Tài liệu khuyên nông tiếng anh giúp các bạn học tiếng anh chuyên ngành

Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor
A Documentation Review

Prepared by:
Hoang Xuan Thanh
Nguyen Viet Khoa

For the:
Sub-Group on Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor
Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Group
VUFO – NGO Resource Centre

Hanoi – 11/2003


Foreword
This review of Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor has been written on the
initiative of the sub-group on Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor. The sub-group
is part of the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Group of the
VUFO – NGO Resource Centre.
This documentation review is part of the INGO’s efforts to respond to and contribute to
the poverty reduction efforts of Vietnam expressed in the Comprehensive Poverty
Reduction & Growth Strategy (CPRGS). This review is carried out to support these
poverty reduction efforts of the Vietnamese government by focusing on feed back from
field experience in agricultural extension, related to the actual policy context in Vietnam.
In this review the INGO’s use their experiences in pro-poor agricultural extension in
Vietnam. The relationship between farmers and NGO’s actively involved in extension
service is generally understood to be of a different nature than that between farmers and
government extension services. With the contribution of this reveiw, we can look at
agricultural extension services from a different perspective and to bring this perspective
into a debate on policies as well as implementation practices for more pro-poor

agricultural extension.
Based on a given theoretical framework, feed back from sub-group participants (both
VNGO’s and INGOs) field experience can be used and shared with DARD, MARD, and
DAFE in order for INGO’s to contribute to a dialogue on how to further improve
agricultural extension policies and implementation practices to be more pro-poor and
ensuring the access of poor men and women, ethnic minorities and marginalized
communities to appropriate agriculture extension systems.
With poor we mean the more vulnerable rural people who depend on natural resources.
We pay particular attention to women, ethnic minorities, landless, people living in remote
places or in places vulnerable to natural disasters, or small-holders who largely depend
on (falling) export crop prices.
I would like to express my appreciation to the sub-group participants and contributing
organizations who made the documentation review and the publication of it possible.
David Payne

Co-director
VUFO – NGO Resource Centre

1


Contents
Foreword .................................................................................................................1
Abbreviations and Acronyms................................................................................3
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................4
1.1. Background......................................................................................................4
1.2. Objectives ........................................................................................................4
2. Agricultural extension and poverty reduction ....................................................5
2.1. Overview of current government’s agricultural extension ..........................5
2.2. Government’s Commitment on Pro-poor Extension..................................11

2.3. Overview of understanding and practices among NGOs and Externally
supported projects on pro-poor extension ........................................................14
3. The gaps between current Government's extension policies/practices and the
pro-poor extension ..................................................................................................18
3.1. Targeting ........................................................................................................18
3.2. Technical training..........................................................................................21
3.3. Input supply and product promotion...........................................................23
3.4. Supporting farmers' organizations ..............................................................25
3.5. Extension socialization.................................................................................27
3.6. Market access and market information .......................................................29
4. Recommendations ...............................................................................................33
4.1. Key issues for which NGO field experiences should be collected and
documented ..........................................................................................................33
4.2. Relevant strategies and opportunities for policy dialogues on pro-poor
extension...............................................................................................................35
Key References.....................................................................................................39
Annex 1 Terms of reference of the AE sub-group ................................................40
Annex 2 Terms of Reference for Documentation Review ....................................46

2


Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADB
ASDP
Circular 56
CPRGS
DAFE
DARD
Decree 13

Asia Development Bank
Agriculture Sector Development Program
Used as shorthand for MARD's Circular 56/2003/TT-BNN dated 9 April 2003
on the design of pro-poor agriculture projects within HEPR program
Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy
Department for Agricultural and Forestry Extension
Department for Agriculture and Rural Development
Used as shorthand for Government's Decree 13/CP dated 2 March 1993 on
Extension

Decree 20

Used as shorthand for Government’s Decree 20/1998/ND-CP dated 31 March
1998 on Developing Trade in Mountainous and Ethnic Minorities Areas

Decree 86

Used as shorthand for Government’s Decree 86/2003/ND-CP dated 18 July
2003 on the functions, tasks and organization of MARD
Economic community organization
Focus Group Discussion
Farmers' Field School
Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction
High Yield Varieties
In-depth Interview
Integrated Pest Management
International Support Group (at MARD)
Like-Minded Donor Group
Monitoring and Evaluation

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Labor, Invalid and Social Affairs
Ministry of Planning and Investment
National Agricultural Extension Center
Non-Governmental Organization
Participatory Poverty Assessment
Participatory Rural Appraisal

ECO
FDG
FFS
HEPR
HYV
IDI
IPM
ISG
LMDG
M&E
MARD
MOFI
MOLISA
MPI
NAEC
NGO
PPA
PRA
Program 135

Program 661

PTD
SANRM
TAGE
TOT
UNDP
VDR
WB

Government’s Program on socio-economic development of the extremely
difficult communes (according to PM’s Decision No.135/1998/QD-TTg dated
31 July 1998)
Government's Program on planting 5 million ha of forest (according to Prime
Minister's Decision No.661/QD-TTg dated 29 July 1998)
Participatory Technology Development
Sustainable Agricultural and Natural Resources Management
Thematic Ad-hoc Group on pro-poor Extension
Train(ing) - of – Trainer
United Nations Development Programme
Vietnam Development Report
World Bank

1 USD = 15 500 VND or dong (as of October 2003)

3


Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor
A Documentation Review

1. Introduction

1.1. Background
Although Vietnam has achieved significant economic development and poverty reduction
since doi moi, poverty in Vietnam remains high. Today, poverty is concentrated in rural
areas, and it will become increasingly concentrated in remote and ethnic minority areas.
There is no doubt that off-farm employment plays a very important role in poverty
reduction. However, farming activities in agriculture, forestry and fishery will still be the
main livelihood strategies of the poor in remote and ethnic minority areas in the years to
come. The coming years may be characterized by increasing inequality, too. Among
others, a key determinant of inequality is the unbalanced access to the basic services including agricultural extension services - between the poor and non-poor, men and
women, Kinh and ethnic minorities.
The extension system has been set up since 1993 in all provinces. However, for many
reasons the system can not meet the needs of farmers, especially the poor, women and
ethnic farmers. In order to help addressing this problem, MARD has reviewed the
agriculture extension system to make it more efficient. Some donors like Asian
Development Bank (ADB) also have fund to restructure the system. In order to support
the government and MARD to produce a more pro-poor policy for the development of
agriculture extension system, SANRM working group decided to formulate a sub-group
to work on agriculture extension which aims to bring good field experiences and
practices to policy dialogues. To guide this process, a documentation review on
extension services for the poor is necessary.

1.2. Objectives
This paper1 is to:
•
•
•
•

Review the current agriculture and forestry extension policies and practices at
national and provincial levels

Review the general understanding and practices from NGOs and externally
supported projects regarding agriculture extension for the poor, women and
ethnic people
Summarize the key points on the gaps between the current agricultural extension
policies/practices and the pro-poor agricultural extension
Recommend the key issues for further documentation, strategies and
opportunities for communication with policy makers, donors in order to advocate
for a more pro-poor agriculture extension policies and practices.

This paper focuses on agricultural extension coordinated by NAEC, also taking into
account extension of other departments within MARD (e.g. PPD), where possible also
including extension efforts of other ministries (e.g. Fisheries). A detailed terms of
reference of the sub-group and this study can be found in annexes 1 and 2.
1

This documentation review is written by Mr. Hoang Xuan Thanh from Ageless Consultants, and Mr.
Nguyen Viet Khoa from National Agriculture Extension Center (NAEC), MARD. Core members of the
SANRM sub-group have made this work possible with the time, expertise and financial arrangements.

4


2. Agricultural extension and poverty reduction
2.1. Overview of current government’s agricultural extension
2.1.1. Functions, organization and staffing
The general functions of the government's agriculture extension services have been
defined since 1993 (by Decree 13) as:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

disseminating advanced techniques, and experiences from successful
production models;
strengthening the production management knowledge and skills for farmers;
and
providing market information for farmers.

Formally, the government's agriculture extension system has three levels: national,
provincial, and district.
•

National level: By new Decree 86, the National Agricultural Extension Center
(NAEC) under the MARD is solely responsible for agricultural extension services.
This is an attempt to separate the 'state administration' from the 'public services'
in agriculture extension2. Currently, the NAEC has 25 professional staff with
different background. The detailed functions and tasks of the NAEC are being
revised.3

•

Provincial level: There are provincial agricultural extension centers under the
DARDs in all 61 provinces and cities over the country. On average, each
provincial extension center now has around 15-20 staff (70% of provincial
extension staff have university degrees).

•

District level: Around 420 districts out of the total 600 over the country have
established their agro-forestry extension stations with a total number of
approximately 2,000 permanent extension staff. Each district station has 3-5 staff

who specializes in planting and animal husbandry. In some provinces the
extension stations at commune clusters ('cum xa') are set up.

•

Commune and village levels: Agricultural extension network at commune and
village levels is not mandatory under Government's regulations. Some provinces
have, with their locally raised funds, managed to set up their teams of commune
extension workers and village extension collaborators who are contracted on an
annual or a seasonal basis. The incentive policies for commune extension
workers differ significantly among the provinces - monthly stipend can range from
90,000 dong (Lao Cai) up to 300-400,000 dong (Ha Giang, Tuyen Quang).
Limited capacity of the grass root extension workers is always a big concern.
In addition, many voluntary agricultural extension associations (groups, clubs) are
established at commune and village levels by individuals and communities. Some
mass organizations are also involving in extension activities, thus, contributing to
the increasing socialization of this work.

2

The National Agriculture Extension Centre (NAEC) was established on 26 April 2002. However at that time
the Center was under the Department of agriculture and forestry extension. By the new Decree 86, the
NAEC now becomes a separate entity directly under the Minister (and the former Department of agricultural
and forestry extension is replaced by the new Department of agriculture).
3
By the Government's Decree 43 dated 2 May 2003 on "functions, duties, organization of the Ministry of
Fishery", for the first time a National Fishery Extension Center is established under the Ministry.

5

Figure 2.1: The vertical relations in agricultural
extension mechanism
Ministry of
Agriculture and
Rural Development

National level

National Agricultural
Extension Center
(NAEC)

Main responsibilities
(mandatory by Decree 13 - to be revised
by new Decree 86)
•
•
•
•
•
•

Provincial level

Department for
Agriculture and
Rural Development
Centers for Agricultural
and Forestry Extension

•
•
•
•
•
•

•

District level

Agricultural extension policy making
Development and management of
national agri. extension programmes
Determination of economic and technical
norms for national agricultural extension
programmes
Organization and management of
transfer of advanced techniques and
market information to farmers
Training of agri. extension workers
Agri. extension literature preparation

Development and guidance of provincial
agri. extension programmes
Guidance for organizations, incl. private
organizations, on implementation of agri.
extension programmes in the province
Advanced techniques transfer to farmers

Provide market information to farmers
Provincial agri. extension policy making
Construction of demonstration models (in
collaboration with Dept. for Agri. and
Forestry Extension) under national agri.
extension programmes
Monitoring and assessment of extension
programmes

Division for
Agriculture & Rural
Development

Commune cluster level

Agricultural & Forestry
Extension Stations

•
•
•
•
•
•

Commune level
Contracted agri. extension
workers/collaborators or communal
agricultural officers working as agri.
extension workers

Village level

Farmer household

Farmers associations
(groups, clubs)

•
•
•

Direct transfer of techniques to farmers
Guidance on new technique application
to farmers
Construction of demonstration models in
collaboration with farmers
Training of grassroots extension workers
Build the "good farmers'" clubs or interest
groups
Collaboration and reports to upper levels
on district-level extension activities

Not mandatory
Responsibilities defined in contracts
Some provinces have developed their
provincial policies on the task and
functions of commune extension workers
and the role of grassroots organizations

Farmer household

2.1.2. Planning and budgeting
A typical up-and-down planning and budgeting can be observed in the extension system.
National-level extension programs using state budget are proposed by NAEC to MARD

6


for approval. This program/budget is then allocated to provincial extension centers.
Similarly, the provincial extension centers develop their own annual extension plans,
submit to the provincial People's Committee (through DARD) for approval, and then
allocate funds to district extension stations for implementation. At the moment, there is
little room for bottom-up participatory planning from grass root levels in the extension
system.
Table 2.1 - Allocated central budget for national-level extension programs
Year

Agro-forestry
Allocation
extension
Agricultural
Forestry
budget
extension budget extension budget
(in billion dong)
(in billion dong)
(in billion dong)
1993
3.7

3.5
0.2
1994
14.3
13.3
1.0
1995
17.0
15
2.0
1996
23.5
21
2.5
1997
28.5
25
3.5
1998
26.6
23.5
3.1
1999
26.7
23.7
3.0
2000
35
32
3.0

Source: Agriculture and Forestry Extension Agency, MARD

In addition to the allocated central budget,
the provinces also allocate their own
budgets
to
agro-forestry
extension
activities (mainly for recurrent costs plus
some provincial extension projects). The
locally allocated budgets vary among the
provinces, from several hundred million
dong to around 1 billion dong per year.
The provincial extension centers also
receive some small extension budget from
annual HEPR program (with some overlap
with provincial budget), and from other
agricultural programs and projects that
may have a component on extension.

Figure 2.2 – Examples of budget sources
for provincial extension centers (Tra Vinh,
Lao Cai)
from HEPR
program
10%

from Central
budget
30%

from
Provincial
budget
60%

Source: OGB (2002)

The planning and use of state budget in
extension largely depend on the fixed 'cost
norms' as regulated by various regulations of the MOFi and MARD4. For example, a
district extension worker traveling more than 15 days a month can only receive a lumpsum subsistence & travel costs of no more than 100,000 dong per month (equals to 6$
per month), without any consideration of how far he/she has to travel 'within' the district
(i.e. go to the mountainous communes and villages for planning and M&E, then come
back in the same day). The rigidity of cost norms in many cases may prevent the
extension workers from going far to the remote commune and villages or using a
participatory approach in extension activities.
In addition, Decree CP 13 stipulates that extension services at different levels are
allowed to utilize other funding strategies outside state financing (i.e. grants from
donors/NGOs/companies) or sourcing the contribution from local people.
4

For example, Circular 2698 dated 1994 of MOFI on expenditures for extension activities; Circular
93/1998/TT-BTC dated 30 June 1998 of MOFI on cost norms for workshops; Circular 94/1998/TT-BTC dated
30 June 1998 of MOFI on cost norms for domestic travels; Decision 62/1999-QDD-BNN-KNKL dated 7 April
1999 of MARD on temporary cost norms for technical materials in extension programs of cattle.

7

2.1.3. Current Extension Approaches
a. Technology promotion
This form of agricultural extension aims to promote the advanced techniques for nationwide farmers, often through the national agricultural extension programs (alternatively
called oriented agricultural extension approach). The NAEC under MARD supervises the
implementation of these programs through construction of demonstration models on a
large scale, with little room for flexibility on implementation or budgeting. The approach is
designed for rapid introduction of new varieties on large homogeneous land areas and
not for scattered mountainous cultivation areas. Provinces maintain their own agricultural
extension programs which are very similar to the national agricultural extension
programs in terms of methods and recommendations. Farmer’s acceptance of
recommendations is considered one of criterion for program success evaluation. Crop
productivity index is also another criterion for program monitoring.
b. Socio-Economic development
This form implies that a technique is only one of influencing factors on agriculture and
farmers' livelihoods. Therefore introduction of techniques is frequently attached with
support in terms of material supply, loan arrangement or infrastructure. Government
programs on promoting agriculture and poverty reduction at provincial levels normally
employ this form of agricultural extension. Examples are HEPR program, Program 135,
Program 661 and Decree 20. Operation of such programs was organized in projects run
by provincial People's Committee under the management of various concerned
department of MARD. However the financing rules of these programmes are made within
the set guidelines of using state budget, and leave little room for flexibility.
c. Risk mitigation
Risk mitigation in agriculture covers management of harmful insects and diseases to
livestock (stipulated in the Law for Protection of Vegetation and Veterinary Services).
This function is often fulfilled by the Plant Protection and Veterinary Service systems.
Typical activities are training on IPM models and providing communal and village
veterinary services. However the concern of how to mitigate risks for the poor farmers is
still hardly addressed by the government's extension system.
d. Commercial services promotion

Commercial services promotion for production materials has been done partly by the
MARD and partly by corporations. This form of agricultural extension claims that higher
consumption of input materials leads to improved productivity and greater development
of agriculture. Farmers are seen as customers, who are provided with recommendations
on such materials as new seeds, fertilizers as well as other kinds of materials. However,
farmers should pay for the materials at agreed prices. The Government agricultural
extension mechanism acts as a link in the promotion process and hardly acts as material
distributor. However in many cases there is bias among extension workers in
recommending the farmers which products should be used, especially when they act as
agents for the commercial companies.

8


e. Agriculture commodity promotion
This is a 'contract farming' promotion in which the farmers commit to sell agricultural
products to the companies and in turn the farmers can receive a number of supports in
terms of training, materials or credit. This form of promotion is popular in areas that
produce raw materials subject to processing for exports (e.g. tea, coffee, fruits or high
quality rice). Agriculture commodity contracts are to be concluded between the
commercial companies and farmers. Those companies typically have their own
mechanism to provide agricultural extension services (Government’s agricultural
extension normally just support but does not directly carry out this promotion). The
Government is providing some preferential treatments for the commercial companies to
strongly expand this contract farming in coming years (Decision 80/2002/QD-TTg dated
24 June 2002 on promoting the contract farming in agriculture).

9

Table 2.2 - Summary of agricultural extension approaches
Approach

1. Technology
promotion

2. Socio-Economic
development

3. Risk mitigation

Government's
agricultural extension
system, research
institutes

Programme135,
resettlement program,
HEPR program

IPM, veterinary
services, Plant
protection
mechanism

Key Policies

Decree 13

Objective

Advanced technology
promotion

Program 135, 661, HEPR,
Decree 20
Hunger eradication and
poverty alleviation

Decree 07,08
L/CTN
Risk control

Finance

Govt. budget;
provincial and district
budgets

Government budget
Donors; WB / ADB loans

Targets for
promotion

Farmers who are
capable of constructing
demonstration models

Promotion

content

Advanced technology
available from
researchers
Demonstration

Small-scale
demonstrations, poor
farmers in mountainous
areas
Extension of proven
successful experience

Topics
Organization,
program, key
project

Promotion
methods

Demonstration, training,
inputs (seeds, fertilizer)

4. Commercial
services
promotion
Agricultural
material companies

(Fertilizer,
pesticides, seeds)
-

5. Agricultural
commodity
promotion
Agricultural product
processing
corporations and
companies (sugar,
coffee, tea, etc.)
Decision 80/TTg

Business profit

Export promotion

Government
budget
Donors; WB / ADB
loans
All farmers

Business profit

Business profit

Farmers who can
buy agricultural

materials

Farmers who
possess land

Techniques for risk
mitigation

Guidance on use of
materials supplied
by the companies
Site training,
literature

New technology for
export promotion

Site training

Training, inputs,
credit

10


2.2. Government’s Commitment on Pro-poor Extension
For its continued commitment for poverty reduction, until recently the Government has
adopted a number of policies, plans and programs on pro-poor agricultural extension.

2.2.1. Pro-poor Extension in HEPR program and Program 135

Agricultural extension for the poor is one among 12 core projects of the Government’s
HEPR program in the period of 2001-2005 (Decision 143/2001/QD-TTg dated 27 Sep
2001 of the Prime Minister). MOLISA’s proposal for pro-poor extension in the 5-year
period is as follows5:
•
•
•
•
•
•

provide training for improvement of production capability and expenditure
management for 1.5 million of poor households
develop the network of commune extension workers and support their activities
develop the models of plants, animals with new seeds, new techniques in
production; help the poor improving knowledge and increasing income
organize extension training courses for the poor people, poor households
guide in production planning, expenditure management in the family
coordinate closely with such mass organizations as Women's Union, Farmers'
Union, Youth Union, Veteran Association in guiding the poor in production.

The provincial authorities themselves then will have to ‘concretize’ and approve their propoor extension project within their annual HEPR plans. In fact, the scope and scale of
Government’s pro-poor extension projects vary a lot basing on local context, leadership
commitment and budget availability of the respective provinces.
At national level, the MARD's management of HEPR agricultural projects - including the
pro-poor extension projects - was assigned to the "Department for Settlement and Fixed
Cultivation and New Economic Zones", not to the Extension Department. This is rather
problematic when government's pro-poor extension is considered as a separate project
and is set outside the functions of the normal extension system. Hope that with the new
Decree 86 this separation will be changed (now the Department for Settlement and Fixed

Cultivation and New Economic Zones no longer exists).
The Program 135 (and Program 661) also provides some policy instruments for
government's pro-poor extension, including the subsidization of key agricultural inputs in
poor areas (by Decree 20). Particularly, the section of "human resources development"
for the poor communes in Program 135 aims to training grass root extension workers that
can be selected from the 'good farmers' in the locality.

2.2.2. Pro-poor Extension in CPRGS
In CPRGS approved in May 2002, with a view to accomplish the poverty reduction
objectives in the Vietnam Development Targets (VDT) as localized from the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG), the Government issued a number of policy directions for propoor extension, namely (SRV.2002):
•

Focus agricultural extension expenditures on disadvantaged areas to ensure that
the poor and ethnic groups can benefit from extension services as much as others

5

By MOLISA’s proposal, the budget for the pro-poor extension projects in 2001-2005 HERP program is
estimated as of 100 billion dong, i.e. in average 20 billion dong per year.

11


•
•
•
•
•

•

Provide to the poor on regular basis market information on the application of new
varieties, guidance on production techniques, introduction of successful business
models and new effective ways to conduct business
Focus on training cadre to provide extension and advisory services to women,
local people and those who know the languages of ethnic minorities.
Support research to develop appropriate technologies, especially the low-cost but
highly efficient ones that are needed by the poor; raise the quality of training and
extension services to farmers
Encourage the sharing of production experiences between researchers,
managers, technicians and farmers to improve the productivity of crops and
animals.
Build and disseminate effective self-help poverty reduction models for different
areas, to help hungry and poor households overcome their difficulties and develop
their capacity to gradually change their production methods to escape from
poverty and integrate with the wider community.
Encourage the development of and provide support to a variety of voluntary
joint and self-managed forms of extension services in every community to
enable people to share experience in cultivating and animal breeding in order to
increase income and reduce poverty.

The above directions need to be realized in more concrete regulations and plans. Some
donors and INGOs are supporting the Government to ‘roll-out’ the CPRGS at both
national and provincial levels (on a pilot basis). Hopefully some core CPRGS’s planning
principles – i.e. pro-poor, participatory, evidence-based – will be step-by-step introduced
in the field of agricultural extension.

2.2.3. Extension in ADB’s “agricultural sector development program”
In April 2003, the Government signed a USD 60-million "agriculture sector development

program (ASDP)" with ADB. Under a detailed roadmap of three tranches, the
Government undertakes to substantially restructure the research and extension system.
During the period of 2003-2006 the key commitments under ASDP are (ADB.2002):
•

•
•

•

Provincial extension advisory councils will be established to provide a forum
for stakeholder participation in the preparation of extension programs. Council
representation will include farmers' and growers' associations, mass
organizations, cooperatives, local research institutes, extension staff, banks,
NGOs, private sector input suppliers, and staff from departments of agriculture,
planning, land, finance, science and technology, and trade.
Some extension services will be contracted out to NGOs, universities, farmers’
organizations, private companies, input suppliers, and agribusinesses.
the Government will increase the national budget for agricultural extension
at the rate of at least 12% per year to provide an adequate recurrent and
operating budget to agricultural extension.
MARD and representatives of all the provincial governments will approve a joint
plan for extension work that
(i) develops extension strategies and priorities that focus extension efforts in
remote and upland areas where there are large numbers of poor farmers;
(ii) strengthens linkages between research and extension;
(iii) redirects training of extension staff toward a new set of skills including
participatory extension methodology, marketing, post harvest activities,
and rural finance;

12


(iv) institutionalizes the participatory approach in extension services in
which farmers will increasingly participate in planning, implementing,
monitoring, and evaluating of extension activities;
(v) expands the provision of extension services at the district and commune
levels, particularly in poor provinces, by hiring an additional 5,000
extension staff to fill vacancies at the commune level;
(vi) increases funding to train extension staff and farmers; and
(vii) improves delivery of extension services to the poor, women, and ethnic
groups by increasing the number of female and ethnic minority staff by at
least 10% in each category over a period of 36 months.
In addition, many other projects of the donors also try to advocate for a pro-poor
extension in certain ways. For example, the WB's Northern Mountain Poverty Reduction
Programme is using some "village/commune development plan" approaches (as
institutionalized in Son La) as the entry point for the participatory planning and budgeting
at commune-level activities.

2.2.4. Other policies related to pro-poor extension
In addition to the direct policies on extension, there are also other government's policies
and regulations that can help facilitating the development of a pro-poor extension in
Vietnam, though not explicitly mentioning about the poor:
•

Participation: the former Decree 29 (May 11, 1998) and new Decree 79 (July 7,
2003) on grass root democracy in principle require the participation of local people
in the whole cycle (identification/prioritization, planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation) of all projects and programs in the community,
including extension activities.

•

Empowerment: the Cooperative Law, the Decree on Association (Decree
88/2003/ND-CP dated 30 July 2003) and the Civil Code (dated 28 Oct 1995) all
stipulated some framework for horizontal linkages among the farmers.

•

State management: the separation of service provision and state management
(e.g. Decree 86), the "equitisation" of state-owned enterprises, and the
decentralization process can make the providers of extension services better
respond to the demands of the local farmers.

These policies and regulations embed a possible environment for the provincial
authorities to develop their pro-poor extension services - if they really want to.

13


2.3. Overview of understanding and practices among NGOs and
Externally supported projects on pro-poor extension
This section will provide a general introduction to understanding and practices among
NGOs and externally-supported programs/projects in pro-poor agricultural extension in
Vietnam. Noted that this is nether a summary of the best practices, nor a detailed
analysis of possible strengths and weaknesses of any particular organization or program.

2.3.1. Framework of pro-poor agricultural extension
A simple framework of pro-poor agricultural extension is presented in Figure 2.3 below.
This framework accommodates various efforts of NGOs and externally-funded projects to

promote pro-poor agricultural extension in Vietnam (MARD.1996, MARD.2002).
Figure 2.3. Framework of pro-poor agricultural extension in Vietnam

INSTITUTIONS

Government

POLICIES

Province

DEMAND
(information,
resources)

PARTICIPATORY
RURAL APPAIRSAL
(PRA)

V
E
District
R
T
[Commune
I
cluster]
C
A
Commune

L
Village
Participatory Planning

SUPPLY
(information,
resources)

MULTI- LAYER
AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION
(SOCIALIZATION)

HORIZONTAL linkages

Farmers’ groups/clubs
Farmer–to-farmer

Pro-poor agricultural extension assist the farmers - typically in disadvantaged (poor,
remote, ethnic minority) areas - in enhancing horizontal linkages so that the small
producers can together better employ their own livelihood strategies, thus helping them
increase income, mitigate risks and gradually get out of poverty. Key words underlining all
pro-poor extension projects are 'participation' and 'empowerment' with a 'gender-sensitive'
manner. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques are normally employed to
enhance participation of poor people in the whole cycle of extension program/project –
i.e. formulation (need assessment, planning, consultation), appraisal, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation. Community-based, small-scale and self-help farmers’
associations (groups, clubs) are established to give poor people opportunities to say and
to be heard (as the poor people have specific agricultural extension needs that may be
completely different from their wealthy neighbors). Core farmers, in the role of extension

workers, are supported to build the "farmer-to-farmer" extension in the community.
At the same time, there are efforts to strengthen vertical linkages within the agricultural
extension system in terms of capacity building, M&E and institutionalization of
participatory approaches. In NGO and externally supported projects, the trainings (TOT)
14


about pro-poor approaches are often provided to the provincial/district extension cardes
so that they can then train their subordinates at commune and village levels. The NGO's
experiences and lessons from village/commune levels are often brought up to district and
provincial levels, sometimes up to national level (by means of documentation, workshops,
training, mass media, exposure visits). Some NGOs have been rather successful so far in
supporting their provincial/district counterparts (agricultural extension center and/or
DARD) to formalize the participatory planning procedures at commune and district levels;
and to produce guidelines and training materials of pro-poor extension for wide circulation
and adoption in the agriculture system. The "socialization of agricultural extension" is also
promoted where possible by the NGOs to widen the scope of service providers (either
government agents, research institutions, or private companies) so that the extension
services can reach the poor in a way suitable to their specific needs, and also suitable to
socio-economic, cultural and environmental conditions of the community where the poor
belong to.
Besides above-mentioned key features, some other typical values and principles of propoor agricultural extension in Vietnam can be observed:
•

•
•

•
•

•
•
•
•

Focus on supporting “soft” elements (hands-on training, field visits, information
supply, group formation and operations, etc.) in order to improve human and
social capitals for the poor; any supports in “hard” elements (seeds, materials,
construction) will require participatory management, close M&E…
Limit the subsidized and free supplies to motivate self-reliance of the poor and to
ensure sustainability of the impacts
Coordinate the efforts of agricultural, forestry and fishery extension, veterinary
services, plant protection… with other livelihood support activities such as credits,
vocational training, land allocation and management etc. in order to create
synergy among various services that would benefit the poor
Encourage diversification by introduce various technology packages (not a single
agricultural model) for self-selection by the farmers
Develop suitable (proven) technology that do not require up-front large capital
investment and can be employed by poor people; emphasis on risk mitigation in
planting and farming practices in combination with close, participatory M&E
Preserve and develop the indigenous knowledge of local residents, particularly
ethnic minority groups, in accordance with local climate, geography and traditions
Organize extension activities facilitating the participation of the poor and the
women (with regards to timing, venue, method, contribution level…)
Promote the good examples of the poor people who get out of poverty, become
agricultural extension workers or are elected as leaders of farmers' groups…)
Put emphasis on gender equity.

15

2.3.2. Participatory approaches to pro-poor agricultural extension
The popular approaches in NGO's pro-poor extension projects are: participatory planning;
farmer-to-farmer extension; and farmers’ associations. In fact, there is no clear distinction
among the three approaches, as they are integrated at commune and village levels.
a. Participatory planning for agricultural extension
Participatory planning has been employed in most NGOs’ agricultural extension
programs/projects.
•

Use of PRA techniques: PRA techniques (organizing FGDs and IDIs with various
probing/ranking/mapping tools) were initially used to understand poverty, assess
people’s needs, identify project participants and prioritize the use of available
resources. Gradually (simplified) PRA procedures may serve as consultation
means between local people and agricultural extension workers to form basis and
provide periodic feedback for agricultural extension plan, and for M&E

•

Verification of plan: in certain stages, the results of participatory approaches
should be verified by some 'reality check' to make the agricultural extension plans
more feasible. Participatory planning is followed by participatory implementation.
Therefore, the planned solutions should base on resources of the farmers
themselves and from available external supports (capital, skills, information)

•

Connection with community development: participatory/bottom-up planning is not
only applied to agricultural extension, but also to other activities as requested by
local people, e.g. micro-finance, irrigation management etc. Thus, the

implementation and M&E of the agricultural extension plans are often connected
with the whole efforts of community development for poverty reduction.

b. Farmer-to-farmer agricultural extension
Farmer-to-farmer (or 'farmer-led') extension places the farmers at the center and
promotes them acting as the key change agents for improving agricultural production in
the community.
•

Farmers to become trainers: competent and voluntary farmers are trained and
supported to become extension workers (may be called 'core farmers' or 'interface
farmers'). The training often covers topics of production techniques, community
development, PRA, presentation skills… These village/commune extension
workers may serve as leaders of farmers' associations (interest groups, clubs),
and also members of the core team to carry out the participatory planning for
agricultural extension in the community.

•

Farmer field school (FFS): a group of farmers gathers together to learn, share and
experiment production techniques on the field from start to end of a certain crop.
The most popular classes are the integrated pest management (IPM) that can be
applied for various plants including rice, maize, peanut or tea…

•

Participatory technology development (PTD): through participatory studies and
experiments, new technologies are developed and proven by the local farmers,
often with the help of the technicians or researchers. Then these technologies can
be widely diffused among the farmers though formal and informal channels.

16


c. Self-help farmers associations (interest groups, extension clubs)
Farmers' associations can help to enhance horizontal connections in the community, for
increasing income and reducing risks for their members.
•

Voluntary co-operation and self-management: basically the associations have
their own rules, appoint their own leaders, and maintain periodic activities as
decided by their members. A group or club may base on a specific tree or plant, or
may consist of members having certain features in common

•

Accessing various production services and supports: Groups and clubs can be
focal points for accessing various production services and supports. They can
become operation arenas for agricultural extension/veterinary/plant protection
workers (who can not reach every individual household); facilitate linkages with
mass organizations (farmers, women); act as the entry point for contractual
arrangements with the companies; and provide interface with the banks. Besides,
the community-based groups could support local authorities in solving local
conflicts, protecting environment, and executing the community ethics

•

Possibility of gradual development for self-reliance: Initially small groups may be
loosely formed, largely reliant on external material supports. After some time,
many groups and clubs can develop various self-help services like credit and

saving, servicing the members on inputs and outputs, sharing labor and ploughing
powers etc. Some groups/clubs may then sustain their operations for mutual
benefits of the members and may evolve into new-type co-operatives

•

Opportunities 'to say and to be heard' for the poor men and women: Participating
in the farmers associations appropriate to their conditions and circumstances, the
poor have opportunities to express their needs and concerns. Accordingly such
needs and concerns can be better addressed by the concerned agents.

17


3. The gaps between current Government's extension
policies/practices and the pro-poor extension
This section will discuss the gaps between the current government's extension
policies/practices (extension 'in general' and extension in HEPR program) and the NGO's
pro-poor extension practices in Vietnam.

3.1. Targeting
3.1.1. Current Government's extension policies and practices
In current government's policies on extension (Decree 13 and subsequent regulations),
there is no indication of 'poverty reduction' nor 'the poor' - just the 'farmers' in general.
Without a 'targeting the poor' mandate, it is not surprised that the 'normal' extension
services often promote the 'good farmers' who have 'necessary conditions' in terms of
land, labor and counterpart contribution, can bear risks, and normally have bigger voices
in the community. Until now, biases in favor of targeting the better-off come from the
argument that for the new technologies and resource-intensive models only the better-off
can apply (the reliance on 'successful demonstration models' for rapid technology

diffusion). No doubt that the current extension has contributed much in rural poverty
reduction, as the poor also benefit from the 'models' indirectly (e.g. glancing at and
overhearing to the 'models'); however the poor with their own difficulties and needs often
find impossible to 'replicate' their better-off neighbors.
By the 'pro-poor extension
project' in HEPR program,
the government's extension
system has a chance to
carry out a separate project
for 'targeting the poor'.
From beginning, it is up to
provincial authorities to
decide the targeting criteria
and the level of financing.
Recently by the new MARD
regulation, the targeting
criteria of these HEPR
extension projects are the
households who (i) "are
listed as poor" under
MOLISA poverty line; (ii)
"have some labor and
land"; and (iii) "live in
extremely
difficult/poor
communes" (Box 3.1).
It is good to see that the
government's
pro-poor
extension

projects
(in
HEPR
program
and
Program 135) will focus on
the
poor
remote
communities. But literally

Box 3.1 - Contents of the project "guiding the poor on
business, agriculture extension"
(Circular 56/2003/TT-BNN dated 9 Apr. 2003 of MARD on the design of
projects within HEPR program)

a. Objectives: Equip the poor and hungry households with
knowledge so that they can plan for their production, apply
advanced techniques in business to improve productivity,
quality of trees and animal, at the same time can protect
environment and ecosystem; thus they can get out of poverty.
b. Targeting criteria: Households who are listed as poor under
the regulations in Decision 1143/2000/QD-LDTBXH dated 1
Jan 2000 of MOLISA, who have labor and cultivating land, and
live in extremely difficult communes (inside Program 135) or
poor communes (outside Program 135)
c.

Activities to be supported:
• support key seedlings and materials for building

demonstration models on cultivation and husbandry for the
poor and hungry households
• organize training classes to guide the poor on business
knowledge, to introduce the poor advanced/new
technologies and techniques
• support the information dissemination on newspapers,
magazines, booklet, leaflet to guide the poor on business
and agricultural/forestry/fishery extension
• support the cadre who travel to the grass root destinations
to guide the poor on agricultural/forestry/fishery extension
• M&E the demonstration models; organize workshops to
replicate widely the models.

18


these problematic targeting criteria will prevent many poor households, e.g. the landless,
from participating in the government's pro-poor extension. Support for farmer-to-farmer
extension and farmers' organizations are absent. As for the technical support: it seems all
the models - and especially the material inputs for these models - have to come from the
extension service. Moreover, the support to "cadre" ("can bo") may exclude the possibility
that farmers (the innovators) can be better extension agents. Because to build models in
a participatory manner (and with low-input), the support is to be for farmers that engage in
research, building their own demonstration models by themselves, support for some
farmers - not "cadre" ('can bo') - who travel to grass root destinations, becoming
themselves extension agents of the models they find recommendable.
In practice, there are many structural shortcomings that have drifted the government's
extension - including government's 'pro-poor' extension projects - away from serving the
poor men and women, ethnic groups in remote/mountainous areas. The gaps between
government's extension and the poor in the "Program 135" communes are well illustrated

in the provincial PPAs recently (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 - The Poor and Extension Services
The poor need….
To know what they can demand of the
extension services
Direct guidance from and interaction with the
extension workers

To deal with specific issues in production
To travel long distances, while living in areas
with undeveloped traffic
To get input support despite the fact that they
cannot make contributions
To be introduced to a range of options to fit their
own situation and which is highly responsive to
the diverse environment
To get simple materials with "attractive pictures
and big letters" for less educated people, or by
way of verbal culture in mountainous areas

The government extension service provides…
A reactive service demanded more by the
better-off (while the poor need more proactive
efforts)
Few extension workers, many of them do not
know ethnic minority language. Village
extension workers are not yet available.
Training is often one way and delivered
indirectly (through village leader)
Local extension workers who are weak in

practical hands-on advice
Local extension workers who lack means of
transportation
Budgets for extension service and allowances
for extension workers are too low (esp. in
disadvantaged areas)
Single and monotonous technical
demonstration models, with little adaptation for
different income groups or environments
Leaflet and letter-intensive materials, which are
not suitable for and less-educated people

Source: PPA Lao Cai (2003)

3.1.2. Pro-poor extension
Pro-poor extension efforts by the NGOs aim to targeting the poor and the non-poor
households; and many projects in different parts of Vietnam have proved that extension
can benefit all, including the poorest.
Among others, some key practices for a sustainable pro-poor extension as demonstrated
and suggested for quite a long time by NGOs and externally supported projects are:

19


•

Institutionalizing the participatory planning. Only by listening to the farmers
including the different groups of poor men and women6, facilitating their
involvement in the whole planning process, extension workers can understand
their specific constraints and problems (to overcome the inherent disadvantages

of the poor - i.e. lack of confidence, hesitation to speak out in community events,
preoccupation with daily 'cash-and-mouth' work, frequent working as laborers far
from home, illiterate, or the prototype of 'women do, men study'…) and can
respond flexibly. Some community development skills are needed.

•

Developing pro-poor extension methodology, e.g. the suitable ways of working
with the poor, e.g. 'risk-mitigated' or 'well-researched/proven' advice, 'hands-on'
training … - to correspond with the limited livelihood capitals of the small landholders, illiterate farmers, ethnic minorities living in remote mountainous areas…

•

Allocating adequate budget to grass root extension network in remote and
mountainous communes and villages (more professional/qualified workers with
more women and ethnic minorities, better working conditions and remuneration)
with a more flexible budgeting/accounting so that a bigger portion of the (poor)
households can access to the designed extension activities

•

Stating a clear 'targeting the poor' mandate in current 'normal' extension,
subject to close monitoring and evaluation. It is very critical to prevent the drift
away from serving the poor men and women.

In fact, it is always easier to say than to do with the 'targeting the poor' message, as many
NGO's extension projects still find hard to sustain the focus on serving the poor after the
external (financial and technical) supports vanish. Here one key challenge is the financial
feasibility (afford-ability) of NGO's approach of targeting the poor in the 'normal'
operation of the government's extension system in Vietnam, especially in the poorlyintegrated (mountainous, remote, ethnic minority) areas. This issue should be further

monitored, studied and documented.
Another key challenge for targeting the poor is that the above messages should be
integrated. Experiences show that even when money for government's HEPR extension
projects is available; the poor men and women can not benefit much, because there is a
lack of participatory planning, appropriate methodology or capable grass root network. In
contrast, in other programs (e.g. even in the ADB-funded $60million program) there may
be an ambitious agenda to improve planning, budgeting and human resources; but then
without a clear targeting mandate there is no guarantee that the extension system will
sustain the effective targeting to the poor men and women7.
Also, pro-poor extension should be promoted in line with the recent decentralization
process. The newly-revised State budget law (Law 01/2002/QH11 adopted 16 Dec 2002,
valid from 2004 budgeting year) places much more autonomy for the provincial authorities
to allocate their available budget. Many things for pro-poor extension now can be (or must
be) decided at the provincial level8.

6

The concept of being “poor” may be used flexibly, either using the MOLISA poverty line, or using certain
'relative' criteria (e.g. having less than 1000 m2 of land) as emerged through PRA's wealth ranking exercises.
7
A mandatory minimum ratio of the participants being poor and/or women may be required in certain propoor extension projects/activities.
8
For example, by the new Government's Decree 121 dated 21 October 2003 on “Policies and treatments on
commune-level officials and civil servants”, the position of “planning-transport-irrigation-agriculture, forestry,
aquaculture” will be half-time commune official. These half-time officials receive only stipend – “phu cap” that
will be decided by the provincial people’s committees basing on local context and local budget availability.

20

3.2. Technical training
3.2.1. Current Government's extension policies and practices
Technical training is one core activity of the government's extension (the other 2 core
activities are information dissemination and demonstration models). Expenditures for
technical training normally account for 30% of total budget of the national extension
programs. By current policies (Circular 02-LB/TT dated on 2 March 1993 regulating the
implementation of Decree 13 on extension), training expenditures for short-term classes,
training on the field, workshops and seminars can only be of 3 categories: (i) allowance
for trainers by the regulated/fixed rates; (ii) costs of organizing training classes, like
materials, tools, classroom, accommodation etc.; and (iii) 'subsistence provision' for the
trainees at grass root levels (temporarily regulated as 15,000 dong, i.e. 1$ per day). In
fact, this 'subsistence support' for trainees is a rather controversy issue; as providing
some money for the training participants may create 'false demand', and may do harm for
the sustainability of training activities when there is no such money later.
Going to a classroom and lecturing on the 'standard techniques' for a certain crop is not
difficult for a district extension worker. Such 'technical' training can contribute to income
generation and food security, but many times it may create more vulnerability for the
poor. In fact, many messages by current extension workers are more suitable for lowland, homogenous, resource-intensive farming; but not so suitable for the poor's high-land
farming to cope with the small, scattered, sloping, poor-irrigated land conditions where
some indigenous knowledge are required. As observed by Beckman (2001) that
"extension messages often concentrate on strategies for income generation, which would
require more resources and knowledge than are currently available to the poor".
With the HEPR/135 program, there have been many efforts from government's extension
system to make technical training more beneficial to the poor. The positive signs are:
•

Less 'lecturing' style, with more hands-on training on the field ("cam tay chi viec").
For example, IPM training now is rather popular.
• More training classes at village levels for easier participation of the poor, often
upon request of local authorities (in the past training classes only at commune

level so only 1-2 'representatives' of each village can attend).
• Wider training topics rather than 'technical', like the 'household economy' training
• Better link with mass organizations (farmers', youth and women's union): respond
better to the needs of different groups of men and women
• Improved combination between training and providing inputs and credit (though
HEPR/135 extension and provincial agriculture projects).
However, up to now there are still many challenges for technical training in both
government's extension 'in general' and extension in HEPR/135 program:
•

•
•

There is no policy on carrying out researches of technologies and agri models
appropriate for the poor. Also there is no formal guideline in government's
extension system about pro-poor training methodology. For example, 'too-muchletter' training materials are often produced by top level; while poor farmers'
experiences and indigenous knowledge are not included in training material.
Training is still often for promoting the top-down, pre-fabricated and monotonous
agricultural models; while it is not for promoting a range of options to be adapted
by the poor farmers basing on their specific conditions and needs.
'Technical' training is not enough (a good technician/engineer is not necessarily a
good extension worker). The current training system for extension workers (in
universities/colleges, in TOT courses) focuses too much on technical matters;

21


•

while the interaction with the farmers especially the poor requires many other

'social development' skills like facilitation, community development, PRAs, and
some hands-on 'organization development' skills like group building.
The extension workers (full-time or part-time, locally sought) are still lacking
necessary conditions for practicing the required participatory approaches.
Remarkable reasons are rigid/fixed budgeting and accounting, no budget for
training need assessment as well as for monitoring and evaluation…

3.2.2. Pro-poor extension
Pro-poor extension as promoted by NGOs and externally supported projects uses some
key proven approaches in their trainings:
•

•

•

•

•

Household economy support (demand-led farming system support): Consider
training as one/first step in the whole household economy support strategy, taking
into account all limitations and choices of the poor. Never bring in pre-determined
and monotonous solutions/models, but a range of options for selection by the
farmers. Only introduce to the poor the proven options that do not require many
resources. In training, indigenous knowledge is recognized and further developed
in combination with advanced technologies, especially in mountainous areas
From changing awareness to changing behaviors: in many cases, the very
first contacts with the poor often result in a feeling that 'the poor do not want
training – just want grants', or 'the poor do not know what they want', or even 'the

poor do not know that they are poor'.
In many NGO's community development projects the first trainings are not about
technical, but participatory facilitation to create awareness about poverty, about
the need to work in groups to help each other... As stereotyped in the saying that
'the poor like the deep-sleepy people ('ngu me') who should be waken up'.
Farmer-to-farmer approach through group works: training through FFS,
training with PTD approach, with 'farmers as teachers', particularly for overcoming
the language barriers in mountainous areas. As the poor lack social capital and
human capital, pro-poor training often aims to improve the confidence and voices
of the poor men and women (e.g. without group works, the poor are often not
invited by local officials to attend the training classes).
Gender-sensitive training: often, if the "head of household" is invited to
participate in a training class, the man will go. The NGO extension projects always
try to respond to the specific (immediate/direct and strategic) needs of the women,
to minimize the "men study, women do" prejudice in the community.
Close monitoring and evaluation: without a close M&E, the training (and all
other supports to the poor) can not fulfill its aim. The M&E should be participatory
to facilitate the sharing of experiences and lessons learnt within the community.

In general, improving training methodology is among the most successful outputs in many
NGO's pro-poor extension projects so far. The key problems are the institutionalization
and sustainability of the introduced training methodology within government's extension
to ensure that the improvements will not vanish after the end of external supports. For
example, it is critical to insert some clauses about (participatory) monitoring and
evaluation in the Decree 13 on extension, or to broaden the scope of training activities in
the Circular 56/2003/TT-BNN dated 9 April 2003 on government's pro-poor extension
projects in HEPR program.

22

3.3. Input supply and product promotion
3.3.1. Current government's extension policies and practices
In current system, the extension workers introduce new seeds, breeds, animal feed,
pesticides, and fertilizers in their training and demonstration models. Technical training of
government's extension often promotes new inputs (with 'standard' technologies)
produced by research institutes, certified by functional agencies within MARD, or
endorsed by national or provincial agriculture development programs – e.g. HYVs of
rice/maize. This promotion in deed has contributed much in poverty reduction and food
security (especially due to the increase of food crop yield) in the poor
remote/mountainous areas, as confirmed by the recent PPAs throughout the country.9
At the moment, providing inputs as free hand-outs or heavily subsidized supports is
considered as a main extension approach:
•

in government's 'normal' extension policies: 60% of total required inputs for a
demonstration model in mountainous areas is granted to participants. This
subsidy ratio in delta areas is only 40% (the remainder is contributed by farmers
themselves).

•

in government's pro-poor extension policies (in HEPR projects): 100 % of total
required inputs for demonstration models are granted to the poor participants.

In practice of NAEC's 'normal' national extension programs, often 60% of program
funding is for input support, 30% for training, and the remaining 10% for information &
communication.
According to Decree 20/1998/ND-CP dated 31 Jan 1998 on the trade promotion in
mountainous areas, the government continues its policy to subsidize transport costs of

several essential commodities (iodized salt, oil, school notebooks, agricultural materials seedlings and fertilizers). The subsidy budgets are transferred to enterprises purchasing
farmers' products in mountainous communes, villages in "category III" zones. In addition,
many mountainous provinces also support their farmers by further subsidizing 30-50% of
new seeds. So normally the key inputs that farmers in "Program 135" mountainous
communes are buying in the market today are heavily subsidized. This subsidy - if it
reaches the poor at all - may help reduce production costs, but may increase the
'reliance' attitude, affecting the sustainability of their livelihoods (e.g. drawing attention
away from the need to also maintain and improve local varieties). Furthermore, in some
places the subsidy effectively frustrates local seed production initiatives (not only local
rice seed producers, but also local tea nurseries). Furthermore, price subsidies do not
seem to target the poor in remote areas; because the poor have to “borrow first, pay
later” (borrowing rice, agricultural supplies from agents/private traders, and pay by their
own products in crop season right after harvest), thus they often do not have cash
available in time to buy the inputs at subsidized prices.
According to the loan agreement with ADB for "agricultural sector development program",
the Government committed to no longer provide subsidy of hybrid maize seed and
substantially reduce the subsidy of hybrid rice seed in the coming years (ADB, 2002). The
problems is the government's extension system (in mountainous provinces) up to now is
not yet well prepared for this 'subsidy waiving' commitment.
9

in July/August 2003, 12 provincial PPAs were undertaken by donors and some NGOs in all 7 regions of the
country to provide inputs for VDR 2004 prepared by the World Bank (WB), and CPRGS annual progress
report prepared by MPI.

23


An important channel of input supply and product promotion is through commercial
agencies - i.e. trading agents or production companies (both state-owned and private,

including foreign-invested) who want to promote their seeds, breeds, fertilizers,
pesticides; or through 'contract farming' arrangements. Here the farmers are treated as
clients. Input promotion is often associated with technical training, some experiments,
printed materials, even some grants or credit. One problem here is the biased advices in
favor of certain technologies because the trainers or extensionists act as
agents/distributors/fund collectors and receive some 'commission' from the commercial
agencies. It is also not surprised that where government's extension extensionists involve
in input distribution, then the poor are easily forgotten because they are not the target
group of this 'business' approach.
There are some other key shortcomings in terms of input promotion in both government's
'normal' and 'pro-poor' extension:
•

The promotion of inputs bases on the assumption that the increased use of inputs
will lead to higher production. This assumption is often wrong in sloping land in
mountainous areas, and also wrong in terms of preserving (and improving)
indigenous knowledge. Here are the issues of sustainable agriculture and
environmental protection.

•

Poor coordination between 'cultivation', 'plant protection', 'veterinary' extension
agents also bring potential difficulties for the farmers in following different advices
on using different inputs and products from different extensionists (the poor with
limited technical knowledge are very simple-minded/innocent – they often believe
in anything the 'state' extensionists offered them).10

•

The extension services often introduce new varieties or crops to farmers on a trial

basis. However when the farmers evaluate this as having potential neither often
the extension system nor the input supply system is capable of supporting this
choice as the inputs are simply not available. This happens a lot with rice varieties
of which the seed stations only produce what they believe or like.

•

The subsidised production might give a wrong impression about the production
cost and therefore about the marketability of crops. This especially counts for nonstaple crops. If farmers start growing these crops they might make wrong choices
which are damaging for their future food security. Especially with fruit trees or
commercial crops like coffee and tea this is a dangerous strategy

•

Last but not least, the poor quality of some products subject to careless promotion
(without proper tests and trials, outdated, or even faked) can make a loss for the
better-off farmers, but a real disaster for the poor farmers. There is a bundle of
legal writings of MARD on quality control and anti-abuse of plant protection and
veterinary products; but the enforcement in practice is still a very long way to go.

3.3.2. Pro-poor extension
In fact, pro-poor extension by NGOs and externally supported projects has been using
some very cautious approaches in their dealings with input supply and product promotion:
•

Small free-handouts and subsidized inputs are just for introductory purposes.
Then subsidies must be phased-out. In many cases, the provided inputs must be

10

By the regulations implementing the new Decree 86, the departments of 'agriculture', 'plant protection' and
'veterinary' (at all levels) all have the function of 'managing and organizing' extension in their respective fields.

24