and access to credit.
H1: Farmers’ level of participation is significantly related to their and socio-
demographic characteristics such as age, gender, level of income, years of
farming experience, level of formal education, and access to credit.
Hypothesis 4
H0: There is no relationship between level of technology adoption by farmers and
their demographic and socio-economic characteristics.
H1: Level of technology adoption is significantly related to farmers’ demographic
and socio-economic characteristics
Hypothesis 5
H0: There is no relationship between technology adoption and the level of
farmers’ participation in the SG 2000 Programme.
10

28. H1: Technology adoption is significantly related to the level of farmers’
participation in the SG 2000 Programme.
Hypothesis 6
H0: There is no relationship between farmers’ perception of the effectiveness of
SG2000 Programme approach to technology delivery and their level of
participation.
H1: Farmers’ perception of the effectiveness of SG2000 Programme approach to
technology delivery is significantly related to their extent of participation.
Hypothesis 7
H0: There is no significant relationship between farmers’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of management training plot method to technology transfer and their
level of participation in the SG 2000 Programme.
H1: Farmers’ perception of the effectiveness of the management training plot
method to technology delivery is significantly related to their level of
participation in the programme.
Variables in the Study
• Perceived effectiveness of SG 2000 Programme approach to agricultural
technology delivery.
• Farmers’ socio-economic and demographic characteristics namely age,
gender, level of formal education, household size, years of farming, level
of income, farm labour, land holding size, access to extension services and
access to credit.
11

29. • Level of farmers’ participation in the SG 2000 Programme activities
• Farmers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the MTP as a method for
technology transfer under SG 2000 Programme.
• Farmers’ satisfaction with the technological package disseminated under
SG 2000 Programme.
• Farmers’ adoption levels of technologies disseminated under SG 2000
Programme.
• Constraints to adoption of technological recommendations disseminated
under SG 2000 Programme.
Rationale for the Study
Malawi faces the challenge of achieving self-sufficiency in food
production and ensuring that there is adequate national food balance (GoM,
2007). One of the challenges in achieving self-sufficiency in food production
hinges on raising the food productivity among smallholder farmers through the
dissemination and adoption of modern technologies.
This study has documented strengths and weaknesses of SG 2000
Programme Approach to agricultural technology delivery in Northern Malawi
over the past nine (9) years. By pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the
SG 2000 Programme Approach the study findings could provide guidance to SG
2000 Programme or any other related programme implemented along SG 2000
lines for enhancing the effectiveness of agricultural technology delivery.
12

30. Another benefit from the study could be provision of the current state of
maize production technologies adoption levels by farmers. By assessing the level
of adoption of maize production technologies disseminated under SG 2000
Programme and the factors influencing adoption, the findings have provided
information that could be used by policy makers, researchers and extension agents
to design appropriate strategies for improving and increasing agricultural
production in the country.
Since provision of farm inputs on credit was part of SG 2000 Programme
approach, the findings could provide a basis for gauging how policy changes may
affect farmers. Policy issues that constrain or enhance the provision of inputs on
loan may have a direct effect on food productivity and technology adoption
among smallholder farmers.
The overall study rationale is to make a contribution to designing effective
approaches to agricultural technology transfer so as to develop agriculture as a
sector of crucial importance to the country’s over-arching goals of achieving
poverty reduction and sustainable food security.
Delimitations
Sasakawa Global 2000 Programme was involved in the dissemination and
promotion of post harvest technologies, maize and rice production technologies
and minimum tillage practices. The study was narrowed to maize production
technologies because this was the principal focus of SG 2000 Programme. In
addition the study covered only two districts, namely, Chitipa, and Rumphi in the
13

31. Northern part of Malawi. The region was chosen because previous programme
evaluations had covered the two other regions, namely, central and southern
regions (Plucknett, et.al, 2002). The districts were selected because they are the
major maize growing areas in the region; maize is a major staple in the districts;
and because compared to other districts in the region a large number of farmers
participated in the SG 2000 Programme.
Definition of Key Terms
The following terms have been defined to facilitate understanding of this work:
Adoption: refers to the degree of use of a new technology in long run equilibrium
when a farmer has full information about the new technology and its potential
(Feder, Just and Zilberman, 1985).
Approach: refers to the basic planning philosophy of agricultural extension
programmes-a style of action within a system. “Agricultural extension strategies
and functions can be initiated and /or organized on the basis of an instrumental
(top-down) or an interactive mindset, that is, in a context that allows or does not
allow for an interactive approach” (Leeuwis, 2003, p. 210).
Effectiveness: refers to the degree to which goals are attained. In this study
effectiveness will be operationalised in terms of extension approach, level of
farmers’ participation in programme activities, farmers’ opinions about extension
methods used (in this case the Management Training Plots), farmers’ reactions to
the technological package, level of farmers’ adoption of technological
recommendations promoted, (Misra, 1997)
14

32. Perception: as used in the study, refers to a mental set, attitude or a conceptual
direction of an individual or group of individuals about an issue (Van den Ban &
Hawkins, 1996).
Rate of Adoption: refers to the relative speed with which an innovation is
adopted by members of the social system. It is measured as the number of
individuals who adopt a new idea in a specified period (Feder, et al, 1985).
Level of adoption: refers to the intensity of adoption of a given technology. It is
usually measured as the number of technologies being adopted and the number of
producers adopting them (Feder et. al., 1985).
Literacy: a literate person is one who can, with understanding, both read and
write a short simple statement on his or her everyday life (UNESCO, 2004). In the
case of Malawi a person is literate if he or she can read and write in English or
any other language (GoM, 2005)
Technology transfer: refers to a process in which an innovation originating in
one institution or system is adapted for use in another institution or system
(Rogers, 1983).
Description of Study Area
Country Profile
Malawi is a landlocked developing country in southeastern Africa,
bordered by Tanzania to the north and north-east, Mozambique on the south,
south-east; and Zambia on the west. The country is 900 km long and 80-161km
15

33. wide with a total land area of 118,484km2, twenty (20) per cent of which is
covered by water.
Maize is the major staple food crop for most of Malawian families, with
cassava being preferred in parts of central and northern areas. Plantains are the
main staple in a small area of the northern region and rice is important crop
cultivated in the lakeshore and wetland areas. Sorghum, and finger millet are
secondary staples, with sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes and cassava being
considered as ‘snacks’, although planted areas and production have been
increasing significantly over recent years (FAO, 2005). Main export crops include
tobacco, tea, coffee, sugarcane, cotton and macadamia nuts and high quality rice.
Imported crops include maize, wheat and rice.
Malawi’s climate is sub-tropical with a rainy season starting from
November to April and a dry season from May to October.
Sampled Districts
Malawi is divided into three geopolitical regions, namely, southern,
central and northern regions. The regions are further subdivided into
administrative districts. The northern region consists of six administrative
districts. In terms of agricultural administration, the region is divided into two
agricultural development divisions (ADDs), namely Mzuzu ADD and Karonga
ADD. Each ADD is comprised of District Agricultural Development Offices
which are further subdivided into Extension Planning Areas (EPAs). SG2000
Programme partnered with the ADDs in her agricultural development efforts. The
16

34. SG2000 Programme operated in four (4) of the six districts in the region. The
study covered Chitipa and Rumphi districts. Chitipa district falls under Karonga
ADD and Rumphi falls under Mzuzu ADD. The principal reason for the choice of
the two districts is that they are the major maize growing areas in the region, a
crop whose technologies were promoted by SG2000. Another reason is that the
districts have larger number of farmers that benefited from the project to allow
the researcher to draw an adequate sample in order to obtain credible results that
would allow drawing some generalisable conclusions.
Chitipa District: A Brief Profile
Chitipa district lies to the northern tip of Malawi and is bordered by
Tanzania to the north, Zambia to the west, and Karonga and Rumphi districts in
the east and south respectively. The district has a total population of 157 872. The
district has a literacy level of 77.1 per cent. About 21.7 per cent of the population
has attained at least secondary education, 59.6 per cent primary education and
18.8 per cent have never attained any formal education. Average annual income
per capita in the district is estimated at US$230. About 14.8 per cent of the
population has access to credit (GoM, 2005). Major food and cash crops are
maize and tobacco respectively. Other crops cultivated include millet, cassava,
sweet potatoes and coffee.
17

35. Rumphi District: A Brief Profile
Rumphi district is bordered by Zambia to the west, and Karonga, Chitipa
and Mzimba districts in the north-east, north-west and south respectively. The
district has a total population of 149 486. The district has a literacy level of 89.3
per cent. The district has the highest literacy rate in the country. About 31.4 per
cent of the population has attained secondary education and above, 60.7 per cent
primary education and 7.9 per cent have never attained any formal education.
Average annual income per capita in the district is estimated at US$330.
However, only 13.4 per cent of the population does have access to credit (GoM,
2005). Maize is major food crop grown in the district. In terms of cash crop
cultivation, a good percentage of farmers rely on tobacco. Other crops grown
include cassava, sweet potatoes, and coffee.
18

36. Figure 1: Map of Malawi Showing Location of the Sampled Districts
19

37. Figure 2: Location of Focal Study Areas in the Districts Sampled.
NYIKA
NATIONAL
PARK
20

38. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter reviews existing literature on the meaning of agricultural
extension, and its significance. It discusses four agricultural extension models
used in agricultural development namely, technology transfer, farmer first,
participatory, and the sustainable development extension models. Literature
review also covers agricultural extension in Malawi, the SG 2000 Programme and
agricultural development efforts in Malawi, extension communication methods,
farmer participation in extension programmes, adoption and diffusion of
innovations, determinants of technology adoption and adoption of maize
production technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Agricultural extension: Meaning and its significance
Many definitions of agricultural extension emphasise its educational
dimension. Extension as defined by Maunder (1973 p. 3) refers to “a service or
system which assists farm people, through educational procedures, in improving
farming methods and techniques, increasing production efficiency and income,
bettering their standards of living, and lifting social and educational standards.”
Swanson and Claar (1984 p. 1) described extension as “an on-going process of
21

39. getting useful information to people and then assisting those people to acquire the
necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to utilize effectively this information
and technology.” These two preceding definitions are referred to as enlightenment
definitions of extension. During the 1980s it was recognized that extension could
not just be regarded as ‘help’ and ‘being’ in the interest of the recipient (Leeuwis,
2003). It was realized that extension is in many ways an intervention that is
undertaken and/or paid for by a party who wants to influence people in a
particular manner, in line with certain policy objectives. In line with such views
new definitions of extension emerged. Extension has thus been viewed as ‘helping
behaviour consisting of the transfer of information, with the explicit intention of
changing mentality and behaviour in a direction that has been formulated in a
wider policy context” (Leeuwis, 2003: p. 25).
Goals lead the actions of individuals, groups, and organizations. While
pointing towards a future state, they are influenced if not determined by past
experiences (Nagel, 1997). They reflect the interests of their stakeholders and
differ, therefore, according to specific life situations, power positions, and
development philosophies. According to Nagel (1997), the prominent features of
a system, such as its organizational structure, the choice of clientele, its
operational design, and the methods used, are directly influenced by its set of
goals.
Members of rural communities, extension and other development
personnel, researchers, and staff of commercial or public service and support
organizations constitute the main actors/stakeholders within an extension system.
22

40. Empirical evidence shows a variety of forms in which interaction among these
groups is institutionalized. The variety of forms suggests a similar variety of
goals, and either could be used to classify extension approaches. In practice,
however, one finds an almost inseparable mixture of goals inhibiting a clear-cut
classification. Nagel (1997 p. 13) further argues that “it seems more appropriate to
use a broader category in goal classification, namely, selectivity with regard to
clientele, and treat the respective goals as a continuum.” Thus, the two end points
of this continuum would be marked as technology transfer and human resource
development, suggesting either a rather narrow technical or a broader
socioeconomic view of development. Studies have revealed that effective
investment in agricultural extension contributes directly to national wealth
through increased agricultural production and enhanced national food security. It
is thus recommended that extension be placed in the wider system of rural
development to achieve a balance in both social and economic development in
rural areas (Swanson, Farner and Bajal, 1990 ). To ensure broad-based
agricultural development it is essential that extension addresses the needs of all
groups of farmers. To achieve this, as noted by Swanson et al, (1990 p. 24) “a
more balanced approach to extension is required that addresses the needs of
productive commercial and small subsistence farmers.”
Extension as one of the major inputs in agricultural development has two
goals namely, economic and social goals. The main focus of economic goals of
extension is on raising production and productivity (Garforth and Harford (1995).
On the other hand, Garforth and Harford (1995) prefer that social goals focus on
23

41. food security; improving equity in access to, and security of the means of
production (including information, advice and inputs); poverty alleviation, and
improved nutrition. However, a conflicting role for extension depends on whether
it is seen as a mechanism to target social goals or economic goals. From a social
policy perspective, it is recommended that extension addresses the needs of the
poorer segment of the rural population (Garforth and Harford, 1995). However,
for those emphasizing economic goals, they would prefer other policy tools
(Garforth and Harford, 1995).
Agricultural Extension in Malawi: An Overview
The importance of agricultural extension as a means for technology
transfer is widely acknowledged, particularly in developing countries where the
majority of the population lives and agriculture is the main source of livelihood.
Agricultural extension work in Malawi began in colonial times as a result of
estates requiring higher agricultural productivity (GoM, 2000).
The concept of Master Farmers was incorporated into the mainstream of
extension activities during the later years of colonial rule. These Master Farmers
who were better off and innovative, received government support in terms of
inputs and extension services. They followed recommended practices and
therefore acted as demonstrations to other farmers. The rationale for this approach
was that such ‘demonstrations’ farmers could induce spread effects or
externalities in having their neighbours emulating them. However, Mhone (1987,
p. 59) noted “that during the colonial period the approach was roundly criticized
24

42. by nationalists since it was inequitable, particularly in that such farmers were
actually subsidized through taxation of their poorer neighbours.” An agricultural
cooperative was instituted in 1948 in order to enhance increased agricultural
production. At that time the cooperatives were involved in input supply,
commercial crop production, dairy farming and marketing.
Throughout these stages, the predominant extension approach involved
individual contact and coercion (GoM, 2000). Up until 1962 this was considered
appropriate for the time. The importance of group approach was recognized in the
1970s as a faster way of spreading messages to a wider farming community
during a period when major integrated projects were being introduced. In trying to
enhance the group approach, the Block System, a modified Training and Visit
System, was adopted in 1981 with the aim of improving farmer contact. The
group approach then went beyond specialized groups and tried to contact a wider
range of farmers, including the resource-poor and women. However, it was
observed that the majority of resource-poor farmers were not reached with
extension messages because of the Block Extension System’s top-down approach
and consequently the adoption rate did not improve (GoM, 2000).
SG 2000 and Agriculture Development in Malawi
Rapid population growth in Malawi has put tremendous pressure on the
agricultural sector to increase food production for domestic consumption and to
be more competitive on the international commodity markets. One of the factors
needed to “attain more rapid broad-based agricultural growth and rural
25

43. development” is the “strengthening of the institutional base for smallholder
agriculture (Staatz and Eicher, 1990, p. 28). As a part of that base agricultural
extension has the potential to be an important factor in increasing agriculture and
livestock productivity and rural incomes, as well as reducing hunger in Malawi by
providing a wide variety of services to rural families.
In the Malawi Growth and Development Strategy policy document (GoM,
2006), developing agriculture and raising smallholder productivity have been
recognized as major drives for growth and improved food security in the country.
Therefore, as part of agricultural development, agri-business involves the
development, dissemination and use of modern agricultural technology packages.
The argument for extension, public or private, is that it provides information as
input to the production process like seed or fertilizer. As Toulmin (1985) states,
“even when a new technology has been developed, its successful adoption by
farmers is not assured, since this will depend critically on the structure of input
and output prices and on the adequacy of the extension system through which the
supply of essential inputs can reach the producer” (p. 2-3). Also it is assumed that
extension will hasten the benefits of adoption of new practices or technologies
which lead to improved production. In the same vein, Pretty (1995) observes that
even if technologies are productive and sustainable if they are imposed on
farmers, then they will not be adopted widely.
SG 2000 Programme Approach is predicated on the assumptions that a
pool of technology appropriate for the country is available that could have a
significant impact, that citizens are poor, that the country is food insecure, and
26

44. that the government is committed to agricultural development. On that basis the
SG 2000 insists on working through government agencies rather than setting up a
parallel organization outside government (Breth, 1998). SG 2000 exemplifies the
importance of NGO-government partnership in development discourse. It expects
its programme efforts to be mainstreamed into government programmes once it
phases out.
Agricultural Extension Models: A Comparative Overview
Four basic models of agricultural extension are widely discussed in
literature: technology transfer, farmer first and participatory models (Frank and
Chamala, 1992; Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp, 1989). Greer and Greer (1996)
propose a fourth model of agricultural extension namely, the sustainable
development extension model.
The first model considers top-down technology transfer from researchers
to farmers through the extension agents. The farmer first approach, considers the
importance of the role of farmers in research and extension from the bottom- up
(Chambers, et al., 1989). The third model is a participatory approach which in
some ways integrates and extends the first two models. The participatory
approach relies on the involvement of researchers and farmers, as well as other
stakeholders in the extension process. The fourth model is the sustainable
extension model which is designed to ensure that agricultural information and the
systems that support its generation and dissemination are responsive to the needs
of those involved in decision making (Allen, Kilvington, Nixon and Yeabsley,
27

45. 2002). While these models are by definition idealized abstractions of reality, they
provide guidance on the development and use of more specific extension
techniques.
The Technology Transfer Model
This model is a top-down approach to technology transfer. The starting
point is from the scientific institutions, where scientific experiments are done by
the scientists. The research priorities are also determined by the scientists
according to this approach. Scientists generate new innovations which they
believe are good for farmers and then pass them to extension agents. The
extension agents then transmit information about the innovation to the individual
farmers and explain the likely benefits in order to encourage them to adopt the
innovation (Chambers, et al., 1989). In many cases farmers do not adopt the new
innovations as rapidly as anticipated and for many reasons. The scientists often
concentrate on a product or a process which may not fulfill a genuine need for the
farmers. For example some innovations which are not suitable to the farmers in
the field seem to be suitable in the laboratories. Poor infrastructure and lack of
capital for promotion of the innovation also represent constraint to widespread
adoption (Frank and Chamala, 1992). In other cases there is a successful transfer
of technology, but subsequent problems with the use of the technology might
emerge. To date there has been a necessary and dramatic change in extension
thinking; from “technology transfer” to demand-driven approaches that empower
farmers through building on their knowledge. The technology transfer model is
28

46. associated with governments’ objectives of immediate food production, where
according to Swanson et al. (1990), pursuing an extension system that is narrowly
focused on technology transfer risks promoting growth without equity. In the
long-term, through failing to recognize the needs of all farmers, the consequences
may be a small proportion of very productive commercial farmers, whilst the vast
majority of rural people are left behind at the subsistence level.
Farmer First Model
The farmer first model contrasts strongly with the technology transfer
model. It acknowledges that farmers often have sound local knowledge and good
reasons for their behaviour, which may not be understood by scientists
(Chambers, et al, 1989; Frank and Chamala, 1992). Farmer experience with
experimentation and evaluation provides a basis on which scientists can learn
from and with farmers to set research priorities.
The main objective of the farmer first approach is to empower farmers to
learn and create better situations for themselves rather than being passive
recipients of new technology. Researchers do not drive the research, development
and extension process; they interact with and assist farmers. The process is
“bottom-up” with emphasis on bringing about changes that farmers want. All the
field work related to research is done in the farmers’ fields. The outcome of the
research process is usually a basket of choices from which to select, rather than a
package of practices to be adopted. In this way farmers are encouraged to make
wise and informed decisions based on their own situation (Chambers et. al.,
29

47. 1989). The outcomes of this approach are that the decisions farmers will take may
not be associated with government policy. The farmers’ selection of the new
technology may also limit the marketing of other technologies.
An important limitation of the farmer first approach is that significant off-
farm, structural forces, which inevitably shape farmer priorities and decision-
making, can be overlooked. For instance, private sector infrastructure for the
marketing of a new technology can have a significant influence on on-farm IPM,
as can changes in relevant government regulations or consumer demand.
Participatory Model
Recently many researchers, extension officers and farmers have
recognized the need for a cooperative, participatory approach to examine
interacting sets of issues. Using this approach, an ill-defined agricultural problem
situation is viewed as a complex human activity system (Wilson, 1992). The
participatory approach views research, development and the extension process as
cyclic and interactive, and involving a wide range of key stakeholders. It
emphasises the involvement of key stakeholders in a cooperative and flexible
process to facilitate the implementation of specific innovations by primary
producers. Several types of workshop/ appraisal techniques could be used,
ranging from rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal, focus groups, and
structured workshops (Chamala and Mortiss, 1990). The common features of
these approaches are qualitative data gathering, active participation of those
having an interest in the research outcomes, and responsiveness to decision-
30

48. makers both on and off the farm. Fliegel (1993) points out that the participatory
approach applies particularly to packages of technologies rather than single
innovations.
Sustainable development extension model
Sustainable development extension is about engaging all stakeholders in
the process of learning and adaptive management and about negotiating how to
move forward in a complex world (Allen, et al., 2002). Within the sustainable
development extension model (Figure 3) there are tools and processes that
develop the capacity of players in the information system, and the users of
information, to make meaning of it, constructive debate is of great value and
contributes to the process development (Allen, et al., 2002). These two
complementary parts are very important for sustainable development extension
model; the process is shown by Greer and Greer (1996) who propose an
interdependency approach to extension. They argue that this model provides for
involving stakeholders in defining their needs and setting the goals of the
extension programme. The outcomes of this collaborative stakeholder process,
provides direction for the development of outputs in the form of research,
management strategies and other forms of technology. Once the outputs have
been achieved, the objectives of extension programmers are defined and these are
then put into the wider community, often through the more traditional processes
of extension such as talks, field days etc., which then eventually lead to some
level of implementation.
31

49. Extension Communication Methods
According to Venkatesan and Kampen (1998), an extension method is a means of
motivating farmers to adopt a recommended technology. Tools and techniques are
Users
Extension Researchers
agents Interaction
Definition of users’ technology and
other information needs
Relevant outputs sought from
researchers and other agencies
Definition of objectives of extension
Implementation of programmes with users
Figure 3: The Sustainable Development Extension Model
Source: Greer and Greer (1996)
32

50. particular ways of operating a method (Leeuwis, 2003). The purpose of extension
work is to awaken the desire for technical, economic and social change and teach
practical and managerial skills.
All extension is based on group discussion, practical demonstration and
participation. Extension methods are often classified in terms of the target
audience (Adams,1982) namely:
• group methods: these are aimed at particular reference groups and
involve face to face contact between extension workers and farmers, for
instance, result and method demonstrations;
• individual methods: these are aimed at individual farmers who receive
the undivided attention of the extension worker, for example, farm visits
and farm surveys; and
• mass methods: these are aimed at the general farming community with no
personal contact between the extension worker and the audience, for
example, pamphlets, exhibits or radio broadcast.
A Comparison of Individual and Group Methods
Studies of agricultural development are increasingly showing that when
people who are already well organized or are encouraged to form groups, and
whose knowledge is sought and incorporated during planning and
implementation, are more likely to continue activities after project completion
(Cernea, Coulter, Russel, 1983). If people have responsibility, feel ownership and
are committed, then there is likely to be sustained change. A study 4-10 years
33

51. after the completion of twenty-five (25) World Bank financed agricultural
projects found that continued success associated clearly with local institution
building (Cernea, et al., 1983). Twelve (48%) of the projects achieved long-term
sustainability and it was these that local institutions were strong. In the others, the
rates of return had all declined markedly, contrary to expectations at the time of
project completion. This clearly indicated that projects were not sustainable where
there had been no attention to institutional development.
Adams (1982) noted that the choice of method should be commensurate
with involvement of farmers in the learning process. He further recommended that
whenever possible “training should be by discussion, practical demonstration and
participation, not by teaching methods borrowed from the classrooms of the
formal system” (Adams, 1982 p. 29). Therefore, the extension worker should aim
to obtain the maximum involvement of the farmers. The impact of the
demonstration is greater when it is conducted by farmers themselves. According
to Venkatesan and Kampen (1998), subsidized demonstration as a tool for
disseminating technologies has been practiced widely by governments both in
Asia and Africa. However, they have doubted the efficacy of such demonstrations
arguing that farmers often know that the farmers selected for such demonstrations
are generally the better-off farmers and are not therefore convinced that the
recommendations are appropriate for them. In addition, Venkatesan and Kampen
(1998) have argued that even if the demonstrations are held on the farms of
resource poor farmers, those factors which are the primary causes of their not
adopting the recommended technology namely, the cost of inputs and their
34

52. accessibility, are neutralized by the free or subsidized provision of inputs.
Without the subsidy on inputs the resource poor farmers are not likely to adopt the
demonstrated technologies and practices (Venkatesan, and Kampen, 1998).
On the contrary the SG 2000 Programme felt that the size of miniplots
adopted under the Training and Visit system were too small to have a
demonstrative effect on farmers. As a result they would prefer a much larger plot
and would neutralize the risk which farmers take in trying out a new technology
by subsidizing the cost of inputs (Venkatesan, and Kampen, 1998).
Farmer Participation in Extension Programmes
Definition of Participation
As defined by the World Bank (1996), participation is a process through
which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives and
the decisions and resources which affect them. Stakeholders may include farmers
themselves, project staff, donors and others.
Types and Levels of Participation
There are no commonly agreed upon indicators of participation for
measuring successful participation, because of the difficulty in assigning
indicators to processes and impacts (Vedeld, 2001). A more realistic approach, for
instance in an Indian context, is the instrumental view of participation which
perceives participation as a means of achieving certain goals, such as improving
the quality, effectiveness and sustainability of projects (Vedeld, 2001).
35

53. Widely used typologies and classifications of forms and levels of
participation according to Pretty (1994) are based on three dimensions : the
distribution of (a) information input and (b) decision making authority between
participants and interventionists in relation to (c) different key functions in
development planning, such as situation analysis, problem identification, goal
setting and implementation. Other authors (Paul, 1986; Biggs, 1989) also use the
level of involvement in decision-making as a basis for classifying different types
and degrees of participation. With regard to information input and decision-
making authority, the levels typically include, in ascending order:
a) Receiving information: participants are informed/told what a project will
do after it has been decided by others.
b) Passive information giving: participants can respond to questions and
issues that interventionists deem relevant for making decisions about
projects.
c) Consultation: participants are asked about their views and opinions openly
and without restrictions, but the interventionists unilaterally decide what
they will do with the information.
d) Collaboration: participants are partners in a project and jointly decide
about issues with project staff.
e) Self-mobilisation: participants initiate, work on and decide on projects
independently, with interventionists in a supportive role.
In its true meaning genuine participation of people is non-directive and does not
impose ideas on them; it is based on a dialogical process, it is educational and
36

54. empowering; starts from what people know and from where they are; is based on
resources mobilized by them; relies on their collective effort; promotes self
reliance but acknowledges the partnership among individuals and their change
agent as co-learners (Burkey, 1993; Oakley and Marsden, 1985). Therefore,
contrary to the general practice in rural development, people’s participation is not
limited to farmers attending meetings or contributing their labour to the
implementation of projects designed by officials.
Genuine participation also entails the active involvement of people in the
planning process and is enhanced by their interaction with experts through
educational methods that increase the influence farmers can exert upon the
programme planning process.
Benefits of Participation
An evaluation by World Bank (1996) found that putting responsibility in
the hands of farmers to determine agricultural extension programmes can make
services more responsive to local conditions, more accountable, more effective
and more sustainable. For example, farmer participation is essential in introducing
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which requires farmers to invest effort and
resources in techniques that are knowledge intensive. According to World Bank
(1996) report, in Indonesia on-farm trials with substantial farmer involvement
have proved the best means to ascertain and demonstrate the potential benefits of
IPM.
37

55. The opportunities for improving technologies to improve farmer incomes
are expanded through participation, farmer-centred approaches to extension,
which encourage a holistic perspective shifting focus of attention from simple
production to the whole farming system. When farmers are made influential and
responsible clients rather than passive beneficiaries of the extension services,
sustainability both of the benefits of investment in the technology and of the
service itself may substantially be improved (World Bank, 1996). Participatory
methods have the capacity to increase farmer ownership of the technologies
promoted by extension management, especially when the methods are developed,
at least in part by the clients themselves and are based on technologies that they
have seen to be effective. At the same time when the value of the service is clear
to them, farmers are willing to contribute to its support, reducing dependence on
project funds for meeting recurrent costs (World Bank, 1996).
Costs of Participation
A higher level of training and skills is needed if extension staff are to
collaborate effectively with farmers, applying technical knowledge to site-specific
socio-economic and agronomic conditions, rather than delivering pre-packaged
messages. Extension agents also need training in participatory methods of
working with farmers (World Bank, 1996). Some of these additional costs can be
offset by reductions in the number of staff needed, as farmers themselves take on
more responsibilities, and the economies of “distance” methods are more fully
exploited. Additional time and resources are also needed to redefine and establish
38

56. the institutional framework for participation- for example, to decentralize fiscal
and administrative functions, to build collaborative partnerships, and to strengthen
the capacity of NGOs and farmer organizations. The costs of participation to
farmers can be substantial, particularly in terms of their time. Where participatory
programmes depend on significant contributions of cash and/or labour from
farmers, steps have to be taken to ensure that this does not exclude the poor from
sharing in the benefits.
Key Elements in Promoting Participation
The World Bank (1996) has identified three key elements in promoting
participation in agricultural extension programmes namely, stakeholder
commitment, institutional framework, and a two-way communication.
Stakeholder commitment: broad consultation from the outset is needed to ensure
sufficient commitment to change on the part of all stakeholders. Farmers
themselves may be skeptical of calls to contribute time, effort, or cash if their
experience of extension in the past has been negative.
The institutional framework: there is no one institutional model for delivering
participatory extension services. Some countries, such as Chile and Costa Rica are
using the private sector to carry out what was traditionally a public sector activity;
some are decentralizing and reorienting public sector agencies; and some are
working through NGOs and farmer organizations (World Bank, 1996). A multi-
institutional approach is common, recognizing that farmers get information from
several different sources, and that some organizations are more effective in
39

57. reaching certain categories of farmers. Defining and facilitating operational
linkages at an early stage is crucial. This can be approached through stakeholder
workshops during project preparation, to discuss possible forms of partnerships
and the allocation of responsibilities for implementation and support. Other key
issues include: instituting incentives and mechanisms for accountability to
farmers on the part of extensionists; identifying where legal and regulatory
changes are needed; training staff in participatory methods; building the capacity
of local farmers groups; and ensuring that local level institutions do not exclude
some groups of farmers from participation.
Two-way communication: In adopting a learning process approach, the function
of extension is not merely one of technology transfer but of ensuring effective
two-way flows of information with the aim of empowering farmers through
knowledge rather than issuing technical prescriptions.
Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations
Stages in the Adoption Process
Adoption studies indicate that adoption of innovations is not something
that happens overnight, but rather it is the final step in the sequence of stages.
Ideas vary about the precise number, nature and sequence of the stages through
which farmers progresses. However, the most widely used characterization of
stages in connection with the adoption of innovations derives from Rogers (1983).
The model builds heavily on normative theories about decision-making models
and consists of the following stages: awareness of the existence of a new
40

58. innovation, developing interest in the innovation, evaluation of the innovation’s
advantages and disadvantages, trial (testing innovations/ behaviour changes on
small scale), and adoption/ acceptance of the innovations.
An important practical conclusion relating to the stimulation of adoption is
that people require and search for different kinds of information during each
stage. The information requirements evolve from: “information clarifying the
existence of tensions and problems addressed by the innovation or policy
measure, information about the availability of promising solutions, information
about relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative solutions, feedback
information from one’s own or other people’s practical experiences, and
information reinforcing the adoption decision made” (Leeuwis, 2003 p. 130).
In addition, people use different sources of information in connection with
different stages of adoption. In countries with a well developed mass media
system, farmers usually become aware of innovations through such media. In later
stages they tend to prefer interpersonal contact with somebody in whose
competence and motivation they have confidence. This person may be a change
agent, but for most farmers exchanges of experiences with fellow farmers are
more important. In regions where there are few agricultural extension media,
demonstrations often play an important role in the early stages. Dasgupta’s
overview of 300 studies in India (Dasgupta, 1989) shows that change agents are
mainly influential during the early stages of the adoption process.
41

59. Adopter Categories and their Characteristics
An important finding from adoption research was that innovations are not
adopted by everyone at the same time. Particular innovations are used quickly by
some and only taken up later by others, while some never adopt them. More
importantly, adoption research suggests that there is a pattern in the rate at which
people adopt innovations, meaning that some usually adopt early, while others
adopt late. Such conclusions were arrived at through the analysis of adoption
indices which were used as a measure for innovativeness, defined as ‘the degree
to which an individual is relatively earlier than comparable others in adopting
innovations’ (Rogers, 1983, p. 22). An adoption index was usually calculated by
asking people whether, at a given time, they had adopted any of 10 to 15
innovations recommended by the local extension service. Individuals would
receive a point for each one adopted. On the basis of their score, adoption
researchers have typically classified people into five differently categories
namely; innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34.0%), late
majority (34.0%), and laggards (16%).
Determinants of Adoption
A variety of studies are aimed at establishing factors underlying adoption
of various technologies. As such, there is an extensive body of literature on the
economic theory of technology adoption.
Several factors have been found to affect adoption. These include
government policies, technological change, market forces, environmental
42

60. concerns, demographic factors, institutional factors and delivery mechanisms.
Some studies classify the above factors into broad categories: farmer
characteristics, farm structure, institutional characteristics and managerial
structure (McNamara, Wetzstein and Douce, 1991) while others classify them
under social, economic and physical categories (Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin
1990). Others group the factors into human capital, production, policy and natural
resource characteristics (Wu and Babcock, 1998) or simply whether they are
continuous or discrete (Shakya and Flinn, 1985). By stating that agricultural
practices are not adopted in a social and economic vacuum, Nowak (1987)
brought in yet another category of classification. He categorizes factors
influencing adoption as informational, economic and ecological.
There is no clear distinction between elements within each category.
Actually, some factors can be correctly placed in either category. For instance,
experience as a factor in adoption is categorized under ‘farmer characteristics’
(McNamara, Wetzstein and Douce, 1991; Tjornhom, 1995) or under ‘social
factors’ (Kebede, Gunjal and Coffin 1990; Abadi-Ghadim and Pannell, 1999) or
under ‘human capital characteristics’. Perhaps it is not necessary to try and make
clear-cut distinctions between different categories of adoption factors. Besides,
categorization usually is done to suit the current technology being investigated,
the location, and the researcher’s preference, or even to suit client needs.
However, as some might argue, categorization may be necessary in regard to
policy implementation. Extensive work on agricultural adoption in developing
countries was pioneered by Feder, Just and Zilberman, (1985). Since then the
43

61. amount of literature on this subject has expanded tremendously. Because of this
extensive literature, the following section provides a review of selected factors as
they relate to agricultural technology adoption.
Economic Factors
Farm Size
Much empirical adoption literature focuses on farm size as the first and
probably the most important determinant. Farm size is frequently analyzed in
many adoption studies (Shakya and Flinn, 1985; Green and Ng'ong'ola, 1993;
Adesina and Baidu-Forson, 1995; Nkonya, Schroeder and Norman 1997;
Fernandez-Cornejo, 1998; Boahene, Snijders and Folmer, 1999; Doss and Morris,
2001; and Daku, 2002). This is perhaps because farm size can affect and in turn
be affected by the other factors influencing adoption. In fact, some technologies
are termed ‘scale-dependant’ because of the great importance of farm size in their
adoption.
The effect of farm size has been variously found to be positive
(McNamara, Wetzstein, and Douce, 1991; Abara and Singh, 1993; Feder, Just and
Zilberman, 1985; Fernandez- Cornejo, 1996, Kasenge, 1998), negative (Yaron,
Dinar and Voet, 1992) or even neutral to adoption (Mugisa-Mutetikka, Opio,
Ugen, Tukamuhabwa, Kayiwa, Niringiye and E. Kikoba, 2000). Farm size affects
adoption costs, risk perceptions, human capital, credit constraints, labor
requirements, tenure arrangements and more. With small farms, it has been
argued that large fixed costs become a constraint to technology adoption (Abara
44

62. and Singh, 1993) especially if the technology requires a substantial amount of
initial set-up cost, so-called “lumpy technology.” In relation to lumpy technology,
Feder, Just and Zilberman, (1985) further noted that only larger farms will adopt
these innovations. With some technologies, the speed of adoption is different for
small- and large- scale farmers. In Kenya, for example, a recent study (Gabre-
Madhin and Haggblade, 2001) found that large commercial farmers adopted new
high-yielding maize varieties more rapidly than smallholders.
Furthermore, access to funds (say, through a bank loan) is expected to
increase the probability of adoption. Yet to be eligible for a loan, the size of
operation of the borrower is crucial. Farmers operating larger farms tend to have
greater financial resources and chances of receiving credit are higher than those of
smaller farms.
A counter argument on the effect of farm size can be found in Yaron,
Dinar and Voet, (1992) who demonstrate that a small land area may provide an
incentive to adopt a technology especially in the case of an input-intensive
innovation such as a labor-intensive or land-saving technology. In that study, the
availability of land for agricultural production was low, consequently most
agricultural farms were small. Hence, adoption of land-saving technologies
seemed to be the only alternative to increased agricultural production.
Further, in the study by Fernandez-Cornejo (1996), farm size did not
positively influence adoption. The majority of the studies mentioned above
consider total farm size and not crop acreage on which the new technology is
practiced. While total farm size has an effect on overall adoption, considering the
45

63. crop acreage with the new technology may be a superior measure to predict the
rate and extent of adoption of technology (Lowenberg-DeBoer, 2000). Therefore
in regard to farm size, technology adoption may best be explained by measuring
the proportion of total land area suitable to the new technology.
Cost of Technology
The decision to adopt is often an investment decision. And as Caswell,
Fuglie, Ingram, Jans and Kascak. (2001) note, this decision presents a shift in
farmers’ investment options. Therefore adoption can be expected to be dependent
on cost of a technology and on whether farmers possess the required resources.
Technologies that are capital-intensive are only affordable by wealthier farmers
and hence the adoption of such technologies is limited to larger farmers who have
the wealth (Khanna, 2001). In addition, changes that cost little are adopted more
quickly than those requiring large expenditures, hence both extent and rate of
adoption may be dependent on the cost of a technology. Economic theory
suggests that a reduction in price of a good or service can result in more of it
being demanded.
Level of Expected benefits
Programs that produce significant gains can motivate people to participate
more fully in them. In fact, people do not participate unless they believe it is in
their best interest to do so. Farmers must see an advantage or expect to obtain
greater utility in adopting a technology. In addition, farmers must perceive that
46

64. there is a problem that warrants an alternative action to be taken. Without a
significant difference in outcomes between two options, and in the returns from
alternative and conventional practices, it is less likely that farmers, especially
small-scale farmers will adopt the new practice (Abara and Singh, 1993). A
higher percentage of total household income coming from the farm through
increased yield tends to correlate positively with adoption of new technologies
(McNamara, Wetzstein, and Douce, 1991; Fernandez-Cornejo, 1996).
Off-farm hours
The availability of time is an important factor affecting technology
adoption. It can influence adoption in either a negative or positive manner.
Practices that heavily draw on farmer’s leisure time may inhibit adoption
(Mugisa-Mutetikka et al., 2000). However, practices that leave time for other
sources of income accumulation may promote adoption. In such cases, as well as
in general, income from off-farm labor may provide financial resources required
to adopt the new technology.
Social Factors
Age of Adopter
Age is another factor thought to affect adoption. Age is said to be a
primary latent characteristic in adoption decisions. However there is contention
on the direction of the effect of age on adoption. Age was found to positively
influence adoption of sorghum in Burkina Faso (Adesina and Baidu-Forson,
47

65. 1995), and IPM on peanuts in Georgia (McNamara, Wetzstein, and Douce, 1991).
The effect is thought to stem from accumulated knowledge and experience of
farming systems obtained from years of observation and experimenting with
various technologies. In addition, since adoption pay-offs occur over a long
period of time, while costs occur in the earlier phases, age (time) of the farmer
can have a profound effect on technology adoption.
However age has also been found to be either negatively correlated with
adoption, or not significant in farmers’ adoption decisions. In studies on adoption
of land conservation practices in Niger (Baidu-Forson, 1999), rice in Guinea
(Adesina and Baidu-Forson, 1995), fertilizer in Malawi (Green and Ng'ong'ola,
1993), Hybrid Cocoa in Ghana (Boahene, Snijders and Folmer, 1999), age was
either not significant or was negatively related to adoption.
Older farmers, perhaps because of investing several years in a particular
practice, may not want to jeopardize it by trying out a completely new method. In
addition, farmers’ perception that technology development and the subsequent
benefits, require a lot of time to realize, can reduce their interest in the new
technology because of farmers’ advanced age, and the possibility of not living
long enough to enjoy it (Caswell et al., 2001; Khanna, 2001). Furthermore,
elderly farmers often have different goals other than income maximization, in
which case, they will not be expected to adopt an income –enhancing technology.
As a matter of fact, it is expected that the old that do adopt a technology do so at a
slow pace because of their tendency to adapt less swiftly to a new phenomenon
(Tjornhom, 1995).
48