Challenges to Institutionalizing Participatory Extension

This article was downloaded by: [Det Kgl Bibl Natl bibl og Kbh Univ bibl] On: 07 September 2011, At: 05:47 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raee20

Challenges to Institutionalizing Participatory Extension: The Case of Farmer Livestock Schools in Vietnam a

b

Thai Thi Minh , Carl Erik Schou Larsen & Andreas Neef

c

a

Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany b

Internationalisation and Development Collaboration, Faculty of LIFE Sciences, University of Copenhagen c

Knowledge and Innovation Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan Available online: 09 Jun 2010

To cite this article: Thai Thi Minh, Carl Erik Schou Larsen & Andreas Neef (2010): Challenges to Institutionalizing Participatory Extension: The Case of Farmer Livestock Schools in Vietnam, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 16:2, 179-194 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13892241003651449

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension Vol. 16, No. 2, 179194, June 2010

Downloaded by [Det Kgl Bibl Natl bibl og Kbh Univ bibl] at 05:47 07 September 2011

Challenges to Institutionalizing Participatory Extension: The Case of Farmer Livestock Schools in Vietnam THAI THI MINH*, CARL ERIK SCHOU LARSEN$ and ANDREAS NEEF% *Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany, $ Internationalisation and Development Collaboration, Faculty of LIFE Sciences, University of Copenhagen, %Knowledge and Innovation Management, Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

ABSTRACT Purpose: The objective of this article is to analyze the introduction of participatory extension approaches (PEA) in the predominantly supply-driven, hierarchical Vietnamese extension system. Drawing on the case of the so-called Farmer Livestock School (FLS) concept, the authors investigate the potential and challenges of scaling up and out the FLS/PEA principles of participatory training methods, encompassing intensive and interactive training sessions, groupbased sharing of experience, practical learning, and learning-by-doing processes. Design/Methodology/Approach: The article is based on data collected and synthesized from 36 pilot communes from 2000 to 2007 and draws on the extensive insider experience of two of its authors during their work for a DANIDA-funded livestock project. Findings: At the micro-scale and with external support, FLS has been a successful experiment of using participatory extension approaches in farmer training and extension in the livestock sector. Yet, possibilities of scaling up and institutionalizing FLS remain a challenge given the capacity and resource limitations and the resistance at various levels within the Vietnamese extension system. Practical Implications: The starting point for successfully institutionalizing participatory extension approaches should be to assess the existing system’s root problems and capacities and then gradually and systematically introduce institutional innovations rather than aiming at a complete overhaul of a system that may result in the creation of a parallel universe. Originality/Value: The FLS project provided a unique opportunity to study the enabling and constraining factors of institutionalizing participatory extension approaches in a traditionally topdown oriented extension system beyond the immediate duration of an externally orchestrated project. KEY WORDS: Farmer Livestock School (FLS), Participatory training approach (PTA), Participatory extension approach (PEA), Institutionalization, Vietnam

Correspondence address: Thai Thi Minh, Department of Agricultural Communication and Extension (430A), Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, University of Hohenheim, D-70593 Stuttgart, Germany. Emails: [email protected]; [email protected] 1389-224X Print/1750-8622 Online/10/020179-16 # 2010 Wageningen University DOI: 10.1080/13892241003651449

180

T.T. Minh et al.


Introduction Investment in agricultural extension in Vietnam is the lowest among countries in Southeast Asia accounting for only 2.5% of the agricultural sector’s expenditure in 1998 (Son, 2001). The hierarchical extension system and its supply-driven approach emphasize the delivery of centrally developed technologies by using demonstration fields and ‘model’ farms practicing ‘modern’ farming techniques, predominantly targeting the better-off farmers (Peters, 2001; Thanh and Khoa, 2003; Thanh et al., 2004; Goletti et al., 2007). This conventional system is an example of classic topdown approaches, characterized by relying on subsidy schemes and primarily focusing on production, while being institutionally monolithic and centrally directed. The approach has also been criticized for its insensitivity to farmers’ needs, its limited scope to feed information back into the system and its emphasis on self-evaluation. Yet, constrained by shortages of funds and human resources, it has been virtually impossible to reach a substantial number of households, especially the millions of poor small-scale farmers living in remote and mountainous areas (Dalsgaard et al., 2005). The lack of farmers’ participation is regarded as one of many barriers, which limits the effectiveness of present extension services. Hence, there are increasing calls for approaches which emphasize capacity building and reorientation of the whole system in order to enable it to better target the diversified needs of different farmer groups (Larsen et al., 2006). The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach has gradually been introduced into Vietnamese agriculture over the past 15 years, predominantly through the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) system (Braun et al., 2006; Van de Fliert et al., 2007). Yet, IPM activities have always been anchored in the Plant Protection Department, not within the national extension service, and this has hampered the broader adoption of the principles by the system. While it has yielded widespread success in the major paddy growing areas of Vietnam, it has had limited outreach to the more marginal regions. This paper discusses the needs for institutional change in the Vietnamese extension system and how this change should be triggered drawing on the example of the FLS concept. Methodology This paper draws on the process analysis of a development project aiming at enhancing the capacity of Vietnam’s public extension system. The Participatory Extension Approach (PEA) was introduced as a way to stimulate institutional innovation. The underlying research questions for this analysis are: ‘is it possible through the introduction of PEA to change the attitudes and practices of a suppliedoriented extension system to a more demand-oriented extension system?’ and ‘will such a change lead to more direct participation from both farmers and frontline extension officers?’ The analysis is grounded in the concept of institutions and institutional innovations (e.g. Ruttan, 1989; Grabowski, 1991; Uphoff, 1993). Institutional innovation in agricultural extension is seen here as a new way of organizing, arranging and managing the extension system’s ways of approaching its clients. The analysis uses data collected predominantly by participant observation,


Challenges to Institutionalizing Participatory Extension

181

during the development of the FLS concept in 36 poor communes in 13 delta and mountainous districts of three provinces in Vietnam. The project was called the Small Livestock Component (SLC) implemented by the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) and operated under the National Agricultural Extension Centre (NAEC), Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (MARD). This case was selected due to two of the authors’ in-depth insider knowledge as implementing staff of the project. The analysis had been conducted during and after the project’s lifecycle, focussing on the qualitative impacts of institutional innovations with regard to the gradual transformation of the involved parts of the national extension system from conventional toward participatory approaches. In order to compensate for biases or blind spots such an insider view might incur, the third and external author not affiliated with project implementation and data collection has contributed his own experience with participatory approaches to research and extension from other parts of northern Vietnam. Results Institutional Changes and Development of the FLS Concept in Vietnam’s Extension System The Vietnamese extension system encompasses both governmental and ‘voluntary’ sectors. The governmental system focuses on its five major mandates: technology promotion, socio-economic development, risk mitigation, commercial services and commodity promotion to serve the main purpose of ‘agricultural modernization’ (Thanh and Khoa, 2003). The system’s primary approaches are transferring technology and providing vocational training, inputs and information about techniques, management and markets (Beckman, 2001). This is mainly done through demonstration models and expected trickle-down effects (Dalsgaard et al., 2005). Meanwhile, institutions in what could be called ‘the voluntary extension sector’ promote different types of participatory extension approaches (PEA), creating a kind of parallel universe (Figure 1). The focus is on exchange of knowledge with and among farmers rather than the government’s formal mass training provided mainly in the form of one-way communication. The voluntary extension predominantly targets poor households in remote and mountainous areas (Thanh and Khoa, 2003). The extension service is thus under a process of transforming from a purely supply-oriented to a more diversified system with a number of client-focused approaches. The FLS approach is one of these new concepts, being only introduced on a trial basis in Vietnam. It is derived from the FFS concept, also using a participatory training approach (PTA), but specializes in the promotion of animal husbandry predominantly at smallholder production level (Dalsgaard et al., 2005; Van de Fliert et al., 2007). In total, nearly 310 FLS classes were conducted and more than 7,400 small scale and 500 commercial farmers trained, of whom 83% were women, 70% classified as poor and 26% representing different ethnic minorities. At the end of the pilot phase, 80 master trainers and around 700 trainers and farmer trainers had acquired the necessary skills to conduct FLS. The achievements, experiences and lesson learnt from the FLS pilot phase were

Types

FFS

Component order Target

Participatory technology development

Technology promotion and transfer

Commercial services promotion

Demonstration models together with input subsidy

Site training to provide recommendation on inputs

FICs

Technology diffusion through formal and informal channels

Mass training and lecture


Credit provision

Priority given to poor & disadvantaged farmers

All types of farmers but priority given to poor and pro-poor

Model farmers (better-off farmers)

Farmers who can buy agricultural inputs

Farmers who possess land (considered contract farmers)

Farmers in mountainous areas

All farmers

Integrated crop and livestock cultivation techniques with promotion of local knowledge

New technologies are developed and adjusted to local conditions and proven by farmers

Advanced technologies available from research/ extension

Guidance on use of inputs supplied by the companies

New technologies for agricultural export

Extension of proven successful experience

Techniques for risk mitigation

Training of master trainers

Contents

Conventional extension approaches

Training of trainer/farmer Training of farmer

Technology development by participatory studies and experiments

Agricultural commodity promotion

Socio-economic development

Training

Small-scale demonstration models with input subsidy

Input service provision

Figure 1. Different extension approaches in the Vietnamese extension system. Source: Thanh and Khoa, 2003; Van de Fliert et al., 2007; Goletti et al., 2007.

Risk mitigation

Site training


T.T. Minh et al.


182

PEA



183

exchanged with other Departments in MARD as well as Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD), Agricultural Extension Centre and Sub-department of Animal Health of 39 provinces in Northern and Central Vietnam in 2007 (SLC, 2007 and Danida, 2007a). The FLS concept is based on long-term intensive training courses in livestock technology and involves a substantial share of practical training for farmers. FLS requires active participation of farmers and knowledge is derived from self-motivated action. Learning topics focus on participants’ interests and needs and teaching is based on two-way communication between farmers and trainers, and most importantly among trainers themselves. FLS training combines theory with practice, improving farmers’ learning by utilizing existing experience and knowledge. FLS consists of six building blocks illustrated in Figure 2, of which the PTA is the most important as this approach sets the background, formulation and characteristic of a FLS. The FLS extends over a period of 25 months, and farmers meet once or twice weekly to discuss a specific topic. Each training session lasts for 34 hours including theory and practice. During its development, a process of eight steps with feedback control mechanisms, as presented in Figure 3, was agreed upon. It started with dialogue, exchange of ideas and discussion at the management level (step 1). The curriculum, which

Contents: Livestock & poultry technology, production management and economic calculation in the specific locality

Approach: Participation of a community to deal with livestock production issues occurring during the life cycle of animals

Location: Communes/villages/ households/fields which can reflect actual conditions of the techniques

Farmer Livestock School (FLS) Trainees: 20–30 local farmers who raise livestock and poultry on a small to medium scale

Trainers: Extension workers/ veterinarians/women or farmer’s union staff/outstanding farmers, working in team of 2–3 trainers

Field: Livestock keeping households and farm trials for practical training sessions and follow-up activities

Figure 2. FLS and its different characteristics. Source: Minh et al., 2007.

184

T.T. Minh et al.

Acquire adequate training material for trainers

Step 2: Develop FLS-TOT curriculum for TOMT and TOT

Invite lecturers who have PTA experience

Step 3: Conduct initial TOT: target groups are outstanding staff/trainers’

Feed/breed and other trial tested by trial host farmers

Step 4: Conduct FLS on initial trial basis

Essentially emphasizing participatory training methods

Step 5: Conduct TOMT: target groups are outstanding trainers’ from step 4

Use provincial master trainers to expand the number of FLS trainers

Step 6: Conduct TOT: target groups are good district and communal extension staff as well as outstanding farmers from step 4

Step 7: Conducting FLS: target groups poor to medium scale farmers

Micro-finance services, Farmers’ club

Feedback system/monitoring, evaluation and adjustment


Step 1: Sensitization of the institution regarding PTA

Step 8: Follow up activities on FLS

Figure 3. An overview of the introduction and development of a PTA training programme in a province using the FLS approach. Source: Dalsgaard et al., 2005; Larsen et al., 2006; Minh et al., 2007.

encompassed both technical and method sessions, was developed in close collaboration with the national IPM programme and other external experienced stakeholders (step 2). Once the Training of Trainers (TOT) curriculum had been developed, initial TOT course was conducted to train FLS trainers in selected trial provinces (step 3). The first batch of trainers then had to practise their newly acquired knowledge and skills through an initial round of FLS classes in the trial provinces (step 4). A curriculum for Training of Master Trainers (TOMT) was developed with focus on exchange of experience and additional training in didactic skills. Through the TOMT training, the best of the initial trainers became provincial master trainers (step 5). These trainers would train the future farmer trainers (step 6), who*on their part* would transfer their knowledge to a larger number of farmers (step 7). This system allowed for scaling-up to the provincial level without requiring costly external expertise. In order to sustain the achievements within the capacity building of trainers and livestock farmers, follow-up actions were needed and a series of activities were initiated (step 8). Continued feedback through proper monitoring and evaluation are essential for adjusting and constant improvement of the FLS approach.


185

Basic Principles used in the FLS Approach


Participation Principle One of the basic principles used in the FLS approach is participation, which is referred to as the PTA. PTA is designed on the principles of non-formal education of adult learners, who often learn optimally from real-life experiences through the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984). It emphasizes the use of dialogue as the basis for further individual and group learning as well as for farmers’ reflection, analysis and problemsolving under their particular conditions (Shysh, 2000; Van de Fliert, 2006; Minh et al., 2007). PTA does not operate with a fixed set of technical tools, but rather with a combination of a number of learning methods in a flexible way, according to the actual circumstances (Minh et al., 2007). It has the potential to mobilize participants’ knowledge, draw on experiences from diversified sources, and bring higher effectiveness in terms of information transfer and knowledge generation into training events. Community-based Principle The FLS has also been systematically developed on the community-based principle of a system approach to facilitate improvements of livestock extension in Vietnam. The principle is applied to the development of the community-based livestock extension approach, which focuses on FLS and on creating an enabling environment for the testing, evaluation and incorporation of the basic ideas to the national extension policy. The approach has been designed to increase the quality of service, the ability to address farmers’ problems through a more demand-driven extension system and to improve livestock production and thereby farmers’ livelihoods. The approach operated at four different levels: farmers, district and provincial service staff, district and provincial service institutions’ capacity building and national support activities, involving four levels of relevant stakeholders/institutions (Figure 4) (Larsen et al., 2006). The centre ‘level 1’ of the approach refers to activities where farmers are directly involved at the field level, e.g. in designing concepts and tools through FLS, with the active involvement of frontline service staff. Level 2 mainly addresses capacity building of these stakeholders, since the quality of service is directly related to the quality of the staff. In order for these service providers to operate better, the host institutions must also improve their ability to provide service, which is addressed at level 3 under the heading ‘Institutional Capacity Building’ at district and provincial level. Both the comparative advantage and the Achilles heel of the pilot/project approach used in the specific Danida Sector Programme is the ‘small is beautiful’ syndrome. To move from a few examples and success stories to a wider application, the level 4 or national scale has to be addressed, for the approach to have a measurable impact on extension.

*

FLS Approaches Significant Achievements in Reaching Different Target Groups The FLS Concept*A Means to Approach Small and Medium-scale Livestock Farmers The FLS concept is predominantly designed to target the poor and medium farmers with special emphasis on disadvantaged farming groups to serve the dual purpose of

T.T. Minh et al.


186

National level support activities : Support to policy formulation and dialogue, improvement of awareness on extension demands, support to adjustment of extension officers' education, documentation & dissemination Institutional capacity building : Capacity building, training on PTA, TOT training centre, TOMT and TOT, equipment support, livestock extension kit District and provincial service activities: Local government policy, extension, veterinary and other livestock services; subsidies, provision of credit Farmer activities: FLSs, FLS trials, farmer handbook, farmer clubs

National level

Institutional, provincial and district levels

Communal/ community level

Farmer level

Focus on livestock farmers

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 2

Benefiting farmers: livestock farmers and others Communal input/service providers: communal extension and animal health workers, suppliers, local traders, credit agents District and provincial extension system: authorities, provincial and district extension and animal health institutions, credit institutions National level supporters : MARD, NAEC, policy makers, donors and NGOs, education institutions, mass organization, mass media

Figure 4. Operational and institutional framework of the community-based FLS approach.

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 4



187

upgrading the technical and intellectual skills of the farmers and empowering them by enhancing their self-confidence and group solidarity. It is an intensive groupbased approach, which provides a good forum for interactions among farmers and enhanced smallholders’ access to training and services (DAAS, 2004). The approach significantly increased the knowledge retention rate by up to 4050% during the training and by 7590% in the subsequent application of the technologies (Danida, 2007c). Farmers are encouraged to apply their own knowledge in selection and application of improved technologies, which they find relevant to their household’s conditions. Ownership and self-decision making by farmers are strongly promoted. Technical training is closely linked to the farmers’ conditions and supported by practical exercises and farm visits. Farmers’ livestock knowledge and skills are improved significantly, which is reflected in lower disease prevalence, higher livestock production and productivity and better awareness of the financial potential of livestock compared to rice production (Danida, 2007b and c). Through the content of the training and the knowledge gained, farmers were able to increase their income significantly. The cash income from chicken production, for instance, was 75% higher for farmers who had participated in FLS compared to non-FLS farmers (Danida 2007c). Through FLS poor farmers have been able to escape from the poverty trap, while small and medium scale farmers have been encouraged to move towards larger and more commercial production. The training had a substantial effect in terms of improving the women’s status in the family and community as they were increasingly becoming recognized as successful livestock producers (Danida, 2006). By involving women in the training, there was a change in the intra-household position of the women: before the saying went ‘women work, but men study’, but in FLS trial areas it now goes ‘women work and study’ (Danida, 2007c). Perhaps one of the most important spin offs in the long term is the fact that beneficiary farmers now seem more confident in demanding effective services from extension workers. This may improve both the accountability of the extension system and its quality and sustainability. Establishment of Farmer Interest Clubs (FICs) for improving households’ livestock production through access to credit, technology and market showed great potential as a way to sustain the results achieved and the resources invested through FLS. FICs have been formed more on the basis of existing networks rather than the somewhat arbitrary ones made for the purpose of the project with selection criteria made by outsiders. Often a small group of farmers from one or more FLS projects spontaneously joins up with relatives, neighbours and friends to form FICs. Hence, FIC is an important part of maintaining the skills and knowledge obtained during formal training by continuing to exchange experience and encouraging members to support each other in the process of applying technical advancement. These clubs serve as an effective dissemination channel among farmers and seem to be an excellent mechanism for fostering farmers’ self-organization and for creating new business and employment opportunities without having to wait for more external support (Danida, 2007c). The strong focus on institutional capacity building at level 3 by introducing the whole package of TOMT, TOT and FLS gradually led to the establishment of a provincial network of experienced FLS trainers consisting of agricultural officers from the province, district and commune levels and farmer trainers. These networks are instrumental for sustainability as they can effectively strengthen the extension


188

T.T. Minh et al.

provision to farmers, so knowledge is spread from the centre to the periphery as illustrated in Figure 5. Thus, through the development and implementation of the FLS approach, with external support, the extension system has not only started to change its mode of operation and mindset, it has also been able to reach a substantial number of those farmers who are normally not its main target groups, including those in remote and mountainous areas. Furthermore, the development of the network of local trainers helps overcoming the communication barriers and cultural problems that previously occurred when delivering training to ethnic minority groups. Local trainers can communicate with farmers in their local languages and understand farmers’ conditions better as they are dealing with the same issues in their daily function. PTA*Challenging but Benefiting the Livestock Extension and Animal Health Staff In the PTA approach, traditional power structures are partly altered which has proved challenging to officials as PTA requires new skills, attitudes and behaviour in the extension work. To be a trainer in PTA, these people have to serve in many capacities: planner and instructor, entertainer, data and information provider, facilitator, supporter to complement and teacher. Being a good trainer requires the efficient use of teaching utilities, verbal and non-verbal communication, attitude and ability to listen, to observe and to ask the right questions as well as to synthesize and to analyze problems. Good facilitators need to create a conducive environment to engage farmers in an active, self-motivating process of converting received information into their own knowledge through practice and field application. Most of these skills are not required in conventional approaches and to obtain them, extension officials and other trainers have to be properly trained and regularly practice in the use of participatory methods. The approach then challenges extension workers by giving them the roles of trainers and facilitators and by putting their knowledge under scrutiny by farmers in situations where they do not have ready answers. Such questioning of authority rarely happens in a traditional teacher-controlled training environment. Notwithstanding these Poor farmers Outstanding farmers Staff from Women’s and Farmers’ Unions

Medium farmers

Communal extension workers

Provincial extensionist

FLS and PTA

Master trainers

Trainers, farmer trainers

Staff from Sub-department of Animal Health Communal animal health workers Ethnic minority and women farmers

Figure 5. Dissemination of knowledge in the FLS approach.

Livestock farmers


189


challenges, most extension officers exposed to PTA claim that it still creates a more joyful working environment that is of benefit and interesting for them. Using this approach they are encouraged to develop and update their professional skills and knowledge. The establishment of trainer networks and frequent advanced and refresher training received very positive feedback from trained farmers who reported that this approach keeps their motivation at a high level. The implementation of the concepts and ideas from PTA training seems strong, as around 85% of FLS trainers had practiced the basic principles of FLS at different levels (Danida 2006 and 2007c). PTA*Changing the Provincial Institutional Attitude Towards Participatory Approaches The process of introducing PTA as a provincial approach to farmer extension has proved demanding and time-consuming because PTA is not just a new way of training, but a different way of thinking and acting. Using the eight-step process illustrated in Figure 3 is recommended, as the step by step process is easier to manage and the many feedback points give due time for reflection and local adjustments. The pattern of change in the provincial institutional attitude toward the participatory approach has been moving from initial scepticism via passive acceptance to active support. The speed of the changing process varies. Especially the transition from scepticism to passive acceptance takes time, as authorities need to be convinced by practical evidence at farm level and from capacity building of the staff involved. The supportive attitude of provincial institutions and authorities is currently limited by legislative and financial constraints, but changes are happening despite these constraints. The PEA and methodologies have been well received and various regional DARDs found them very useful and relevant for enhancing agricultural development. The participatory approach is now applied to all activities of DARD in Thai Binh province, but due to financial constraints the training duration has been cut down to the length of normal extension courses that range from 24 days as stated by the DARD Vice Chairman (Danida 2007c). However, to what degree these changes are vertically and horizontally adopted in the long run will depend on the resilience of the central-power policy approach and traditional thinking at all governmental management levels. Discussion Can FLS/PEA Approaches be Sustainable in the Vietnamese Context? The experience from introducing the FLS approach in Vietnam shows the enormous potential of the concept in meeting the dual purpose of empowerment and poverty reduction. While the dual purpose of the concept is a clear goal for the donor agencies and international non-governmental organisations (INGO), the government has a different target for production and productivity increases. Though things are slowly changing, empowerment of poor farmers, ethnic minorities and women are not among the top priorities of government policy. Hence, measured on the government scale the FLS concept seems very costly and inefficient. As for PTA methods, used in a much lighter and less consequential manner, they do show


190

T.T. Minh et al.

potential in the view of the government system of increasing training efficiency and giving extension a better image. Cost-effectiveness of FLS, which is roughly estimated in Table 1, is certainly one of the most critical shortcomings of the approach. Overall it has proven difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness of the approach as it is dealing with pilot activities and model development for later replication, and initial costs for international technical assistance, training of extension staff and operation costs are much higher than the returns at this stage (Danida, 2006 and 2007c). The lack of reference data on the financial and technical effectiveness of the traditional extension system as well as for the direct financial benefit of adoption of techniques through this approach in Vietnam makes it impossible to compare the cost-effectiveness of the existing and new approaches. However, FLS had a reasonable benefitcost ratio during the pilot phase, which does show potential cost-effectiveness in the further development phase (Danida 2007c). Considerable challenges lie ahead for the continued development and mainstreaming of a cost-effective participatory extension programme for Vietnam. Re-training of extension officers on a national scale is in itself a daunting task. Although FLS is an efficient extension model it is also costly and slow compared to conventional, passive mass training. In the current form, FLS is not a viable substitute for mass ‘education’ of farmers. Moreover, constraints in the application of PEA are not only resource constraints, but also the mental limitations*awareness and mindset. The application requires changes in attitudes, acknowledgement of existing limitations and then new ways of acting, which can not be expected to happen in a short time period. The FLS concept has not been practised long enough to provide sufficient evidence for its superiority over conventional approaches and thus become part of the official extension system. Hence, the sustainability of the PEA and FLS concept is limited only to institutional changes towards more participatory approaches in the daily Table 1. Estimated types of costs and benefits of the approach. Stakeholders

Costs

Benefits

Consisting mainly of the fulfilment of performance goals of the donor and the generation of experiences and lessons learned for new programmes Government Capacity building of staff and institutions, achievement of goals in terms of income generation, poverty alleviation, production, environment, etc. Farmers The opportunity costs of participating Income and production increase, in the given training knowledge transfer, health and environmental benefits, and social and status gains Return (calculated as direct economic outcome from livestock production of involved households): 1/10 of investment cost.

Donor

An investment cost of total donor’s fund: all expenses of the donor’s activities, management and advisers’ costs and standard activity budgets used for marginal costs Human, facility and financial resources at all management levels

Source: Danida, 2007c and SLC, 2007



191

management and extension work of provincial agricultural institutions. This is being supported by the promotion of a PEA at legislative level in the recent draft of the new extension development strategy for the period of 2007 to 2015, which puts more emphasis on demand-driven extension services than previous plans. From this viewpoint, the mutual reinforcement of new developments at local and central levels is likely to speed up the process of promotion of PEA in the whole system. At the macro, i.e. the fourth level, the differences in system structure and management mechanism between the government and donor agencies are pinpointing the challenge of creating sustainability of the FLS/PEA. The rationale of the government’s politics is consensus-based policy decision-making and implementation, resulting in compromised solutions for the nation-wide application of the ‘one size fits all’ approach. At the same time, the consensus model makes the process of reaching a decision somewhat slow and time-consuming. The donor, for its part, applied the pilot area approach in the development of the FLS/PEA to target poverty reduction and other cross-cutting issues including environment, conservation, gender and ethnic minorities. The approach was implemented with intensive financial and human resource support and completed a package of activities in a short period of time. The FLS/PEA was developed at the low hierarchical level of local extension system and farmers, in which both management and quality of the approach could be easily controlled. Pre-conditions of the FLS/PEA adoption are solid financial resources, competent human capacity and a low hierarchical level in the management system. This is in stark contrast with the government’s structure and resource availability. The strong poverty focus demanded by the donor has made it particularly difficult to create ownership among the Vietnamese authorities. Different agendas between the government and the donor thus have remained a major obstacle for ensuring sustainability of the FLS/PEA approach (SLC, 2007). How Should New Approaches Like FLS/PEA Be Developed and Scaled Up and Out in the National Extension System? The major lesson learned from the introduction of the FLS/PEA into the Vietnam’s context is that the process neglected a sound assessment of the financial, human and institutional capacities of the national extension system, while imposing the donors’ policies and conditions on the existing context of limited capacities. Put into perspective, the ambitious level of the SLC, in showing the full potential of the PTA methods through the FLS-concept had somewhat overridden the work on developing a more modest, gradual and workable introduction of PEA into the Vietnamese extension system. Hence, even though the whole philosophy of FLS/PEA follows a participatory rationale, its development and introduction processes seemed to apply a merely consultative type of participation with modest ownership given to the counterpart. Despite the technical appropriateness of FLS/PEA, it needs to be considered as an institutional innovation that is highly complex as compared to the existing extension system. Thus, when introducing and testing institutional innovations, such as the FLS/PEA concept, it is recommended that an ‘adaptive extension approach’ is employed. The starting point of this approach should be an assessment of the existing system’s abilities, followed by the gradual introduction of institutional


192

T.T. Minh et al.

innovations from simple to more complicated and comprehensive forms, thus systematically building up institutional capacities from inputs of education for extension students to the operational level. This ‘adaptive extension approach’ that draws on the existing practices and effectuates gradual change towards more farmercentred operation would most likely take longer and demand sustained efforts. Its comparative advantage, however, would be that it fits to the system’s hierarchical structure and its culture of ‘consensus politics’ as well as the limitations of financial and human capacities. The major drawback is that such an approach does not go along well with the inner logic and modalities of many aid programmes which need to show measurable impact within a short project or programme period of 35 years. By using the ‘adaptive extension approach’ institutional innovations are better understood as extension officials at all levels will have more time to learn and to digest new ideas, to make decisions on adoption or adaptation of the appropriate ones, and to diffuse them nationwide. Institutional innovations are then gradually accepted by the receivers rather than enforced by donors’ interests and intensive propaganda, which are commonly found in the international development community. However, changing systems is a matter of changing power structures. Unless some degree of external pressure is put on the system from donors, government or others it might not change in a context where power is given to the ‘system owners’. In the Vietnamese context ‘system owners’ are traditionally not the farmers but the political leaders. They benefit from the current system even though other stakeholders like farmers may look at it as dysfunctional. While there is growing recognition that participatory rationales should be applied to the innovation development processes and be incorporated in the innovation itself, in reality the ‘participatory model’ has to be adjusted to counter potential shortcomings in the specific context of Vietnam. Experiences from a recent workshop conducted in August 2009 with agricultural extension representatives in the central region showed that the ‘adaptive extension approach’ has been effectively applied by the formal extension system in Quang Binh Province. Although Quang Binh is far away from the project area, the provincial staff got exposed to the ideas of the project at one of the project’s experience sharing workshops in 2007. The basic principles of PEA have been adopted and further adjusted by this provincial extension centre. This spontaneous adoption of the institutional innovation shows that institutionalization of PEA within the provincial extension system has happened after the termination of the project. Experience from discussions with extension system representatives in other parts of the country also suggests various degrees of adaptation, often depending on resource availability and the organizational structures within the province. Conclusion FLS/PEA has in many different settings proved its potential as an extension approach capable of enhancing farmers’ knowledge and self-esteem, changing the attitude of farmers, extension officers and local authorities, and improving the practice of all parties for the benefit of the livestock production and farmers’ livelihood. FLS/PEA is obviously applicable to the conditions of sound financial and human resources dealing with intensive farmer extension and training programmes



193

for complex issues of NGOs’ and international development organizations’ agendas. FLS/PEA can also be appropriate for the government’s specific socio-economic development programmes, especially addressing poverty reduction and remote ethnic minority regions. The approach can potentially work in a low hierarchy environment where farmers pay for extension services to satisfy their demands. The introduction of the FLS concept to Vietnam’s extension system has proved the appropriateness of PEA in both technical and institutional aspects. The FLS concept is not only benefiting livestock farmers but also enhancing the capacity of the extension system and changing the institutional mindset at both provincial and central level. The extension senior management board is currently lobbying for the promotion and institutionalization of PEA approaches into the national system. However, the shift from a top-down, supply-driven extension to a more farmeroriented, demand-driven approach and the entire process from changing the way of thinking in the government towards acting differently on the ground will involve many stakeholders and requires allocation of adequate financial and human resources as well as institutional enthusiasm and cooperation of the whole system.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Ms Tran Kim Anh*Vice director of NAEC, SLC team and authorities, extension and animal health officers and farmers from pilot provinces for their excellent contributions and support to the development of the FLS concept. The authors acknowledge the helpful suggestions from Prof. Dr Volker Hoffmann. The quality of the paper has also benefited from the constructive comments of three anonymous reviewers.

References Beckman, M. (2001) Extension, Poverty and Vulnerability in Vietnam: Country Study for the Neuchatel Initiative. Working Paper 152. London: Overseas Development Institute. Braun, A., Jiggins, J., Ro¨ ling, N., van den Berg, H. & Snijders, P. (2006) A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experience*Final Report. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Endeala. Dalsgaard, J.P.T., Minh, T.T., Giang, V.N. & Riise, J.C. (2005) Introducing a Farmers’ Livestock School Training Approach into the National Extension System in Vietnam. Network Paper No. 144. London: Agricultural Research & Extension Network. Danida (2006) Independent Impact Study of the Small Livestock Components Activities and Achievements. Unpublished Report. Danida (2007a) Completion Report for the Small Livestock Component under the Agricultural Sector Programme Support (ASPS). Unpublished Report. Danida (2007b) Independent Impact Study of the Agricultural Sector Programme Support Activities and Achievements. Unpublished Report. Danida (2007c) ASPS Farmer Schools and Farmer Groups Impact and Lessons Learned. Unpublished Report. Danish Agricultural Advisory Service (DAAS) (2004) Farmer Livestock Schools in Vietnam: Assessment of the Training Concept and Recommendations for Further Development*Final Report. Unpublished Report. Goletti, F., Pinners, E., Purcell, T. & Smith, D. (2007) Integrating and Institutionalizing Lessons Learned: Reorganizing Agricultural Research and Extension. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 13(3), pp. 227244. Grabowski, R. (1991) Agricultural Development and Institutional Innovation: A View of Early Japan. Journal of Asian Economics, 2(2), pp. 249263. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning Experience as a Source of Learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.


194

T.T. Minh et al.

Larsen, C.E.S., Minh, T.T., Anh, T.K. & Van, V.T.K. (2006) Improving Livestock Extension Services in Vietnam*Potentials and Limitations of Using a Farmers’ Livestock School Approach. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Livestock Services. Beijing, China: Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) and Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science (CAAS), pp. 376380. Minh, T.T., Larsen, C.E.S. & Anh, T.K (2007) Participatory Training Approach*A Training Manual for Training of Trainers. Hanoi, Vietnam: Agricultural Publishing House (in Vietnamese). Peters, J. (2001) Transforming the ‘Model’ Approach to Upland Rural Development in Vietnam. Agriculture and Human Values, 18, pp. 403412. Ruttan, V.W. (1989) Institutional-Innovation and Agricultural Development. World Development, 17(9), pp. 13751387. Shysh, J.A. (2000) Adult Learning Principles: You Can Teach an Old Dog New Tricks/On Peut Apprendre ˆ ge. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, 47, pp. 837842. a` Tout A SLC (2007) Component Completion Report. Unpublished report. Son, D.K. (2001) ITCs and National Agricultural Research System*The Case of Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: ICARD. Thanh, H.X & Khoa, N.V. (2003) Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor*A Documentation Review for the Sub-Group on Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor. Hanoi, Vietnam: Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Group, VUFO*NGO Resource Centre. Thanh, H.X., Quy, L.T. & Hai, N.V. (2004) Ethnic Minorities and Gender Issues in Agricultural Extension* Part 2 of Agricultural Services for the Poor Series. Hanoi, Vietnam: VUFO-NGO Resource Centre Vietnam, pp. 414. Uphoff, N. (1993) Grassroots Organisations and NGOs in Rural Development: Opportunities with Diminishing States and Expanding Markets. World Development, 21(4), pp. 607622. Van de Fliert, E. (2006) The Role of Farmer Field School in the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture. In: Van de Ban, A.W. and Samanta, R.K. (Eds), Changing Roles of Agricultural Extension in Asian Nations. Delhi, India: B.R. Publishing Corporation, pp. 325342. Van de Fliert, E., Dung, N.T., Henriksen, O. & Dalsgaard, J.P.T. (2007) From Collectives to Collective Decision-making and Action: Farmer Field Schools in Vietnam. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 13(3), pp. 245256.