Connecting marginal rice farmers to agri

Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension
Vol. 12, No. 2, 109Á125, June 2006

Connecting Marginal Rice Farmers to
Agricultural Knowledge and Information
Systems in Vietnam Uplands
JEAN-CHRISTOPHE CASTELLA$, JOEP SLAATS%, DANG DINH
QUANG, FRANC
á OIS GEAYĐ, NGUYEN VAN LINH’ and
PHAM THI HANH THO’
$
Institut de Recherche pour le De´veloppement (IRD), France, and International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI), Philippines, %Independent consultant for agriculture and capacity building, Vietnam, ’Vietnam
Agricultural Sciences Institute (VASI), Vietnam, §French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, French Embassy in
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Vietnam

ABSTRACT In Vietnam, agricultural extension has contributed to rural development and poverty
alleviation over the past two decades of agricultural decollectivization, but it was not very effective
in reducing disparities within farmer communities. The study examined how better interactions of
extension services with other agencies and information sources may help marginal farmers in
catching up with the general improvement of living conditions in a mountainous area in northern
Vietnam. It combined three complementary viewpoints on this issue: that of the agricultural
extension staff, that of farmers and that of development experts with a long working experience in
the mountains of Vietnam. The analysis of existing structures and functions of the extension
system revealed a number of obstacles to the participation of marginal farmers in extension
programmes and helped to identify relevant domains of intervention.
KEY WORDS: Agricultural extension, Social networks, Innovation, Marginal farmers, Vietnam

Introduction
Since the onset of the economic liberalization process in 1986, Vietnam has shown
tremendous overall economic growth and a sharp decrease in poverty. Agricultural

production increased exponentially as allocation of land-use rights and better access
to inputs and information enabled farmers to react to market incentives (Kerkvliet
and Porter, 1995; Obaidullah-Khan, 2000). In the northern mountainous area of the
country, agricultural development has been less spectacular because of its isolation
and the marked heterogeneity of socio-economic and agro-ecological conditions
(Jamieson et al., 1998; Le and Rambo, 2001). People are difficult to reach but they
also have limited livelihood options because they are isolated from infrastructures,
markets and administrations (Alther et al., 2002). The Vietnamese government’s
concern for equal access to national development, coupled with international donors’
Correspondence address : Jean-Christophe Castella, IRD, B.P. 64501, 34394 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
Email:
1389-224X Print/1750-8622 Online/06/020109-17 # 2006 Wageningen University
DOI: 10.1080/13892240600861625


110

J.-C. Castella et al.

concern with poverty alleviation, has focused attention on agricultural development
in the northern mountains (World Bank, 2001). Recent government investments to
help overcome the isolation of this region by upgrading the road infrastructure and
subsidizing the supply of agricultural inputs led to a substantial improvement of
living conditions (Van de Walle, 2002). Nevertheless, even in the communities where
general conditions improved over recent years, a large proportion of the households
remains poor (Le and Rambo, 2001; Castella and Dang, 2002). The insight that
overall economic growth will not be able to lift all people out of poverty is now
generally accepted (Beckman, 2002).
The government is becoming progressively more interested in adapting extension
methods and structures to the challenge of poverty alleviation. In Vietnam, as in

many other countries around the world (Rivera and Alex, 2004), a major reform of
the services in charge of research, development and extension under the Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Development is underway. Several support programmes
contribute their field experience to the ongoing policy-making exercise (World
Bank, 2001; ADB, 2002). However, a key issue for improving the effectiveness of
the extension system concerns the institutionalization in the governmental
extension service and up-scaling to large geographic areas of the most promising
extension methods (for example, participatory technology development, farmer
field schools, community-based management of natural resources, companion
modelling). A number of participatory methods have been used only recently in
various support programmes, in relatively small areas, and are spreading only very
slowly.
For many years, communication initiatives in support of environmental and
natural resources management have mainly focused on the dissemination and
adoption of technical packages. These efforts have met with some impact under a
collectivist agricultural system that was designed in such a way that the ‘users’ were
mostly inactive recipients in a technology-driven process. The technology received
most of the attention, often to the detriment of the ‘non-technological’ factors (that
is, social, economic and cultural) which influence farmers’ behaviour. Several years
after the transition to market economy and family-based farming, the knowledge
management and communication practices are still remnant from the former period.
Weak linkages among technology-oriented research, education and extension
institutions limit their effectiveness to contribute to development, especially when
farmers are poorly organized, poorly endowed with biophysical resources, and have
limited access to transport, storage and processing facilities as it is mostly the case in
the mountain areas.
Therefore, communication with the poor is essential to meet the needs of the
isolated and marginalized groups by creating a plural information society, supporting
the ongoing decentralization of support services to agriculture. However, moving
from the mainly vertical and top-down communication strategies promoting

externally-generated technology towards the integration of different kinds of
knowledge held by various stakeholders is a challenging endeavour, especially in
the increasingly complex and horizontal communication environments in which
development strategies are currently deployed. An integrated approach to rural
innovation (Leeuwis and van den Ban, 2004) should emphasize the importance of
interactive, mutual learning between formal and informal knowledge/technology


Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

111

systems. While in the traditional technology transfer approach more attention is paid
to ‘trickle down’ flows of information from research to extension and from extension
to farmers, an integrated approach to innovation shifts attention to feedback and
upwards communication from farmers and to facilitating research-extension-farmer
interactions. Beyond the improvements of the vertical communication system,
conceptual shifts and economic constraints have lead to a greater consideration of
pluralistic approaches, that is, multi-organizational partnerships including nongovernmental actors in the broadest sense. A process of social learning involving
interdependent stakeholders at multiple scales is critical to the required institutional
changes (Leeuwis and Pyburn, 2002). Participatory approaches can facilitate the
dialogue and exchange of knowledge and information on natural resources
management, increase the community knowledge base, promote agricultural
practices which are compatible with the environment, and develop awareness in
policy-makers, authorities and service providers (Roăling and Wagemakers, 1998). It is
one thing to observe that an integrative and systems approach should be taken to
innovation facilitation, but quite another thing to translate the observation into
action (Sayer and Campbell, 2004). Many organizationally elegant models of
communication can be described, that never quite seem to materialize because they
build upon theoretical considerations before taking into account local realities.

Learning processes and stakeholder interactions are necessarily embedded in a local
institutional and political context that must be understood prior to external
intervention (Castella et al., 2004). Social learning hinges on context sensitivity,
tactical flexibility, and intuitive skill to harness the creative energy of collective
engagement in problem solving. Then, the challenge is to scale out and up and
institutionalize platforms and processes of social learning. Leeuwis and Pyburn
(2002) stress the role of communication within and in between knowledge systems
and policy networks to transcend localized interventions towards system-wide
multiple-scale impact.
The purpose of the study presented in this paper was to define mechanisms for
linking the two dimensions of communication for development as presented above,
that is, vertical hierarchical structure of the public extension system with the
horizontal local networks, which support the active participation of farmers in
knowledge sharing and social learning (Balasubramanian and Thamizoli, 2003). It
built upon the hypothesis that participatory approaches to technology development,
adaptation or adoption by farmers can be sustained and can have a real impact
on the marginal farmers who are the most in need only under the condition
of reconciling vertical and horizontal communication systems in agricultural
extension.
This paper first presents an institutional analysis of the extension system in Bac
Kan province. It describes the organizational aspects and structures involved in the
innovation process and technological changes. Then, the results of the diagnostic
study are confronted with the visions and expectations of different groups of
stakeholders involved in agricultural development. Finally, the discussion section
introduces concrete recommendations to reconcile communication channels that
were initially designed to support widely practised technology transfer methods with
participatory approaches for the benefit of marginalized farming communities in the
uplands.

112

J.-C. Castella et al.

Methodology
Conceptual Framework
In Vietnam, interaction between extension agents and farmers still often consists of a
top-down flow of information, delivering a fixed and ready-to-use technical solution,
not specific to farmers’ needs and wishes (Hoang and Nguyen, 2003). This linear
transfer mechanism inherited from the collectivist period offers little opportunity for
feedback on content and method of communication and monitoring of achievements
and is mainly focused on attaining production targets formulated in provincial and
national extension programmes. This extension approach may be considered as
archaic in the present days despite its successful contribution to the dissemination of
technical innovations in large homogenous areas such as the plains of the Red River
Delta (Dao, 1995). In the mountain areas where people farm under agro-ecological
conditions that differ from one place to another, this approach often results in
messages that are not relevant to farmers’ conditions or to their needs, and the result
is a low rate of innovation adoption (Shanks, 2002). This approach contrasts with the
philosophy of the development projects intervening in the same area, which involve
farmers in technology development and dissemination through a large range of
participatory methods (BCG, 2002; Castella et al., 2004). As the extension practices
are deeply anchored into the structure and functioning of the institution, major
institutional changes are needed in the official extension system to support the
generalization of participatory methods (Neef, 2005). However, the mechanisms
needed to reform the system are still to be designed and debated among multiple
stakeholder groups before implementation. The study reported in this paper aimed at
feeding the ongoing debates with empirical data and input from key stakeholders:
extension agents, farmers and development advisers.
Three research methodologies have been combined in order to take stock of the

existing extension system from the three different perspectives. Through an
institutional analysis we studied the set-up and functioning of the public sector
extension service as well as its links with other actors who contribute to technological
changes in rural areas. Through a farmer survey we analyzed the relationships
between communication networks, knowledge acquisition and innovation adoption
in farmer communities. Finally, we explored the interplay between both the
individual components of the innovation process and the validity of the findings
beyond the study area through individual and collective exchanges with key
informants on their working experiences.
Data Collection
Institutional analysis of the agricultural extension system. First, we reviewed reports
from major organizations involved in agricultural extension such as the local
administration (that is, People’s Committees at province, district and commune
levels), mass organizations such as the Women’s Union (WU) and the Farmers’
Association (FA), and non-governmental organizations (domestic and international
NGOs), to get an overall picture of the information channels on agricultural
technologies in Bac Kan province. We described the structure of the major
organizations involved, including their mandate, activities, staff, equipment, and
financial endowment. In 2002, once key stakeholders had been identified, we


Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

113

conducted individual interviews (n 0/25) with extension staff based on a semistructured questionnaire. The interviewees were selected according to their position
and responsibilities in their institution (that is, administrative staff at provincial,
district and commune levels, team manager, field staff, etc.) and their domain of
intervention (for example, cropping systems, animal husbandry, credit). Based on this
panel, representative of the different extension activities in the province, we studied

how priorities are set and we investigated the local communication channels between
farmers within the local communities (Hoang et al., in press), as well as between
extension services and farmers. Last, three focus group discussions provided a better
understanding of the spread of, access to and control over agricultural information
and local knowledge. The first group included representatives of the administrative
offices at provincial, district and commune levels, the second group included
representatives from national and international development projects, managed by
domestic and international NGOs, bilateral and multilateral development agencies,
and the third group included field staff from the extension system and their local
partners.
Farmer surveys. The first component of the survey focused on the links between
farmers’ conditions and their access to information and communication means, their
acquaintance with the extension service and their participation in extension activities.
The second component investigated the relations between farmers’ sources of
information and the quality of knowledge on agricultural innovations, and their
decision to adopt or not. Our questions concerned three specific innovations in
paddy rice production that had been recently disseminated in the study area: hybrid
rice (HybR), on-farm rice seed production technology (SeedP) and rice transplanting
techniques (RTransp) (Box 1). Innovations on paddy rice production were chosen
specifically because this cropping system plays a crucial role in farmers’ livelihoods
(Castella and Dang, 2002). The diffusion of hybrid rice is promoted by the
government through the extension service, which provides technical support, as
well as through other stakeholders such as seed suppliers; the second innovation is
mainly supported by an international project underway in the area (Le, 2003), while
the last-mentioned technology is disseminated by the official extension service only.
In 2001, we conducted the survey in nine villages located in three communes of Cho
Moi district (Box 2). We chose this district because it is relatively accessible and the
extension service intervenes on a regular basis. In each village 15 households were
chosen at random from the village census, making up a sample of 135 households
(Table 1). The survey was conducted by means of a structured questionnaire with

pre-defined answers (multiple choices) in order to obtain identical information from
all respondents.
Exchange with key informants. The key informants we interviewed were managers of
development projects (supported by international NGOs, bi- and multi-lateral
donors) dealing with agricultural extension in the mountains of northern Vietnam.
A representative panel of six persons was selected among the 12 projects dealing with
rural development in Bac Kan province at the time of the study (BCG, 2002).
Discussions were guided by a list of open questions about the functioning of the
extension service, the effectiveness of extension methods and the use of incentives for


114

J.-C. Castella et al.

Box 1. Rice innovations introduced in Bac Kan province
HybridR. Hybrid rice seed varieties, most of them of Chinese origin, are strongly
promoted by MARD as part of a policy for food security in Vietnam uplands. These
varieties require adequate crop management (irrigation, fertilizer, pest and disease
control), the taste of these varieties is only moderately appreciated. Their massive
introduction may lead to risk of erosion in genetic diversity, an issue that is beyond the
scope of this paper. They are grown in the spring and summer season and yield can
reach 5 t/ha. The technical guidelines issued by AFEC describe timing and methods of
field operations: seed and seedbed preparation, seeding, transplantation, fertilizer
application, weeding, irrigation and pest management.
SeedP. This is on-farm seed production of improved open-pollinated rice varieties
(Bao Thai Lun), specific to the northern mountainous region. These varieties are well
adapted to local ecological conditions, are appreciated for their taste and yield stability
and have little tendency to degenerate when saved as next year’s sowing seed. These
varieties are specific for the summer season and yields can reach 3.5 t/ha. The

guidelines issued by an international NGO describe plot requirements for seed
production, crop management techniques and specific considerations and practices for
selecting and harvesting the plants as well as storing and handling the harvested seed.
TransP. The innovation consists of raising rice seedlings in a tray consisting of soilfilled holes instead of in a seedbed. For transplanting, the seedlings and the ball of soil
attached are lifted from the tray and broadcasted by hand into the field. Advantages of
this technique are the reduction in time requirement for transplanting and better
establishment of seedlings after transplantation. The technical guidelines issued by
AFEC describe the techniques for sowing in the tray and for transplanting.

adoption. With the information gained, the results from the institutional analysis and
households’ survey were cross-checked for consistency. At a seminar in January 2003
that brought together representatives of the main institutions and groups of
stakeholders involved in agricultural extension in Bac Kan province, we presented
the results of our study and received feedback from them.
The Agricultural Extension System in Bac Kan Province: A Pluralistic Model
A Vertical Administrative Structure with Horizontal Communication Networks
Agricultural extension is officially managed by the Department for Agro-Forestry
Extension (DAFE), which was set up in 1993 within the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development (MARD). It is closely linked to the administrative structure, the
People’s Committee (PC), which has a representative unit at each hierarchical level.
At the district level, it consists of a specific unit, the Agriculture and Forestry
Extension Centre (AFEC), under the provincial Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development (DARD). District extension officers support agents at lower
levels in the implementation of the programme and perform monitoring and
evaluation. In 2000, the AFEC appointed 84 officers for 122 communes, each
assigned to work in one or two communes. They include civil servants and temporary
workers and can be considered as Communal Extension Agents (CEA). About half
of them are women and they are paid by the central government (MARD) or the
province. They serve 44,500 farming families (530 farms per CEA on average), which
is far above the average rate in Vietnam of one agent for 2000 Á4000 families (ADB,

Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

115

Box 2. Characteristics of the on-farm survey
Cho Moi district is located in the southern part of Bac Kan province. The three
communes where the farm survey was carried out are located in an area of low
mountains and hills with a relatively large number of lowland valleys. All three
communes are connected to the national road linking the provincial capital to the
neighbouring provinces.
Mostly the household head was interviewed; in some cases it was another household
member directly involved in extension activities such as training or demonstration.
Farmers’ knowledge on the studied innovations was assessed based on their capacity
to cite the main topics of the guidelines that had been handed out as support during
the introduction of these innovations by the extension service. A pre-defined scoring
system was applied to evaluate farmers’ understanding of the technical topics in these
guidelines in order to obtain uniform results that could be compared. As far as the
farmers’ conditions are concerned, the composition of the farming family, the level of
education, sources of family income and land use system were taken into account
(Table 1). The farm households involved in the survey shared some common
characteristics. They were all active in agriculture and very few had any significant
secondary economic activity. Most families belonged to the Ta`y ethnic group. In
general, the household heads had a relatively high level of education, at least
secondary school, which was a common feature of people living in easily accessible
areas. This characteristic is important for this study since formal education facilitates
access to information and favours awareness of potential benefits from innovation
adoption. As for crop production systems, almost all farmers grow paddy rice. About
20% lacked irrigation to grow a spring rice crop. The proportion of income from rice

was relatively high, in 50% of the farmer families it represented between one and two
thirds of total income. Almost a quarter of the farm households did not produce
enough rice to cover annual food needs.

2002). This reflects the priority the government gives to improving living standards in
the poorest parts of the country.
Mass organizations such as the Women’s Union (WU) and the Farmers’
Association (FA) have branches at district, commune and village levels. They also
provide training and participate in governmental programmes and development
projects. During the cooperatives period, these government-led structures were used
mainly for disseminating directives, but they are now increasingly becoming forums
for local development planning. In Bac Kan province, radio and TV is run by an
agency under the provincial PC that operates two broadcasting stations. Both
broadcast programmes on agriculture with special attention to technological
innovations.
Development projects operated by national agencies in partnership with international NGOs and donor organizations often also include agricultural extension. In
2001, 12 projects had activities related to agricultural extension in Bac Kan province.
All the projects promoted participatory approaches, most of them dealing with
training of both extension staff and farmers, while about half of them were active in
the demonstration of innovations, input supply, credit activities, exchange through
workshops and visits, and organizational strengthening (BCG, 2002).
In Bac Kan province, farmers may gain information on agricultural technologies
by taking part in meetings organized by development agencies presented above,
through direct contact with the local extension agent, and through informal contact
with neighbours or other farmers (Table 2). About 70% of surveyed families have


116

J.-C. Castella et al.

Table 1. General characteristics of farms in the survey

Characteristic

Average

Range

42
4.8
2.9

23 Á72
2 Á9
1 Á6

Age HHa head (years)
Family size (# persons)
Active HH members
(# persons)
Education
Ethnic identityb
Economic activities
(# farms)
Acreage paddy land
(1000 m2)c
Paddy land in spring
(1000 m2)d
Income from rice (%)
Self-sufficiencye in rice

(# farms)

Classes (% of farms in survey)
B/35 (25%)
5/4 (50%)
5/2 (52%)

35 Á44 (39%)
/4 (50%)
/2 (48%)

2.7

primary
secondary
(16%)
(72%)
Tay (84%)
Dao (11%)
primary:
secondary:
agriculture (100%) none (92%)
0.2 Á10 B/2 (31%)
2 Á B/3 (33%)

2.0

0.2 Á6
B/45 (36%)
high (40%)

]/45 (36%)

higher
(12%)
Kinh (3%)
]/3 (36%)

45 Á B/65 (35%) ]/65 (29%)
global (37%)
low (23%)

a

HH: household.
other ethnic groups: 2%.
c
130 households have paddy fields.
d
106 households have paddy fields where spring crop can be grown (two cropping cycles).
e
Self-sufficiency is measured as total annual rice production per household member divided by annual
consumption (300 kg/person/year); high self-sufficiency: summer crop alone meets needs, global: summer plus
spring crop meet needs, low: summer plus spring crop fall short of needs.
b

access to radio and TV. Surprisingly, farmers did not mention the mass media as a
source of extension information. However, in a nationwide assessment, farmers
considered TV programmes on local agriculture to be useful (MARD, 2003). Village
meetings, training courses and technical brochures appeared to be the major sources

of extension information used by farmers. On-farm demonstrations of innovations
are important for about 50% of the farmers. Farmers were well aware of the
involvement of the extension service in their community. About 88% of them knew
the extension agent and 78% were able to list the activities he or she was undertaking.
However, only 8% of the farmers had been visited by the extension agent, suggesting
the limited interaction between these two actors, as reported elsewhere in the
Table 2. Farmers’ use of sources of extension information
Source
Village meeting
Training
Brochures
Mass organization
Neighbour
Demonstration
Interest groups
Mass media
a

Proportion of farming households using the source (n0/135).

Usea
93
75
71
60
56
56
11
0

Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

117

province (Hoang et al., in press) and in Vietnam (MARD, 2003). Farmers’
acquaintance with the extension agent did not depend on the characteristics of the
farm or household. The channels through which farmers obtained information did
not depend on their acquaintance with the extension agent and his activities,
suggesting that direct interaction with the extension agent was not essential in order
to be informed about agricultural innovations. In carrying out extension activities the
agent is assisted by the local administration, the Communal People’s Committee
(CPC), which channels all the information to the village authorities before it reaches
the farmers. This mode of operation gives the local authorities (people holding a
position of responsibility in communal or village institutions such as members of the
Communal People’s Committee, village heads, representatives of mass organizations)
a key position in brokering information about innovations.
The Key Role of Commune Extension Agents in Brokering Technical Information
between Vertical and Horizontal Communication Networks
The official mandate of the CEA is clearly inspired by a linear model of technology
transfer to farmers, which consists in providing information on innovations in the
form of technology packages or models to be implemented for demonstration
purposes (Peters, 2001). The transfer is mainly accomplished by providing training to
farmers, distributing technical brochures formulated by AFEC, establishing demonstration models with contact farmers, and monitoring innovation adoption (MARD,
2002). In addition, the CEA have to carry out extension and rural development
activities for NGOs and donor organizations operating projects in their specific
commune. In carrying out extension activities, the CEA work closely together with
the person in charge of agriculture within the Commune People’s Committee (CPC),
normally the vice-chairman. This person acts as a contact person who informs village
heads and other authorities on the activities and these people in turn pass this

information to farmers. The contact person also keeps a record of farmers interested
in a training session or in receiving the inputs needed to apply a technology. In order
to improve the outreach of the formal extension system, MARD has introduced
extension clubs in several provinces, including Bac Kan province (Shanks, 2002).
These clubs consist of farmers within a village or commune who meet each month to
discuss technical information or undergo training. Local authorities assisted in
establishing these clubs and are themselves members (Nguyen et al., 2002).
The achievements of the formal extension system in Bac Kan province are limited
for the same reasons as those reported in other provinces (ADB, 2002; UNDP, 2000).
The most common arguments used to explain the poor results are the small number
of agents, their low field allowance, and their insufficient means of transport to reach
farmers who are widely dispersed and often live in remote areas. Extension agents
have limited capacities to deliver their message to farmers because they are poorly
trained and often do not speak the languages of the minorities. However, it is also
important to note that staff who originate from the geographic area they serve have
better knowledge of the local agricultural systems and are highly committed to
respond to farmers’ needs. In the mountain areas however, their level of education is
generally lower than people from outside. Nevertheless, despite their low salaries
(equivalent to 20 USD per month in 2002), most CEAs are highly motivated and try


118

J.-C. Castella et al.

to respond to farmer’s demands even if these fall outside their formal agenda. In
addition, extension agents occupy a unique position as broker of information
between the different governmental agencies, international development projects and
local authorities. Unfortunately, some extension agents who contribute to international projects and are trained by these projects in various extension methods
including participatory approaches, tend to compartmentalize their knowledge. They

apply linear technology transfer methods when working in their official function but
also apply successfully participatory approaches when working on international
projects. However, training is required to help them increase their capacities in
rationalizing the different flows of information and change their attitudes towards
partnerships (Foărster, 2003). In this way, summary information on innovations could
be exchanged and subsequently passed on to each structure. In the end, this
information may reach farmers through different channels, evidence of a huge
potential to diffuse general information of a low level of complexity throughout the
system.
Farmers’ Participation in Extension Programmes and Technological Innovation
Knowledge Transfer
Knowledge transfer on rice-related innovations has been studied by exploring where
farmers who adopted the technology obtained the guidelines for these innovations
and how they understood these guidelines (Box 1). The main sources of these
guidelines were training, neighbours and village meetings (Table 3). For HybR and
RTransp, more than half of the farmers got the guidelines by attending a training
course. Since SeedP is an innovation introduced through a project and is solidly
based on collective action by farmers in seed producers groups, most farmers got the
guidelines through their neighbours. Obtaining guidelines through training was also
correlated with relatively large paddy fields and a moderate to high degree of selfsufficiency. Conversely, farmers with no position in local administration or those who
earn most of their income from other sources than rice (for example, maize, cassava,
or livestock products) tended to obtain the guidelines through their neighbours.
These findings underscore the key role of training in extension. Other sources of
extension information, such as demonstrations, appeared not to be the main
occasions that allow people to obtain specific technical information. This result
contradicts the widespread belief within the formal extension system that the spread
of knowledge and technologies occurs through demonstration because farmers are
Table 3. Main sources of the technical guidelines for specific innovations
Source
Training course

Neighbours
Village meeting
Seed supplier
Others
a

HybR

SeedP

RTransp

50a
40
32
13
6

31
49
9
17
14

63
23
35
7
2

Percentage of farmers mentioning the source (HybR: n0/98, SeedP: n0/35, RTransp: n0/38).


Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

119

more likely to learn from farmers like themselves who already practise a given
technology. In reality, it is mostly the better-off farmers and people well connected to
the local authorities who set up demonstration with the help of extension staff and
receive credit and subsidies (Peters, 2001). Poor farmers have less chance to benefit
from these model demonstrations, especially if they have a marginal position in the
village communication network (Hoang et al., in press).
Innovation Adoption
Of the three innovations monitored in the study, HybR was the most widely adopted,
by 75% of the farmers. This is likely to be the result of a nationwide campaign
launched by the government to promote the use of HybR in order to guarantee food
security and increase rice exports. SeedP and RTransp were adopted on a limited
scale only, by 27% and 29% of the farmers respectively.
Impact of farmers’ knowledge on adoption. Farmers who obtained the guidelines
through training adopted HybR and RTransp more than those who got the
guidelines through neighbours and village meetings (Table 4). With regard to
HybR and SeedP, a better understanding of guidelines also resulted in earlier
adoption. These findings confirm that training more than other sources of
information contributed to farmers’ understanding of the innovations and indicate
the importance of the farmer’s position in the local communication network, which
largely determines his or her access to training activities. The majority of the farmers
perceived the innovations to be a benefit, since only 15% to 30% of them considered
the impact of adoption as low. Informed non-adoption remained limited (Table 5).
Impact of farmers’ livelihood systems on adoption. The adoption of the three

innovations studied here depended on farm and household characteristics (Table
6). The high resource requirements for implementing any of the innovations proved
to be the biggest limitation (Table 5). Farmers with only small paddy fields did not
fully adopt the innovations. This is in particular true for HybR as farmers with
smaller paddy fields were fewer to adopt, and also adopted the innovations later.
Farmers for whom rice was an important source of income are more likely to adopt
HybR and SeedP than those for whom rice was a minor source of income. Farmers
with a high degree of self-sufficiency adopted HybR in larger numbers and earlier
than those who were less self-sufficient.
Table 4. Relationship between innovation adoption and knowledge transfer
Dependent variable

Year of adoption (from 1999)

a

Explaining variable

Source of guidelines
Understanding guidelines
(Box 2)
Subsidies

Probability value of x2 test; ns 0/not significant (p ]/0.10).

Innovation
HybR

SeedP

RTransp

B/0.05a
B/0.10

ns
B/0.10

B/0.05
ns

B/0.10

B/0.01

ns


120

J.-C. Castella et al.
Table 5. Constraints limiting farmers’ adoption of innovations
Type of constraint

Innovation
HybRa

SeedP

RTransp

15
20
5
86

21
46
7
50

28
46
24
74

Low impact of innovation
Limited access to information
Guidelines difficult to understand
High requirements for adoption
a

Percentage of respondents mentioning the constraint (HybR: n0/98, SeedP: n 0/35, RTransp: n0/38).

Impact of subsidies on adoption. Members of the local authorities were more
numerous in adopting SeedP and RTransp than farmers with no official position. A
similar trend was found for the adoption of HybR. These findings may reflect the
effect of subsidies on adoption. The proportion of farmers who received hybrid rice
seeds at a subsidized price tended to be larger among local authorities than among
farmers with no position, although the difference was not statistically significant. All

three innovations studied were introduced together with incentives in the form of
subsidized or free distribution of seeds (HybR, SeedP), fertilizers (HybR) or
equipment (RTransp). Since resource requirements (that is, material inputs, irrigation
capacity, etc.) were revealed to be serious limitations (Tables 5 and 7), it is easy to
understand that subsidies sped up innovation adoption as observed in the case of
SeedP and RTransp. The explicit increase in yield of HybR may explain why subsidies
did not affect the adoption of this innovation despite the high proportion of farmers
who received a subsidy (78%).
Discussion: Burning Issues in Extension
Reaching the Farmers
The present study indicated that farmers moderately to well endowed with resources
have better access to extension than their poorly endowed fellows since they tap a
greater variety of sources of extension information and participate more in extension
Table 6. Link between innovation adoption and farm characteristics
Dependent variable

Explaining variable

Innovation
HybR

SeedP

RTransp

B/0.10
B/0.10
ns
B/0.05

B/0.05
ns
ns
B/0.01

Adoption (yes/no)

Size paddy fields
Proportion income from rice
Self-sufficiency in rice
Social position household head

B/0.01
B/0.10
B/0.05
ns

Year of adoption
(from 1999)

Size paddy fields
Proportion income from rice
Self-sufficiency in rice
Social position household head

B/0.10
ns
B/0.10
B/0.05

Probability value of x2 test; ns 0/not significant (p ]/0.10).

ns
ns
ns
ns

ns
ns
ns
ns


Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

121

Table 7. Resource requirements that limit farmers’ adoption of innovations
Type of requirements

Material inputs
Fertile soils
Irrigation capacity
Labour
Land
a

Innovation
HybRa

SeedP

RTransp

88
46
41
3
1

64
57
29
7
0

54
40
26
14
14

Percentage of respondents mentioning the constraint (HybR: n0/98, SeedP: n 0/35, RTransp: n0/38).

activities. As a consequence, local authorities and better-off farmers are more
numerous in adopting innovations and adopt them earlier than poorer farmers. This
finding implies that the formal extension system in Bac Kan province does not reach
all farmers to the same extent and some categories of farmers, especially the poorest,
are likely not to be reached at all. Farmers’ exposure to the formal extension system
also depended on their position in local communication networks and thus on

their relation with the local authorities at the centre of these networks. Through their
function, local authorities are likely to have contacts with many people, offering them
easy access to specific technical information through training and to material
assistance through subsidies. However, they interact most with people who are close
to them, and these are farmers who are moderately to well endowed with resources.
They also tend to select these farmers to participate in extension activities such as
training and to arrange a demonstration, as they are likely to understand the
information disseminated and be able to exploit it. Consequently, opportunities and
advantages are likely to end up with farmers not the most in need of them. Similar
results have been reported in other countries where farmers with direct contact with
extension agents, informal exchange with peer farmers and favourable socioeconomic conditions (that is, farm assets) also proved to be more inclined to adopt
innovations (Glendinning et al., 2001; Wu and Pretty, 2004). While the interpersonal
contact contributed to raising awareness and changing attitudes to innovation,
greater assets enabled farmers to use formal and mass media information sources.
Even development projects seeking broad implication of the farmers, especially
marginal farmers, collaborate with local authorities, as these cannot be bypassed in
the administrative process of project building. They alter the way the local authorities
are involved in the activities, for instance by employing them to obtain introductions
to targeted groups of farmers with whom they will work subsequently, or by having
the authorities focus on targeted groups. By including marginal farmers in their
network, local authorities will increase these farmers’ access to information and
extension activities. If the methods are appropriate to their conditions, poor farmers
may attend and participate in extension activities. Therefore it is very important to
keep in mind the structure of the village communication networks (Hoang et al., in
press) and to sensitize the local authorities to the situation of farmers who are in a
marginal position in these networks. Furthermore, the mobilization and empowerment of diffuse, inarticulate and poorly organized rural producers into collective
actors strong enough to pressure extension institutions will insure that farming
communities can tap the available knowledge and institutional resources to define

122

J.-C. Castella et al.

their own pathways in problem solving (Sayer and Campbell, 2004). In a rapidly
changing environment, farmers’ organizations will have to play a major role in
enhancing farmers’ adaptive capacities and production efficiency through improved
knowledge management (Van den Ban, 2004). The many agencies supporting
agricultural innovation should therefore better coordinate their efforts between
them and with the authorities to prepare farmers’ organizations to the challenges
ahead, that is, increased economic competition with producers within and outside
their region in a globalization trend, development of the private sector and emerging
marketing channels, more constraining environmental regulations, diversification
towards non-agricultural activities, etc. Education will play a key role in reforming
the communication systems to cope with ongoing societal changes. Farmers will have
to incorporate an increasing number of parameters and actors’ viewpoints in their
decision-making process. They will engage in negotiations with multiple-stakeholders
groups for natural resources management. All these changes occur in a context of
rapid development of information and communication technologies they will have to
adapt to.
Fostering Adoption
The findings of the survey highlight the importance of incentives to foster innovation
adoption by farmers. We found that farmers attending training courses have better
access to subsidized inputs (seeds, fertilizers). This may explain why training more
than other sources of information contributed to early adoption. The question arises
how to justify the large-scale provision of subsidies in public extension programmes.
Some project managers contacted in this study pointed out that farmers need to be
compensated for the risk they take in adopting the innovation. This is certainly true
for the introduction of new technologies on an experimental scale, because in these
cases the benefits of the technologies under a given farmer’s conditions remain to be

confirmed and proper experimentation often requires farmers to dedicate a large
proportion of their resources to the innovation. Incentives in the form of subsidized
delivery of inputs may provide a necessary compensation to farmers for taking risks
by adopting innovation. In the present system however, incentives are not likely to
reach the farmers most in need of them. Moreover, they may not result in sustainable
development of the agricultural sector, since they distort the supply and demand of
inputs and products. It is thus essential to develop alternative ways of reducing
farmers’ risks in adopting innovation, such as insurances and revolving funds, and to
explore their feasibility and sustainability.
The large-scale provision of incentives also is considered the remnant of the period
of collectivization when farmers were delivered the inputs free of charge so that they
would produce the targeted outputs. Although the subsidized supply of inputs may
foster innovation adoption in the short term it does not necessarily result in
sustainable agricultural development in the long run as it may stimulate farmers to
implement innovations that do not necessarily comply with their real needs (Peters,
2001; Shanks, 2002). At present, about 80% of the funds for the implementation of
agricultural extension programmes of the ministry, the provinces and the government
are input expenditures. In agreement with the Asian Development Bank, subsidized
input supply will be phased out in the coming years (Hoang and Nguyen, 2003). This


Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

123

major change in extension strategies will require subsequent changes in the
management style of extension organizations. Our experience showed that it is
possible to enhance the entrepreneurial and managerial abilities of farmers by
tapping the existing resources of the vertical and horizontal communication systems
(Martin et al., 2004). Pressure must come from outside for these organizations to

coordinate and integrate their activities. Despite institutional divisions, which are
likely to remain, an integrated agricultural knowledge and technology system can
potentially address the issues raised by the most marginalized farmers. Coordinating
mechanisms can be developed under the conditions that a pluralistic approach to
knowledge management is maintained, farmers’ organizations are strengthened and
empowered, and all partners are well connected to both components of the dual
communication systems (vertical and horizontal). This can be achieved by promoting
flexible, informal networking at many levels with an incentive system that rewards
collaboration, changes in individual attitudes towards partnership and a clear policy
mandate supportive to multiple-stakeholders participation in negotiation platforms
(Castella et al., 2004, 2005). The main lessons learned from our case study in Bac
Kan province may serve as a good example for other provinces in Vietnam and in
neighbouring Asian countries.
Conclusion
On-farm surveys showed that the public extension service promotes technology
adoption by farmers by providing training and subsidies, access to which depends on
their relations with local authorities and their resource endowment. It could reach
marginal farmers better by focusing its collaboration with local authorities on these
beneficiaries, by applying participatory approaches to address these farmers’ needs,
and by looking for alternative methods to reduce risks involved in the adoption of
technology. Therefore, a prerequisite to both the generalization of participatory
approaches and inclusion of the marginal farmers in extension programmes is to
cease subsidizing technological innovations.
The overall picture is that the pluralism of extension models and the considerable
independence of the different organizations that operate in Bac Kan province has the
advantage of reaching farmers through different channels and of adapting national
programmes to local specificities. However, coordination mechanisms need to be
better defined to make all these extension activities accountable to the local People’s
Committees and as a result to the end-users: the farmers. Institutional capacity
building is required to empower extension agents in dealing with this diversity of

partners and modes of partnership.

References
ADB (2002) Vietnam: Agricultural Sector Development Programme. Hanoi: Asian Development Bank.
Alther, C., Castella, J.C., Novosad, P., Rousseau, E. & Tran, H.T. (2002) Impact of Accessibility on the
Range of Livelihood Options Available to Farm Households in Mountainous Areas of Northern Viet
Nam. In: Castella, J.C. and Dang, Q.D. (Eds), Doi Moi in the Mountains. Land Use Changes and
Farmers’ Livelihood Strategies in Bac Kan Province, Viet Nam. Hanoi: The Agricultural Publishing
House, pp. 121 Á146. Available online at: B/ />chap05_E.pdf/.


124

J.-C. Castella et al.

Balasubramanian, K. & Thamizoli, P. (2003) Social Differentiation in the Horizontal Transfer of
Knowledge: A Case Study from South India. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 9(2),
pp. 51 Á60.
BCG (2002) Bac Kan Programmes Directory. Vietnam, Bac Kan Town: Bac Kan Coordination Group.
Available online at: B/ />accessed 2 December 2005.
Beckman, M. (2002) Extension, Poverty, and Vulnerability in Vietnam. In: Contribution to the Workshop
‘Extension and Rural Development: A Convergence of Views on International Approaches?’, 12 Á15
November 2002. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Castella, J.C. & Dang, Q.D. (Eds) (2002) Doi Moi in the Mountains. Land Use Changes and Farmers’
Livelihood Strategies in Bac Kan Province. Hanoi: The Agricultural Publishing House.
Castella, J.C., Dang, Q.D. & Thevenot, P. (2004) Toward New Modes of Governance of the ResearchDevelopment Continuum to Facilitate the Dissemination of Agricultural Innovations in a
Mountainous Province of Northern Vietnam. International Journal of Agricultural Resources,
Governance and Ecology, 3, pp. 77 Á94.
Castella, J.C., Trung, T.N. & Boissau, S. (2005) Participatory Simulation of Land-use Changes in the
Northern Mountains of Vietnam: The Combined Use of an Agent-based Model, a Role-playing

Game, and a Geographic Information System. Ecology and Society, 10(1), article 27 [online], available
at: B/ />Dao, T.T. (1995) The Peasant Household Economy and Social Change. In: Kerkvliet, B.J. and Porter, D.J.
(Eds), Vietnam’s Rural Transformation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 139 163.
Foărster, E. (2003) Experience with Participatory Agricultural Extension Methods in Son La and Lai Chau.
In: FAO (Ed.), Success Stories of Mountainous Development in Vietnam. International Year of the
Mountains 2002. Hanoi: FAO, pp. 91 Á97.
Glendinning, A., Mahapatra, A. & Mitchell, C.P. (2001) Modes of Communication and Effectiveness of
Agroforestry Extension in Eastern India. Human Ecology, 29, pp. 283 Á305.
Hoang, L.A., Castella, J.C. & Novosad, P. (in press) Social Networks and Information Access:
Implications for Agricultural Extension in a Rice Farming Community in Northern Vietnam.
Agriculture and Human Values.
Hoang, T.X. & Nguyen, K.V. (2003) Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor. A Documentation Review.
Hanoi: VUFO-NGO Resource Centre.
Jamieson, N., Le, C.T. & Rambo, A.T. (1998) The Development Crisis in Vietnam’s Mountains. Honolulu,
HI: East-West Center.
Kerkvliet, B.J. & Porter, D.J. (1995) Vietnam’s Rural Transformation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Le, C.T. & Rambo, A.T. (2001) Bright Peaks, Dark Valleys: A Comparative Analysis of Environmental and
Social Conditions and Development Trends in Five Communities in Vietnam’s Northern Mountain
Region. Hanoi: The National Political Publishing House.
Le, T.D. (2003) Specificities of Rice Seed Multiplication in Mountain Areas. In: PAOPA (Ed.), Proceedings
of the International Conference on ‘Scaling Up Innovative Approaches in Agricultural Development.
From Research & Development Projects to Broad-based Impact on Livelihood Systems, Extension and
Public Decisions’, 23 Á27 September 2002. Hanoi: French Embassy in Vietnam, pp. 311 Á326.
Leeuwis, C. & Pyburn, R. (Eds) (2002) Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Social Learning in Rural Resource
Management. Assen: Koninklijke Van Gorcum.
Leeuwis, C., with van den Ban, A.W. (2004) Communication for Rural Innovation. Rethinking Agricultural
Extension, 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
MARD (2002) Current Status of Forestry Training and Extension. Discussion paper of Forestry Training
and Extension Support Workshop, 21 Á22 March, Hanoi, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development.

MARD (2003) Farmer Needs Study. Project VIE/98/004/B/01/99. Hanoi: Statistical Publishing House.
Martin, C., Castella, J.C., Hoang, L.A., Eguienta, Y.K. & Hieu, T.T. (2004) A Participatory Simulation to
Facilitate Farmers’ Adoption of Livestock Feeding Systems Based on Conservation Agriculture in the
Vietnam Uplands. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2(2), pp. 118 Á132.
Neef, A. (Ed.) (2005) Participatory Approaches for Sustainable Land Use in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: White
Lotus Publishers.
Nguyen, V.K., Nguyen, T.H., Dang, V.M. & Vu, T.S. (2002) Participatory Agricultural Extension in Thai
Nguyen. Hanoi: Agricultural Publishing House.


Marginal Rice Farmers in Vietnam Uplands

125

Obaidullah-Khan, A.Z.M. (2000) From Near Famine to Export: Vietnam’s Agriculture in Transition.
Entwicklung und Laendlicher Raum, 30, pp. 7 Á9.
Rivera, W. & Alex, G. (2004) Extension System Reform and the Challenges Ahead. Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 10(1), pp. 23 36.
Roăling, N. & Wagemakers, A. (Eds) (1998) Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture: Participatory Learning and
Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Peters, J. (2001) Transforming the Model Approach to Upland Rural Development in Vietnam. Agriculture
and Human Values, 18, pp. 403 Á412.
Sayer, J. & Campbell, B. (2004) The Science of Sustainable Development: Local Livelihoods and the Global
Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shanks, E. (2002) Vietnam: Agriculture and Forestry Extension and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Uplands.
Hanoi: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.
UNDP (2000) Agricultural and Rural Development in Vietnam. Project VIE/99/002. Assistance for the
Preparation of a Socio-economic Development Strategy for Viet Nam up to the Year 2010. Hanoi:
Ministry of Planning and Investment, UNDP.

Van de Walle, D. (2002) Choosing Rural Road Investments to Help Reduce Poverty. World Development,
30, pp. 575 Á589.
Van den Ban, A.W. (2004) Changes in Society Require Changes in Agricultural Extension: Some
Observations. Asian Journal of Extension Education, 23(1), pp. 1 Á17.
World Bank (2001) Vietnam Development Report 2002: Implementing Reforms for Faster Growth and
Poverty Reduction. Hanoi: World Bank.
Wu, B. & Pretty, J. (2004) Social Connectedness in Marginal Rural China: The Case of Farmer Innovation
Circles in Zhidan, North Shaanxi. Agriculture and Human Values, 21, pp. 81 Á92.

View publication stats