International Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research

Vol. 4(3), pp. 045-066, December, 2019. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN: 0615-3011

Research Article
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural
Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Gebremichael Kibreab Habtom, PhD
Department of Management and Public Administration, College of Business and Social Sciences, P.O. Box 12492, Adi-
Keih, Eritrea
E-mail: gmichaelkibreab@gmail.com Fax: 291-1-126422; Tel: 291-1-7146534

This study, analyzes the challenges of decentralized agricultural extension system in Eritrea from
political and organizational perspectives in relation to the major issues of responsiveness,
accountability, efficiency, effectiveness, extension system coordination and capacity of service
providers. The data for this study was taken from a study conducted in June 2017 in the Ministry
of Agriculture. The study used both survey and case study methodologies. The study seeks to
answer the following research question: what political and organizational factors have an effect
on the delivery of extension services in a decentralized system? In this study, it is found that
institutional, technical and managerial capacities have a great effect on the delivery of
decentralized extension services. In Eritrea, there are capacity gaps among local government
working units to deliver effective and efficient extension services that ensure participation of
stakeholders and accountability of service providers. Agricultural extension has not yet
developed enough capability to mobilize all stakeholders- research, farmer, input agency, private
sector, NGO, finance institutions and professional body to sustain efficient and effective practice.
Local institutions taking on responsibility for agricultural extension services require investment
in institution building-staff development, facilities and management systems because
decentralization cannot be created or accelerated by policy decisions alone.
Key Words: Agriculture, extension, decentralization, accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness, Eritrea.

INTRODUCTION
Eritrea is an East African country, which is bordered with
Ethiopia in the south, with Sudan in the north and the west,
with Djibouti in the southeast, and with the Red Sea in the
east. Eritrea got independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after
30 years of armed struggle. Eritrea’s population is
estimated to be 5.2 million, with an average life expectancy
of 60.4 years and a literacy rate of 67.5% (UNDP Report,
2009).
Agriculture is the most important sector in Eritrea’s
economy in terms of food and nutrition security,
employment, income, raw materials for industry and
exports to regional and international markets. It is a large
sector that currently employs, on a full-time basis about
70% of the Eritrean people. It has the potential to sustain
its reputation as the primary driver of economic growth and
poverty eradication. It accounts 24% of the country’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and almost all rural
employment (GoSE, 2006).
A combination of adverse factors, such as: erratic rainfall,
rotational land-holding system, traditional farming
methods, inadequate research and extension services
both in terms of expertise and resources; insufficient credit
facilities; pest and disease infestation and inadequate
supply of inputs; degradation of the natural vegetation
cover and associated soil erosion are induced low
agricultural production in Eritrea. As a result, agricultural
output has barely exceeded 80% of annual food
requirement even in relatively good years of adequate
rainfall and bumper harvest, which are punctuated by
cyclical periods of drought and precariously low input.
The major issues of decentralized agricultural extension
system in Eritrea are related to coordinating the system,
ensuring adequate coverage of rural populations, ensuring
quality of services, and building capacity of service
providers. There is a gap in the resources capacity of Local

An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Habtom GK. 046

Governments to deliver extension, participation of 2004; Lai and Cistulli, 2005). On the other hand, the
stakeholders in the extension provision and accountability organizational factors that affect extension services
of stakeholders in the extension services provision and include institutional capacity building, resource
other areas. According to Nagel (1997) extension mobilization, and presence of well-developed institutions
stakeholders include research institutions, commercial at local level (Swanson and Samy, 2004; Lai and Cistulli,
organizations (input distributors, food processors, and 2005). The final outcomes of the extension services are
retailers) public service organizations, support effectiveness, efficiency, responsiveness and
organizations and farmers. With regard to agriculture, sustainability in the use of resources, which ultimately
these organizations provide advisory services, raises agricultural productivity, enhances rural income and
consultation, loans/credit provision, inputs distribution, reduces vulnerability.
training and marketing. Peterson (1997) further described
that the institutional factors affecting the operation of
extension services as including the presence of
organizations, both private and public who support
agriculture and thus facilitate the role of the extension
organization such as credit, input and seed supplies, price
incentives, marketing channels and human resource
constraints determine the impact of the information that
extension agents convey to farmers. While extension
agents can adjust their advice, given the overall policy
climate, the value of the information is diminished when
the terms of trade are tilted against agriculture, rural Figure 1. Conceptual framework for the analysis of
infrastructure investment is inadequate, and farmers have decentralized agricultural extension practice
irregular input supplies due to absent input markets (Axinn, Source: Adopted from Semwenda (2016)
1988).
Stakeholder participation and accountability are important
elements for the success of decentralized extension
The goals of extension include the transferring of
knowledge from researchers to farmers, advising farmers practice. Participation is about including influence and
in their decision making and educating farmers on how to share control over setting priorities, making policies,
allocating resources and ensuring access to public goods
make better decisions, enabling farmers to clarify their own
and services, and therefore essential elements in
goals and possibilities, and stimulating desirable
decentralized extension system (Rivera and Qamar,
agricultural developments (van der Ban and Hawkins,
2003). A proper system of accountability in decentralized
1996). The objective of this study is, therefore, to analyze
the challenges of the decentralized agricultural extension extension is also important in order to ensure that, there is
system in Eritrea from political and organizational proper resource mobilization (World Bank, 2004). It is
believed that strong accountability mechanism will support
perspective in relation to the expected outcome of
the decision making of extension organization at the local
extension services. It seeks to answer the following
level because it provides stakeholders with a good
research question: what political and organizational factors
have an effect on the delivery of agricultural extension knowledge of the extension programme (Rivera and Alex,
services in a decentralized administration system? It is 2004a). In addition to accountability and participation,
believed that in most developing countries decentralized institutional capacity is the most important aspect for
effective delivery of extension services in developing
extension services are affected by political and
countries (United Nations, 2005). It has been noted that in
organizational factors such as institutional capacity,
most developing countries extension services have
accountability, stakeholder participation, agricultural
policies, resource mobilization, etc. serious shortage of trained managerial and technical staff
to carry out responsibilities for extension. The World Bank
Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of (2000) highlights the fact that the lack of managerial ability
at the local level is a major limitation to extension
Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice
decentralization in developing countries in general, and in
Africa in particular.
The conceptual framework adopted (figure 1) has
livelihood security focus outcomes and goals for extension
systems to contribute more to improving livelihood security
Review of Relevant Literature
of farmers through good participation, accountability,
institutional capacity building and resources mobilization.
Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing
The conceptual framework takes into account the political
Countries
and organizational factors. The political factors that affect
extension services include the level of decentralization,
agricultural policies, accountability, and the presence of a The economy of most developing counties is dependent
on rural based small-scale agriculture whose productivity
clear legal framework (Parker, 1995; Swanson and Samy,
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea

is not increasing (in some cases, even declining)
contributing towards household food insecurity,
malnutrition and poverty. The ever-increasing decline in
agricultural production has been attributed to a number of
factors, one of which has been inappropriate and/or
ineffective dissemination of technologies
(Anandajayasekeram, et. al., 2008). In developing
countries agricultural extension services are under
increasing pressure to become more effective, more
responsive to clients, and less costly to government. Most
agricultural extension systems in developing countries
have their origins in state-run, centrally managed systems
which focused on linear technology transfer from
researchers through extension agents to farmers. This
model was derived from Roger’s (1962) diffusion of
innovation theory. Innovation originates from scientists;
extension agents transfer innovations; and farmers apply
the innovations they receive from extension agents
(Russell et al. 1989). The model constitutes the traditional
government run agricultural extension system, which is a
top-bottom approach, where extension agent’s package
ideas developed and tested by researchers into messages
and farmers are told what to do. The model gives little
attention to farmers in terms of what their farming needs
are or what they require for the extension organization to
meet those needs. Experience has shown that the supply
driven approaches have serious limitations. Some of these
limitations are: the top-bottom approach does not bring
about sustainable development because it neither builds
on local farming experiences nor does it promote farmer
empowerment; in many developing countries, the supply-
driven approaches, results low adoption rates of new
technologies and insignificant overall productivity
increases; and with the supply driven approaches
extension workers are still unable to cover the vast number
of farmers in need of service (Pretty &Chambers, 1993;
Scoones &Thompson, 1994). These limitations have led
to critical assessments of public sector extension as failing
to fulfil its role in promoting agriculture-based growth.
Extension services must be oriented to markets and
overcome the exclusive focus on production that ignored
market demand and profitability. Varied extension services
are needed to help farmers remain competitive and
profitable, diversify production, produce for niche markets,
and move to higher-value products and more value-added
production (Oladele et al. 2004). FAO (1997) reported that
all national governments should develop and periodically
review their agricultural extension policy, which should
include the goals of agricultural extension, the responsible
agencies and personnel, the clientele to be served, the
broad programmatic areas to be addressed, and other
relevant guidelines.
Extension program quality depends fundamentally on
good linkages with other programs-specialized training for
extension agents and farmers, technical backstopping by
subject matter specialists and information services, other
extension services (mass media, fairs), and other
development programs (credit programs, market
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 047
development programs, input supply). Some of these
linkages can be maintained at the local level, but many
require higher level coordination to ensure efficiency and
quality support.
For a long time, development of agriculture in developing
countries mainly consisted of farmers and communities
being told what to do, often by institutions and agents who
have not taken sufficient time to understand their real
needs and practices. It has been argued that a key factor
for successful extension services in developing countries
is the giving to local people a substantial influence over
their local political systems and developmental activities
(World Bank, 2000; Swanson and Samy, 2004).The World
Bank (2000) noted that decentralized political institutions
should be well established and strongly supported by local
and central government to promote decentralized
agricultural extension systems. Building local government
capacity is a prerequisite for decentralizing extension
services, because local governments (especially in Africa)
often do not have the technical and managerial capacity to
take on responsibility for managing technology programs.
Local institutions taking on responsibility for extension
might require investments in staff development, facilities,
and management systems. Policy makers must allow time-
perhaps several years-for local institutions to develop this
capacity and experience needed for effective program
management. In most developing countries extension
services have serious shortage of trained managerial and
technical staff to carry out responsibilities for extension.
Staff employed lack competence and motivation due to
poorly defined human resource development and
management systems (United Nations, 2005).
World Bank (2000) highlights the fact that the lack of
managerial ability at the local level is a major limitation to
extension decentralization in developing countries in
general, specifically in Africa. A major problem in
developing countries is allocation of inadequate resources,
including funds and qualified extension staff to deliver
extension services (Anderson & Feder, 2004). Several
authors (Sulaiman, 2003; Garforth, 2004; Tossou and
Zinnah, 2005; United Nations, 2005), noted that extension
staff need additional knowledge to do with communication
and facilitation, networking, critical thinking, problem
solving and human relation in new environment. Leeuwis
& Van de Ban (2004) further noted that learning could be
enhanced in extension organizations by involving staff in
decision-making and through delegation.
Models for the Delivery of Agricultural Extension
Services
Various and distinct public sector agricultural extension
reform models have occurred since the mid-1980s. Figure
2 categorizes these reform models into four main
categories. Quadrant 1 involves a political structural
change, often referred to as decentralization. In the
illustration, decentralization refers to deconcentration of
Habtom GK. 048
central authority to branch offices or institutes, as well as
the shifting of staff from national to provincial, district or
sub-district levels (e.g. Iran), and to devolution of authority
to lower levels of government (Bolivia, Colombia, Mexico,
Philippines, Indonesia, Uganda and Tanzania) (Rivera &
Qamar, 2003). In quadrant 1 agricultural extension
services are financed and delivered by the government.
Government employees (civil servants) provide extension
services to the farmers free of charge and the service is
financed through government tax. Pure tax-based
financing systems have high financial accessibility
because they do not involve user fees at point of use.
However, in many developing countries tax-based
financing systems are constrained by limited tax bases,
because of that a small share of the total government
budget is allocated to agricultural extension services. Tax
based financing system shifts also the locus of decision
making from service receivers (farmers/producers) to the
government, limits service receivers choice and
sovereignty
Generally, public investment in extension is justified when
the general public benefits more than the extension client,
when government can provide services more cheaply or
better, when extension services directly facilitate other
programs, or when the private sector does not provide
needed services (van den Ban, 2000).These conditions
apply when there are positive externalities to innovation or
market failure in service provision. Market failure is often
due to: unorganized demand (small farmers do not
recognize potential benefits, have limited purchasing
power, and are not organized to access services) or
unorganized supply (few individuals or institutions are
capable of providing technical services or there is limited
opportunity for private firms to charge for provision of
easily disseminated information). The most important
externalities are: positive environmental (e.g., Byerlee,
1998; Mullen, Vernon & Fishpool, 2000) and health
(human, livestock and crop) impacts of appropriate
technology use; improvements in political stability and
poverty reduction resulting from improved equity in access
to information; and improved national security, economic
development and food security resulting from increased
agricultural productivity, competitiveness and
sustainability (e.g., Thirtle, Lin & Piesse, 2002).
Consumers often benefit more from increases in
productivity than do farmers.
Quadrant 2 represents change toward partial privatization-
whether through subsidies to producers who then are
obligated to seek agricultural extension services from
private providers, through grants to producer organizations
or entities at local levels. Fee based services are expected
to increase resources available for extension services and
would allow governments to expand or upgrade the
network of agricultural extension services at village and
community levels. Quadrant 3 refers to systems where the
producer pays directly to the provider for services
rendered. In quadrant 3 public financing is combined with
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
a private delivery of extension services. Agricultural
extension services are contracted out to private service
providers. Compared to quadrant 1, in this system the
farmers/producers have more options for the choice of
service providers. There are also more opportunities for
autonomy, and competition among providers. Quadrant 4
applies to situations where governments have either
commercialized their public sector agricultural extension
services, or have otherwise transferred these services in
total to the private sector.
The central rectangle refers to situations where
governments employ several strategies (e.g., devolution,
partial privatization, and/or cost-recovery measures to
foster extension activities for agricultural development).
This phenomenon should not be confused with
"institutional pluralism" that refers to the fact that various
sectors are engaged in extension provision.
Briefly, quadrant 1 indicates a partial or total shift of
authority from the central authority to lower levels of
authority or sub-government in the form of deconcentration
and devolution. Deconcentration is a way of shifting
authority to branch offices or regional institutes. Devolution
is also a way of shifting the funding and delivery of
extension services to the state level (Brazil, Mexico) or to
the municipal/district level (Bolivia, Colombia, and The
Philippines) (Rivera & Qamar 2003).
Quadrant 3 involves public-private partnerships. It aimed
at joining effort to exploit better each partner’s areas of
strengths. These types of mechanism are increasingly
becoming effective means of conducting advanced
research, commercializing new technologies, and
deploying new products for the benefit of small scale
resource-poor farmers, food insecure consumers and
other marginalized groups in developing countries (Lele, et
al. 2010). They commonly involve collaboration between
national and international public and private sector entities
in which partners jointly plan and execute activities with a
view to accomplishing mutually agreed-upon objectives,
while sharing costs, risks, and benefits. In quadrant 3,
three strategies can be used, in the first the central
authority selects to provide subsidies to small farmers on
condition of their contracting with private sector providers
for extension services (e.g., Chile, Mexico, and Uganda).
In the second, the central authority contracts directly with
private entities to provide services to producers
(Mozambique, Hungary, and Venezuela). An interesting
example is the case of Honduras where the government
has contracted with a coordinating service outside its own
country (namely with CATIE, headquartered in Costa Rica)
to then contract with private extension providers within
Honduras (Rivera & Qamar, 2003; Rivera & Alex, 2004b).
These two strategies-subsidizing farmers to contract with
the private sector and contracting with the private sector–
are strategies aimed in part at enabling the private sector
to provide extension services. The third strategy in the
lower-left quadrant is relatively recent; it involves providing

Figure 2. Public sector agricultural extension reforms since the 1980s
Source: Rivera & Qamar (2003) Agricultural extension, rural development and the food security challenge. FAO, Rome.
grants to communities directly for them to undertake
development projects. This World Bank initiative seeks to
motivate communities to take ownership for their own
development. Still, the community projects are not
necessarily (and in fact the cases are few) for developing
extension services.
In quadrant 2 the strategy is fee-based extension service.
User financing mechanisms are a means of obtaining
private financing to cover at least a portion of the cost of
public extension services. Mechanisms include levies,
direct user charges, or subsidies for services procured by
users (Anderson & Feder, 2003). An example of cost-
recovery for extension services is Ecuador's Program for
Modernization of Agricultural Services (Rivera & Qamar,
2003); however, this program involves both the public and
the private sector in the financing and delivery of services
and therefore incorporates reform measures associated
with the lower-left quadrant. Again, this is an example of a
mixed system and, indeed, Ecuador's approach to
extension involves subsidizing as well as cost-recovery
programs. User charges are more feasible for highly
commercial operations, for more sophisticated producers,
and for services that provide a clear and immediate
benefit. Latin America has seen extensive experimentation
with co- financing and private extension service provision
(e.g., Keynan, et al. 1997; Dinar and Keynan, 2001), and
small-scale farmers in various countries have indicated a
willingness to pay for extension services that meet their
needs (e.g., Gautam, 2002; Holloway & Ehui, 2001). This
quadrant underscores the fact of agricultural information's
commoditization (Buttel, 1991).
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 049
Quadrant 4 refers to countries that have totally
commercialized (NewZealand) or privatized (England and
Wales; The Netherlands) their public sector agricultural
extension services (Rivera & Qamar, 2003).This quadrant
also includes those countries that selected to withdraw
completely from provision of extension services and
support for extension education, and generally shifted
authority to national and international NGOs (Peru). This
quadrant reflects the general withdrawal of some countries
during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s from public
sector involvement in goods and services and the
consequent shift of authority to the private sector or third-
sector organizations (Ibid). State withdrawal from service
provision might entail total abandonment of some
programs or shifting of service responsibilities to others-
requiring commercial farmers to arrange their own
services; encouraging producer organizations to provide
services; or promoting private extension by input suppliers
(not withstanding potential conflicts of interest in the
content of advice), produce buyers, NGOs, environmental
groups, or others (Anderson & Feder, 2003).
The central rectangle in figure 2 refers to diversified
strategies – strategies that employ multiple "mixed"
approaches. Increasingly governments have either
adopted or built up a "mix" of extension systems and
programs, and it is likely that such mixed arrangements will
continue to prevail in the future. Much literature (Schwartz
and Kampen1 1992; World Bank 1995; Contado, 1997)
suggested the need for a pluralistic extension system
because public extension services need to be accountable
to both the clients of the services and the wider population.
Habtom GK. 050
A pluralistic institutional framework would promote the
advancement of "mixed economies," whereby public and
private sectors cooperate more closely. Pluralism creates
complementarity and synergy in the use of resources for
extension by different donors and there are a number of
lessons to be learned from these strategic determinations
and their varied experiences. There is evidence that high
rates of adoption of improved agricultural technologies
occur when government organizations, NGOs, and private
organizations form partnerships in extending agricultural
technologies to famers (Ojha, et al. 2001). Pluralistic
extension, however, requires an institutional setting with
an established legal framework, the document that
provides a clear division of responsibility between different
levels of government departments and other participants
(Semwenda, 2016).
In addition to the above, SSA countries have adopted
different agricultural extension service models to achieve
their objectives. They have tried to maintain an optimum
mix of institutional pluralism between grassroots
associations, the NGO, the private for profit, farmers’
associations, government ministries and department of
agriculture, universities and agricultural research centers.
The models that have been practiced by SSA countries
include (Oladele, 2011): rural development, extension
program, and farmer field school in Angola; participatory
management approach and farmer field school in Benin
and Burkina Faso; national agricultural extension and
research program support project in Cameron;
participatory demonstration, training extension system and
farmer field school in Ethiopia; pluralistic extension system
including, ministry, private companies, NGOs and farmer
field school in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and Malawi;
participatory demonstration and training extension system,
farmer field school, modified training and visit extension
system in Mali; famer field school, and government led
pluralistic extension in Mozambique and Cote d’ Ivoire;
farmer field school, and pluralistic extension system in
Rwanda and Senegal; farmer field school, university
based extension system, and pluralistic extension system
in Tanzania; participatory extension system, and farmer
field school in Zambia and Swaziland; unified agricultural
extension system, pluralistic extension system including,
ministry, private companies, and NGOs in Lesotho;
ministry, university, and community based approaches,
and cyber extension system in South Africa; farming
system approach, national master plan for arable
agriculture and dairy development in Botswana; ministry
based approach, commercialized extension system and
community participation approach in Zambia, Madagascar
and Mauritius; and pluralistic, national agriculture advisory
service and farmer field school in Uganda. Existing models
are typically a general or modified training and visit model
housed in the Ministry of Agriculture, although many
countries are using multiple models with pluralistic service
providers. The increasing number of players and
stakeholders makes the issues of coordination and
regulation crucial, and underlines the need for the
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
government to remain involved in extension in order to
ensure food security, regulating food quality and safety,
and environmental conservation, among others.
It has been observed that no single political or institutional
strategy is dominant in the reform of public sector
agricultural extension. . As shown in figure 2,
decentralization, pluralism, cost sharing, cost recovery,
participation of stakeholders in development initiatives and
the decisions and resources that affect them are the key
elements in current agricultural extension systems
transition (Rivera and Qamar 2003). Several scholars
(Schwartz and Kampden 1992; Ameur 1994; Dinar 1996;
Holden et al. 1996; Umali-Deininger 1997; Zijp 1998)
suggested that governments should find an appropriate
‘mix’ of public and private funding and delivery
mechanisms for extension, to achieve differing agricultural
goals and to serve diverse target populations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research Design
The data for this study was taken from a study conducted
in June 2017 in the Ministry of Agriculture under the
supervision of Eritrean Center for Organizational
Excellence, which was financed by the European Union.
The study used both survey and case study
methodologies. The case study and survey methods are
not mutually exclusive; hence, one could have a case
study within a survey or a survey complementing a case
study (Hakim, 1987; Dancey & Reidy, 1999). A key
strength of the case study method is that the use of
multiple sources and techniques in the data gathering
process, e.g. documents review, interviews, focus group
discussions and observations. We used survey to examine
the challenges of the decentralized agricultural extensions
system in Eritrea. Questions related to this paper included:
demographic information on individuals, political and
organizational factors that have an effect on extension
such as the level of decentralization, the presence of well-
developed institutions at the local level, the presence of a
clear legal framework, stakeholder participation,
institutional capacity building, resource mobilization,
accountability, effectiveness and efficiency of extension
services, responsiveness, and sustainability in the use of
resources.
Source of Data
In this study both primary and secondary data sources
were used. A mixed methods approach was employed,
combining qualitative and quantitative data-collection
tools: household survey, expert and key informant
interviews, Focus Group Discussion (FGD), participant
observation, and desk literature review. Interview was
conducted with 20 key informants (3 department heads, 9
division heads, 5 unit heads and 3 regional agricultural
 Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 051

extension staff). Furthermore, questionnaires were 1+2+3+4+5

distributed to 132 respondents, of which 12 questionnaires 𝑋̅ =
5
were missing. The respondents completely filled and 15
= = 3.00
returned 120 questionnaires. Secondary data also 5
collected from the documents, publications, and annual
reports of the MoA; reports of the World Bank, and FAO. Using this as upper limit any item with a mean score of
The secondary data was collected from various sources 3.00 or above will be regarded as effective and the one
inter alias relevant books and journals, international and below 3.0 will be regarded as not effective. The mean
national agricultural reports, published and unpublished score (Xs) of each item will be completed by multiplying
documents. The rationale for using multiple sources of the frequency of each response pattern with it’s
data is the triangulation of evidence. Triangulation is a appropriate nominal value and dividing with number of
combination of research methodologies in the study of the respondents to the item. It can be summarized as follows:
same phenomena (Habtom, 2014). It increases the
reliability of the data and the process of gathering ∑ 𝐹𝑁
̅̅̅̅ =
𝑋𝑆
information. Triangulation helps also to analyse and 𝑁𝑟
compare data collected through interviews, Where:
questionnaires, observations and secondary sources.
̅̅̅̅ = Mean score
𝑋𝑆
Sample size = Summation
F = Frequency of each response mode
The samples for the study were taken from the staff of the N = Likert nominal value
MOA at Head Quarter’s office and NARI at Halhale. Out of Nr = Number of respondents to an item
415 employees of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) 132
employees were selected. The study used systematic and For the data analysis information was drawn from the
stratified sampling. The employees were selected entire questionnaire, interviews and supporting documents
randomly from each stratum (departments, divisions and to present a view of the factors that are relevant for the
units of the MoA). The samples include employees of study. The data were interpreted and organized into
extension service department, regulatory service different themes based on the conceptual description of
department, national agricultural research institute, ideas which were expressed by respondents during
agricultural planning and policy division, administration discussions. Collected institutional data, survey data and
and finance division, and national animal and plant health numerical data from observation were reviewed for
laboratory. From each stratum proportional samples were accuracy, completeness and consistency and entered into
randomly selected. the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version
16. Data were coded and statistically analyzed, descriptive
Methods of Data Analysis statistics such as frequencies and percentages were
calculated to determine distribution and relation of the
Likert scale is used for measuring attitudes of Agricultural study variables. Results were displayed in the form of
staff at the MoA. In Likert scale analysis each item has a Tables.
weight attached to it or a score attached to it. A person’s
score on the final attitude scale is simply the sum of the
weight of the alternative he/she has checked. Weights are RESULTS
usually as assigned so that high score indicates favourable
attitudes. The identified attitudes were weighted as In this section, qualitative and quantitative research
follows: methodologies were used in data analysis. The results
Respondent’s Liker Scale The Mean is Where: were presented in percentages and absolute figures (see
Attitude Assigned computed tables 1 to 10). The study used questioner, interview,
Ineffective 1 as follows: 𝑋̅ =Mean observation and secondary data sources to investigate the
(INE) ∑𝑥 key study variables, which include the political and
𝑋̅ =
Weakly 2 𝑛 = organizational factors that affect agricultural extension
Effective Summation services. The results of the study variables were
(WEF) interpreted through descriptive and deductive data
Fairly Effective 3 X= Nominal analysis techniques.
(FEF) value of
response Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Effective 4 N= Number
(EFF) of items As can be seen from table 1 about 71% of the respondents
Highly 5 were male. There was gender imbalance in sample
Effective selection; this was partly due to large male composition of
(HEF) the MoA workforce. Furthermore, table 1 shows that about
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Habtom GK. 052

41% of the respondents have more than 31 years of work
experience and about 38% are above 50 years old. This
indicates that most of the respondents have a deep
knowledge and understanding of the current situation of
the MoA. They were in a position to provide honest and
credible information about the MoA functions and
responsibilities, challenges and opportunities,
weaknesses and strengths as well. Education wise about
60% of the respondents have B.A degree and above (i.e.,
48% BSc and 12% MSc) and the sample includes division
heads, unit heads, agricultural extension workers, National
Animal and Plant Health Laboratory staff, administration
and finance staff, project coordinators, planning and
statistics staff, National Agricultural Research Institute
(NARI) researchers, regulatory service department staff,
forestry and wildlife authority staff, and public relations,
legal service and internal audit staff.

Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

No. % No. % No. %
Sex: Work Experience Position
Male 85 71 1-5 years 15 13 Division Head 7 6
Female 35 29 6-10 years 16 13 Unit Head 21 18
Total 120 100 11-15 years 14 12 Agri. Extension Worker 25 21
Age: 16-20 years 12 10 NPAHL 10 8
20-30 years 23 19 21-25 years` 123 11 Administration & Finance 11 9
31-40 years 24 20 26-30 years 14 12 Project Coordinator 3 3
41-50 years 28 23 31-35 years 10 8 Planning & Statistics 5 4
Above 50 years 45 38 36-40 years 12 10 Researchers 14 12
Education: 41-45 years 14 12 Regulatory Service 10 8
High school complete 6 5 Above 45 years 13 11 Forestry & Wildlife Authority 8 7
Certificate 6 5 Public Relations 4 3
Diploma 37 30 Legal service 1 1
B.A. /B.Sc. Degree 57 48 Internal Audit 1 1
Master’s Degree 14 12
Ph.D. 0 0
Source: Field data, June 2017
resource management; [4] promotion and development of
A total of 120 questionnaires were collected. To agriculture (including technical backstopping, demand
substantiate the data collected through questionnaire, driven provision of services etc.); and [5] agricultural
personal interviews were conducted with department, research (focusing on basic and applied research and
division and unit heads at the MoA, and focus group dissemination of results); and regulation of the sector (by
discussions were conducted with employees of the MoA. setting and enforcing standards and statutory
The results were amassing; there were a lot of discussions responsibilities).
and debates, opinions and suggestions with regards to the
functions, responsibilities and organization of the
agricultural extension practice in Eritrea.

Analysis of Eritrea’s Agricultural Policy

Agricultural policy is one of the political factors that affect

extension services. Eritrea’s agricultural policies are
reviewed from secondary sources (published and
unpublished government documents) and primary sources
obtained from interviews and focus group discussions.
Eritrea’s agriculture policies emphasis on enhancing per
unit productivity, ensuring food security, commercial
agriculture, export orientation, human development,
environment sustainability, better quality of life and rural Figure 3. Strategic functions of the Ministry of Agriculture
poverty alleviation. In Eritrea, the Ministry of Agriculture Source: GoSE (2006).
(MoA) is mandated to perform five strategic functions: [1]
strategic planning of the sector (involving policies, sector Agricultural is given the highest degree of attention in
plans, performance monitoring and impact evaluation); [2] national development planning in Eritrea. Agriculture is
managing and developing MoA resources (comprising seen as a main economic activity for: the achievement of
good governance in terms of accounting for and managing food security at household and national levels; generating
public funds, [3] human resource development and human employment; ensuring a rational exploitation and proper

An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea

management of natural resources; and supplying raw
materials to domestic industries and expanding
agricultural/ livestock exports. This would be sustained
through the support of the private sector and in particular
the small holders who are responsible for over 90% of
agricultural outputs. To this end the environment of
agricultural extension has been changing with more focus
on food and nutrition security, poverty alleviation, entry of
new actors such as the private sector and NGOs in the
delivery of extension services, changed research and
development paradigms and bottom-up approaches for
end user involvement in decision-making
(Anandajayasekeram, et. al., 2008). In Eritrea the goal of
agriculture extension goes beyond implementing the
national agricultural development goals of achieving food
security, improving rural livelihoods, and natural resource
management; it includes also fostering state ties with
farming communities to maintain and strengthen the
societal coherence and support base. The provision of
extension services in Eritrea has different views among
farmers, planners, economists and practitioners among
others. While farmers view extension as a form of
assistance to help improve their know-how, efficiency,
productivity, profitability, and contribution to the good of
their family, community, and society, the politicians,
planners, and policy makers consider it as policy
instrument to increase agricultural production, to achieve
national food security, and at the same time, help alleviate
rural poverty.
The Government of the State Eritrea (GoSE) is trying to
transform its agriculture from traditional farming system
into modern irrigated commercial farming system in line
with developed market-lead economy, supported by a
comprehensive array of government provided services
such as, policy and strategic planning, research,
extension, regulatory and human resource development
while the private sector is undertaking agricultural
production, processing, marketing and other services. The
main strategies to develop the agricultural sector in Eritrea
include promoting full and supplementary irrigated
agriculture; promoting the development of water
harvesting and groundwater recharging schemes;
increase agricultural productivity through crop
intensification, crop/ livestock diversification and crop
livestock integration; promoting modern production
technologies and effective farmers’ advisory services;
ensuring the availability of farm support services and
inputs; promoting agro-processing, storage facilities and
efficient post-harvest management; and promoting greater
equity by enhancing gender participation, giving equal
access to all kinds of assets and economic opportunities.
The FGD participants noted that successful realization of
the policy vision of the government of Eritrea requires a
skilled labor force in a wide range disciplines for both
planning and program design at central government level
and program implementation at local government level in
order to provide effective delivery of services to farmers
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 053
and agribusinesses. In addition, farmers themselves need
regular training and constant access to new knowledge
and agricultural practices and technologies. The FGD
participants further stated that those people involved in
agriculture should be provided adequate information and
ideas in order to develop agriculture that will meet complex
demand patterns, reduce poverty, and preserve or
enhance ecological resources; and the role of the
government should be to establish suitable coordination
and to develop quality control mechanisms, which
safeguard interests of farmers in a pluralistic extension
system.
The GoSE is committed to decentralized administration
system, which is intended to be participatory, grassroots
and focused on demand generated by citizens. It is
believed that a key factor necessary for successful
extension decentralization in developing countries is the
giving to local people a substantial influence over their
local political systems and developmental activities (World
Bank, 2000; Swanson and Samy, 2004). The World Bank
(2000) claimed that if decentralized political institutions are
well established and strongly supported by local and
central government, decentralization of agricultural
extension programs for farmers can proceed with
confidence. Extension officials in Eritrea further noted that
the basis for extension work is in the regions, sub-regions
and villages; experience tells us that all training and visit
programs are area specific which address the needs of a
specific villages or cluster of villages, and such activities
start and end-up at the region level, and reports coming to
the head quarters office. From the policy perspective and
development of the national extension plan, delivering
technical assistance in planning and plan-consolidation
can be seen as the main role of agricultural extension
department at national level. In the agricultural sector the
general aim of the system is to facilitate the better use of
Eritrea’s natural resources and enhance farmers’ potential
for improved agricultural production by empowering them
to take an active role in decision making processes for the
long–term sustainable development of agriculture. It is
believed that local workers are better able to identify
problems and opportunities, more likely to use area –and
culture-specific solutions and better able to match supply
decisions to local situations. Delegation of authority to
local governments can influence also the incentives for
competition between jurisdictions to provide improved
public goods. The nature of the social environment within
which such spaces for local discretion are created is thus
likely to be a critically important factor in the realization of
the policy vision of the GoSE.
Analysis of Agricultural Extension Practices in Eritrea
The role of agricultural extension, in Eritrea, involves
dissemination of information, building capacity of farmers
through the use of a variety of communication methods,
and help farmers make informed decisions. Agricultural
extension is one of the means available to help alleviate
Habtom GK. 054

poverty and improve food security in Eritrea. It conducts
systematic and organized communication with farming
communities and among farmers’ in order to give them a
helping hand. Its objectives are particularly oriented to a
better insight into farming practices, clear formulation of
farmer's wishes and identification of their problems and
looking for solutions (Havrland et al. 2000).The
decentralized publicly funded and implemented system of
agricultural extension system in Eritrea, however, is
blamed for its less effectiveness due to budgetary, material
and human resource limitations. As can be seen from table
2, agricultural extension services are rated low with
regards to responsiveness to farmers and agro-enterprise
needs (rated 2.21 out of 5.00 Likert scale), in accessibility
of quality agricultural input to farmers at affordable price
(rated 2.48), in agricultural engineering services (2.58), in
livestock services (rated 2.95), in maintaining of linkages
between National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI),
Agriculture Extension Services and Farmers (rated 2.58),
and in creating linkage between agro processing
enterprises and agricultural extension services (rated
2.21). But there are positive results for crop protection and
production inspection of agricultural extensions services,
which are rated 3.10 (i.e., above average).

Table 2. Agricultural Extension Services Dimensions INE WEF FEF EFF HEF XS
There is decentralized agricultural extension service responsive to farmers and agro 40 30 35 15 0 2.21
enterprises’ needs.
Farmers have timely access to quality agricultural inputs (e.g. seeds, fertilizers, 15 45 50 8 2 2.48
pesticides, herbicides, etc.) at affordable price
How do you rate the agricultural engineering services? 16 39 45 20 0 2.58
How do you rate the livestock services? 6 24 60 30 0 2.95
How do you rate crop protection and produce inspection services? 8 12 70 20 10 3.10
How effective is the linkage between NARI, Agriculture Extension Services and 10 55 35 15 5 2.58
Farmers.
There is improved investment climate for agricultural commercialization 25 56 33 6 0 2.17
There is a tax policy that supports an efficient commercial agricultural system. 30 45 20 25 0 2.33
There are competitive agricultural value chains that increase value added and 55 35 20 10 0 1.88
benefits smallholder farmers and agro enterprises.
There is a good linkage between agro processing enterprises and agricultural 45 50 15 10 0 2.21
extension services in Eritrea
Source: Field data, June 2017

The respondents pointed out that: the linkage between
NARI, Agricultural Extension Services and Farmers is less
effective (54%); livestock services, crop protection and
produce inspection services are fairly effective (75%);
agricultural engineering services are fairly effective (54%);
and farmers' timely access to quality agricultural inputs at
affordable price are fairly effective (49%).
According to the survey results 45% and 30% of the
respondent’s perceived poverty and high rates of inputs
respectively were the major barriers to promote/adopt the
improved agricultural technologies. They stated that the
farmers were poor and they were not in a position to
purchase modern inputs. Whereas 15% and 10% of the
respondents reported that lack of resources and illiteracy
among the farmers were the reasons for the low adoption
and dissemination of improved technologies among
farmers.
“By making extension more demand driven, and more
accountable to farmers, participatory approaches can
help to ensure that services are relevant and responsive to
local conditions and meet the real needs of users. Making
farmers influential and responsible clients rather than
passive beneficiaries of the extension service
improves sustainability, both of the benefits of investment
in new technology, and of the service itself.
Participatory methods can increase farmer ownership of
the technologies promoted by extension management,
especially when the methods are developed, at least in
part, by the clients themselves and are based on
technologies which they have seen to be effective. At the
same time, when the value of the service is clear to them,
farmers are willing to contribute to its support,
reducing the dependence on public funds for meeting
recurrent costs” (excerpts from FGD with Agricultural
Extension Department Staff, March 2017)..

The respondents noted that agricultural extension should
be reoriented to provide more demand-based and
sustainable services, taking account of the diversity,
perceptions, knowledge and resources of users. Farmers
should participate fully in agricultural extension service
development recognizing that farmers’ involvement in
identifying farming problems and the needed solutions is
an essential strategy for sustainable development.
Demand driven agricultural extension system is less likely
to develop in Eritrea unless there is improved investment
climate for agricultural commercialization (see table 2, the
rate is 2.17) and competitive agricultural value chains that
increase value added and benefits smallholder (rated
1.88), and a tax policy that supports an efficient
commercial agricultural system (rated 2.33). All the ratings
indicated that the system requires more investment to

An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea

promote demand driven agricultural extension system.
The respondents stated that poor marketing services and
facilities and transport in rural areas pose a large
constraint to agricultural commercialisation in Eritrea.
There is a need for the strengthening of agribusiness
linkages along the major agricultural commodity value
chains, and support to farmers’ cooperatives and
organisations to improve marketing and value additions.
In the focus group discussion (FGD) the participants
examined the four reform options for agricultural extension
service delivery system in Eritrea: (i) Public delivery and
public finance which essentially comprises the traditional
government agricultural extension that continues to persist
although with greatly diminished outreach and constrained
by a lack of sufficient funding; (ii) Public delivery and
private finance whereby government staff is contracted by
private agencies to deliver extension services; (iii) Private
delivery and private finance whereby commercial entities
provide their suppliers with the extension services required
to improve their technical efficiency. This mode of delivery
is prevalent in commodity out-grower schemes and highly
commercialized high-value agriculture; and (iv) Private
delivery and public finance which entails the outsourcing
of responsibility for extension delivery to private sector
providers such as NGOs, commercial organizations, etc.
Despite its limitations the FGD participants opted for the
first option-public delivery and public finance. They have
stated that the private sector and NGOs are not well
developed in Eritrea. The private sector does not have the
financial capacity and technical expertise to step
immediately into all areas that Government is withdrawing
from, so in many cases a phased transition is required.
It has been argued that options ii and iii are not feasible in
Eritrea because extension services are provided free of
charge. Charging for extension service, in Eritrea, will
diminish latent commercial demand for agricultural
extension information and farmers willingness for
extension services. The public-good nature of many
extension services makes cost recovery at the individual
beneficiary level difficult. To overcome these problems the
public extension system has to be strengthened both in
financial and human resource requirements. The
government has a comparative advantage in the provision
Table 3.Regional Branch Offices
Implement appropriate strategies to achieve objectives.
Accept responsibility to facilitate program implementation
Seek advice and consider divergent opinions.
Adequacy of agricultural extension services at region level.
Source: Field data, June 2017
Table4, further shows that regional branch offices are less
effective in planning and monitoring of agricultural
activities, and in nurturing communication and
collaboration network with MoA head quarter’s office.
Adequacy of financial resources and access to information
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 055
of extension services. Government can use national radio
and television to broadcast targeted programs with
extension content and can encourage also partnerships
with local farmer organizations to increase farmers’
awareness.
Public investment in extension is justified when the general
public benefits more than the extension client, when
government can provide services more cheaply or better,
when extension services directly facilitate other programs,
or when the private sector does not provide needed
services (van den Ban, 2000). Market failure in the private
provision of extension services often occurs due to
unorganized demand (small farmers do not recognize
potential benefits, have limited purchasing power, and are
not organized to access services) or unorganized supply
(few individuals or institutions are capable of providing
technical services or there is limited opportunity for private
firms to charge for provision of easily disseminated
information).Therefore, care must be taken to design the
transition in a way that provides assurances to the private
sector that the government is truly ceasing its direct
interventions; otherwise entrepreneurs will not venture into
those areas.
Regional Agricultural Branch Offices
As can be seen from table 3, regional branch offices are
rated fairly effective in the implementation of appropriate
strategies and programs to achieve agricultural extension
objectives. But this does not mean that regional branch
offices have the capacity to provide all agricultural
extension services effectively. Local agricultural staff lacks
the requisite technical and managerial capacity to provide
services that are relevant to the needs of farmers. It is
widely noted that the underpayment of public servants is a
source of capacity weakness throughout the agricultural
sector and a serious impediment to the effectiveness of
organizational performance. In the focus group discussion
agricultural extension staff stated that the funds allocated
for agricultural extension services are not sufficient and
they are not able to mobilize funds to fill shortfalls. Due to
this extension services are less effective and responsive
to farmers’ need.
INE WEF FEF EFF HEF XS
5 23 62 23 7 3.03
15 27 35 25 18 3.03
5 15 40 48 12 3.39
10 30 35 40 5 3.00
and communication technology is also rated low by the
respondents. When the extension agents were inquired
about technical difficulties faced while provided extension
services to the farmers. Twenty five percent of the
extension agents reported that lack of resources followed
Habtom GK. 056
poor knowledge (22%), illiteracy (18%) among the
farmers/resist to adopt improved technologies,
communication problem (10%), lack of literatures (7%),
lack of in-services training (6%) on improved technologies,
farmers cooperation regarding training/field days (4%) and
poverty (8%). Similar study conducted by Chizari et al.
Table 4. Zoba Branch Offices
Staff capacity in planning and monitoring
Clarity of communication and collaboration network with MoA HQ office and
Zoba branch offices.
Adequacy of financial resources to achieve stated agricultural objectives
Access to information and communication technology
Source: Field data, June 2017
In the focus group discussion the participants emphasized
on the importance of regular training for agricultural
extension staff. Training is the basis for effective extension
services, the rapid changes occurring in the extension
environment demands in-service training for extension
workers to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes,
which are necessary to meet an increasing set of diverse
demands for the present days. Majority (56%) of the
extension agents stated that they need training in
improved crop management followed by (14%) in
computer, (15%) in integrated pest management, (10%) in
orchard management and (5%) in extension education,
office management and planning respectively. According
to World Bank (2000), training of extension staff improves
the competencies of staff and promotes the attitude
change required for decentralization reforms, since it is
essentially required to meet the needs of extension staff in
the new environment (Sulaiman, 2003; Garforth, 2004).
The respondents note that enhanced technical and
management capacity will improve the motivation,
confidence and attitudes of agricultural staff. Regional
agricultural staff must have adequate capacity and
technology to assist farmers with improved crop varieties,
planting techniques, efficient input use, market conditions,
and more effective production management techniques.
Besides this they must be knowledgeable in
communication and facilitating, problem-solving and
critical thinking skills, teamwork and human relations in
order to effectively interact with farmers and other
stakeholders.
Local Government Capacity
Capacity building in agricultural extension is the process
whereby relevant stakeholders and organizations unleash,
strengthen, create, adapt and maintain capacity over time,
usually with the objective of assuring sustainable
agricultural growth and improving the lives of the
stakeholders (Eremie, 2006). It requires the acquisition of
individual skills and institutional capacities as well as
development of opportunities to put these skills and
networks of productive use in the transformation of the
agricultural sector from the shackle of peasantry to a
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
(1998), in Peshawar district in Pakistan, had shown that
lack of teaching equipment, dispersion among the farmers,
lack of linkages between research centers and extension
organizations, illiteracy among farmers and lack of up-to-
date information to farmers were the major obstacles for
extension agents.
INE WEF FEF EFF HEF XS
10 50 40 20 0 2.58
20 40 45 15 0 2.46
35 45 30 6 4 2.16
30 50 25 15 0 2.21
modern one. According to Issa, et al., (2010) capacity is
defined asthe ability of people, organization and society as
a whole to manage their affairs to achieve set goals. The
existence of capacity is indicated by the functional
presence of one or combination of the following: viable
institutions and related organizations; commitment and
vision of leadership, financial and material resources; and
skilled human resources (ibid). As can be seen from table
5, local government units have rated low in capacity: in
policy analysis, policy monitoring and integrated planning
(rate 2.13); in the facilitation and implementation of
national programs (rate 2.43); in the collection and
analysis of data of strategic importance for agricultural
development (rated2.46); and in the coordination of
development partner investments in line with the
agricultural development strategy (rate 2.42). This
indicates that there is a capacity gap between planning
and policy implementation at regional and district levels.
The central government must provide technical,
administrative, logistical, financial support and highly
qualified staff to the lower levels of government to ensure
effective program implementation. Several studies
(Sharma, et al., 2001; Saviroff and Lindarte, 2002; Tapa
and Ojha, 2002) show that enhanced technical and
management capacity helps improve the motivation,
confidence and attitudes of extension staff.
It has been observed that capacity is not only about skills
and procedures; it is also about incentives and
governance. Capacity development at local government
level should include staff training, informal learning,
enhancing skill in the use of information and
communication technology, promoting research and
extension linkage, emphasizing on staff motivation and
commitment; and introduction of career development
opportunities.
Effectiveness
In this study employees’ perceptions of effectiveness is
assessed through five factors: (a) existence of a system of
monitoring to determine that goals and desirable socials
ends of the programs/projects are attained and delivered
to targeted number of beneficiaries, as can be seen in
 Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 057

Table 5. Local Government Capacity INE WEF FEF EFF HEF XS

Local government units have the capacity in policy analysis, policy monitoring, 33 51 24 12 0 2.13
and integrated planning
Local government officials facilitate implementation of national programs and 20 50 35 9 6 2.43
provide advisory service to program managers
Local administration units collect and analyse data of strategic importance of 30 40 25 15 10 2.46
agricultural development strategy implementation as needed and in synergy
with existing data collection systems
Local administration units coordinate development partner investments and 25 45 30 15 5 2.42
programs to be in line with implementation of the agricultural development
strategy.
Source: Field data, June 2017

Table 6. Effectiveness NEF WEF FEF EFF HEF XS

Existence of a system of monitoring to determine that goals and desirable 9 36 60 15 0 3.18
social ends of the programs/projects are attained and delivered to targeted
number of beneficiaries.
Performance is compared against pre-established targets, performance 15 60 35 10 0 2.50
standards, indicators or benchmarks.
More emphasis on ends and goals, rather than means and procedures. 10 45 50 15 0 2.42
The performance of MoA is judged by its outcomes- what it achieved- rather 15 45 50 10 0 2.63
than by its inputs- what it swallows up.
The MoA derives clear objectives and goals from their definition of service 20 26 54 15 5 2.16
and regulatory, and developmental functions.
Source: Field data, June 2017

table 6 this is rated effective ( 3.18 out of 5.00 Likert
scales); (b) comparison of performance against pre-
established targets, performance standards, indicators or
benchmarks, this is rated less effective (2.50); (c)
emphasis on ends and goals rather than means and
procedures, rated less effective (2.42); (d) performance is
judged by outcomes- what has achieved- rather than by
inputs- what has swallowed up, rated less effective (2.63);
and (e) goals and objectives are clearly derived from
definition of services, regulatory and developmental
functions, rated less effective (2.16). The results indicated
that either performance is not measurable or goals are not
specific/clearly defined.
The FGD participants stated that the effectiveness of
agricultural extension services, in Eritrea, are hampered
by poor access to agricultural inputs by the majority of
smallholder farmers due to high costs of inputs, poor
markets, poor infrastructure, limited access to credit, poor
communication facilities, limited market information,
limited access to technology (e.g. high-yielding seed,
pesticides, fertilizer); limited interface with other service
providers, inadequate participatory approaches in
agricultural research in terms of making the process
demand driven, and untimely availability of inputs..
It is worthwhile to note that the MoA should develop
performance measures by clearly stating organizational
objectives and the relationship between inputs and
outputs; workload and productivity; outcomes of products
and services; service quality and client satisfaction. The
argument, here is that the public needs to know what the
MoA is doing and how its work is performed. The Ministry
needs also to understand for itself how the working units
are performing their task and what the results are. The
Ministry should develop published standards by which the
public can judge whether the MoA is performing
satisfactorily and even doing a good job. The MoA should
enhance also public reporting systems on the overall
performance of the Ministry. This involves providing
information to the public/farmers on the performance of
regulatory services, NARI and agricultural extension
services.
There are good reasons for expecting annual reports from
all extension service agencies. These reports should be
informative, explaining to the public why the agency exists,
what it does, and what it has been making. The annual
reports would act as confidence builders in public
agencies, boost the moral of both public servants and
clients, and fill in gaps in public relations to counterbalance
ill-informed criticism and demonstrate what public goods
and services governments provide. Reports are also
necessary for internal management purposes, contributing
to effective supervision, decision making and audit. They
provide baseline information for decision making and
retrospective review of performance.
Efficiency
Efficiency addresses the question of whether services,
programs/projects have been achieved at a reasonable
cost, and whether the benefits/costs have been
allocated/received in an equitable manner. Efficiency is
value for money; favourable input- output ratio. In this
study employees’ perceptions of efficiency is assessed

An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Habtom GK. 058

Table 7. Efficiency INEFC WEFC FEFC EFFC HEFC XS

The MoA is prudent in the use of financial, human and physical 5 30 45 30 10 3.08
resources through good budgeting, project appraisal, personnel
management and execution.
Procedures are clearly specified for the execution and monitoring of 3 30 50 37 0 3.01
approved expenditures.
The MoAhas technical competence in the choice, design and 25 35 20 30 10 2.71
execution of agricultural infrastructure, and in its operation and
maintenance.
The MoA has adequate revenue base and sound financial 10 65 40 5 0 2.33
management in its agricultural extension services.
Timely, comprehensive and reliable fiscal reporting and deviations 15 40 50 5 10 2.63
are identified from the budget.
Source: Field data, June 2017
through five factors: (a) prudence in the use of financial, 1998). A case study of Columbian extension
human and physical resources, as can be seen in table 7, decentralization showed also improvement when the fund
this is rated efficient (3.08); (b) existence of clearly for extension organization was doubled (World Bank,
specified procedures for the execution and monitoring of 2000). A major problem in developing countries is
approved expenditures, rated efficient (3.01); (c) technical allocation of inadequate resources, including funds and
competence in the design and execution of agricultural qualified extension staff to deliver extension services
infrastructure, in its operation and maintenance, rated less (Anderson and Feder, 2004). A lesson can be learned from
efficient (2.71); (d) existence of adequate local revenue the experience of Uganda that extension services are
base and sound financial management for agricultural funded in partnership with government agencies, farmer’s
extension services, rated less efficient (2.33); and (e) organizations and some non-governmental organizations
existence of reliable and comprehensive fiscal reporting (Saliu et al. 2009). It has been noted that fund mobilization
system and identification of deviations from budget, rated through shared responsibility among all the stakeholders
less efficient (2.63). would enhance continuous and sustainable agricultural
extension programmes.
Inadequacy of local revenue base and sound financial
management for agricultural extension is another area Accountability
where the respondents rate the agricultural extension
system less efficient. Fiscal restraints would result scaling Accountability in government bureaucracies has
back public programs or improving cost-effectiveness traditionally focused on the use of inputs rather than what
(Beynon, et. al., 1998). Scaling back public programs they actually produce or achieve. Under the new reforms,
might involve: reducing coverage to specifictarget farmer outputs, outcomes, and impact become the primary focus
groups, reducing intensity of coverage (less frequent visits, of processes and accountability measures. An
fewer services), devolving service provision to private accountability mechanism provides stakeholders with the
organizations or requiring cost sharing by users information necessary to identify new needs, understand
(Wilson,1991). Extension officers usually scale down field who is benefiting from extension and real impact of the
activities when funds are not adequate to cover recurrent programme. Three key means of how accountability can
costs and field operations and this directly affects the be ensured in decentralized extension organizations
availability and quality of extension services. Insufficient includes political and legal oversight, institutional
funding for the delivery of extension services, inability to competition and administrative mechanisms (Swanson
fully mobilize funds, failure to cost effectively deliver and Samy, 2004). In relation to the political and legal
services and meet farmers’ needs are evidence of weak oversight, authority with committed leadership and well-
institutional capacity (Parker, 1995). In Madagascar, for defined legislative and regulatory frameworks can ensure
instance, insufficient funding and inaccessibility to credit a high level of accountability in extension organizations.
by farmers constituted a major problem to extension
services (Saliu et al. 2009). Agricultural agencies should As can be seen from table 8, the respondents indicated
solicit adequate fund to be able to organize staff training that there is clear legal and institutional framework that
programs and embark on farmer outreach programs. specifies the powers and responsibilities of local
Regional agricultural branch offices should raise funds governments (rated 3.42 out of 5.00 Likert. scales).
also by introducing fee-for-service or cost-sharing According to proclamation for the establishment of
arrangements, where farmers are made to pay all or part regional administration (PERA), the core functions of line
of the cost of services they receive from public extension ministries are policy, regulations, human resource
agents. For instance, in Nigeria the farmers’ association development, research, and technical support, while all
resolved its financial problems by introducing “demand- operational and implementation functions fall within the
driven, cost-recovery” extension system as an alternative mandates of regional/local governments. While the
to public sector extension in a number of districts (Carney, provision of PERA concerning the allocation of

An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
 Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 059

Table 8. Accountability INE WEF FEF EFF HEF XS

Legal and institutional framework clearly specifying the powers and 5 15 45 35 20 3.42
responsibilities of local governments.
Existence of codes of conduct, conflicts of interests’ regulations, effective 5 20 50 40 5 3.17
accounting standards, and procurement rules.
Existence of open budget preparation, execution and reporting systems. 5 30 40 35 10 3.13
Existence of periodic reporting systems on execution of projects/programs, 15 20 45 30 10 3.00
use of funds, property, manpower and other resources.
Provision of annual reports, and publication of actual and expected results. 8 30 45 20 17 3.07
Source: Field data, June 2017

Table 9. Accountability INE WEF FEF EFF HEF XS

Adequacy of capacities of local institutions to ensure delivery of appropriate 12 45 48 15 0 2.55
agricultural services.
There are sufficient financial resources to ensure the accomplishment of the 35 45 30 5 5 2.17
tasks under the responsibility of the local and decentralized institutions.
Provision of full information on the past, current and projected fiscal activity of 15 30 55 15 5 2.71
local government
Participatory and decentralized activities in the planning and implementation 5 50 55 10 0 2.58
of programs/projects.
Source: Field data, June 2017
responsibilities and powers between central government relevant to their needs nor they have the power to demand
line ministries and decentralized authorities are relatively better services. Accountability should be assured through
clear, they remain to be not fully implemented. Many line administrative mechanisms such as the establishment of
ministries still appear to be a long way from having shed monitoring and evaluation systems for extension activities
their operational functions and restricting themselves to both at region and ministry level. Decentralization requires
sectoral policy, regulation, technical backstopping and an institutional setting with an established legal framework,
research because regional/ local governments have not an active civil society, adequate capacity in decentralized
yet developed the technical, operational and functional institutions, and a system of accountability (World Bank,
capacities. . 2000).

The respondents also provided positive ratings (3.00 and Responsiveness

above out of 5.00 scale) for: the existence of codes of
conduct, conflicts of interests’ regulations, effective
accounting standards, and procurement rules; open
budget preparation, execution and reporting systems; and
provision of annual reports, and publication of actual and
expected results at the Ministry level.
Table 9 on the other hand shows low rating (2.55) for local
institution capacity. This shows that local institutions do not
have adequate technical capacity to provide appropriate
agricultural extension services. Local government working
units lack adequate financial resources to accomplish the
tasks assigned to them by central government within the
framework of PERA The respondents also provided low
ratings (below 3.00 out of 5.00 scale) for the provision of
full information on the past, current and projected fiscal
activity of local government, and for the participation of
farmers and stakeholders in the planning and
implementation of programs/projects in a decentralized
framework.
The respondents noted that with the existing decentralized
organizational structure enforcement of upward and
downward accountability mechanisms are difficult.
Farmers, who are users of extension services, neither able
to determine whether they are receiving services which are
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Responsiveness is the extent to which agricultural
extension service providers demonstrate receptivity to the
views, complaints and suggestions of farmers and service
users, by changing their own structure, culture and service
delivery patterns. Responsiveness requires meaningful
access to the right decision makers, and a legitimate
opportunity to be heard. Access is a key step in the policy
making process and without it responsiveness cannot be
ensured. The MoA and its agencies have to respond to
policy and program demands. Politically, financially and
administratively agencies must be equipped to deliver
services or otherwise satisfy public demands placed on
them.
As can be seen from table 10, agricultural extension
services are not responsive enough to farmers demand
and are not also participative in most of the cases. Existing
mechanisms for farmers’ participation in planning and
implementation of plans, programs and projects are rated
2.33 out of 5.00 Likert scales, which means they are less
responsive. Mechanisms for determining farmers need
and want are not in place and existing procedures are less
responsive for swift action .on farmers’ suggestions and
grievances (rated 2.38). The feedback mechanisms do not
provide adequate information to the farmers on how local
government responds to their demands.
Habtom GK. 060
Table 10. Responsiveness
Mechanisms are installed to allow farmers/ citizens participate in planning and
implementation of plans, programs and projects, for example, public hearings,
consultative public meetings, etc.
Mechanisms are in place to determine that farmers/ people’s needs and wants
are satisfied.
Presence of simple procedures to ensure fair and swift action on suggestions,
grievances etc. by the public/ farmers.
Availability of information to the public/ farmers to give feedback on how local
government responds to demands articulated by the constituents.
Source: Field data, June 2017
About 58% of the respondents stated that stakeholders
have less participation in agricultural planning and
implementation of programs and projects, and 38%
responded that stakeholders have fair participation. This
indicated that the system is less responsive to
stakeholder’s demand
Participation in the planning and implementation of
extension programs by all stakeholders especially farmers
ensures user ownership of programs, relevance to local
needs, improves accountability, program effectiveness
and strengthens farmers’ capabilities. Farmers can
participate by being involved in the program development
process such as identifying needs, setting and designing
program goals and program implementation. Both public
and private stakeholders such as research institutions and
commercial organizations (agricultural and food
processors, input distributors and retailers) should
participate also in extension processes. Diverse views,
skills and resources will improve program implementation
and strengthens the networks for better service delivery
and improved access.
The focus group discussants’ identified seven categories
for farmer participation in agricultural extension service
development, from least to most participatory, namely: (1)
passive participation; (2) information giving; (3)
consultation; (4) material incentives; (5) functional
participation; (6) interactive participation; and (7) self-
mobilization. In the participatory approach it has been
argued that the roles of agricultural professionals should
shift from that of teaching and ordering farmers to farm
properly to that of assisting farmers to make better farming
decisions. Experience has shown that extension services
which accommodate farmers’ varying interests, needs and
capacities help to improve agricultural production and
thereby to reduce rural poverty and food insecurity in poor
countries (Leta, et al. 2017). However, in many developing
countries, extension methodology still remains fixed in the
context where professionals regard themselves as the only
experts who have all the answers. About 43% of the
extension agents reported that method demonstration is
the most important learning techniques regarding farmer’s
education. The second most effective method identified by
extension agents was formal group meetings (27%), result
demonstration (15%), demonstration plot (8%), informal
discussion (5%) and direct contact method (2%)
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
INE WEF FEF EFF HEF XS
15 55 45 5 0 2.33
15 48 40 10 7 2.55
20 60 15 25 0 2.38
25 50 30 15 0 2.29
respectively. Agricultural extension services are still
features the classical model of technology transfer
adopted in the past. Farmers are compelled to adopt new
practices recommended as “one-size-fits-all” often with
little consideration of socio-economic and biophysical
variations across the country – which is contradictory to
the “best-fits” approach to agricultural advisory services
(Birner et al. 2006).
DISCUSSION
Despite the central role that agriculture plays in the
Eritrean economy, the sector continues to face four major
challenges that have to do with productivity, land use,
markets and value addition. The Eritrean agriculture is
dominated by subsistence, low input-low output, rain fed
farming system. In the focus group discussions, the staff
of Agricultural Extension Department, noted that currently
the level and the growth of agricultural productivity, in
Eritrea, is low due to a number of challenges; namely, less
effective and underfunded agricultural research and
technology transfer system; lack of effective mechanism
for linking research, extension and farmers; the low
availability of year-round irrigation; the limited availability
and affordability of key inputs (fertilizer, seed, breeds,
etc.); declining soil fertility; poor integration of research
and extension with the agricultural education system; and
high incidence of pests and diseases. The decentralized
agricultural extension system, in Eritrea, has not also
developed enough capability to mobilize all stakeholders –
research, farmer, input agency, private sector, NGO,
finance institutions, professional body etc. - to sustain
efficient and effective practice. A lesson can be learned
from the experience of Madagascar where various projects
are currently implemented through partnerships with the
private sector and NGOs, which is believed to increase
confidence in the extension service (Saliu et al. 2009).
Eritrean agricultural extension officials should give greater
emphasis to participatory research involving farmers with
researchers, extension agents and other kinds of experts.
They have to conduct more trials on farmers’ fields instead
of in research stations. Involve farmers and other persons
trained in agricultural development more fully in
establishing research priorities. Improve feedback
mechanisms from farmers to extension agents and

researchers. It should be realized that extension plays an
important facilitation role in helping farmers find their own
solutions to problems, and that farmers have considerable
knowledge about agriculture that can be helpful in seeking
solutions to farming issues through skilful facilitation. The
linkages between the research and extension systems
should be strengthened and extension agents should be
trained to facilitate the learning process, not messengers
who deliver technological recipes from the center.
Establish regular forums for interaction of researchers,
extension agents, and farmers, and increase opportunities
for extension agents to accompany researchers at
intervals in their work.
The FGD participants argued that extension should start
with knowledge management and ends up with human
enrichment. Extension staff should generate, demonstrate
and disseminate appropriate, safe, and cost-effective
agricultural technologies and research services to
enhance production and increase quality of products
through access to high quality agricultural technology,
agribusiness and advisory services for all categories of
farmers. Agricultural extension by its nature has an
important role in promoting the adoption of new
technologies and innovations. It brings about changes
through education and communication in farmer’s attitude,
knowledge and skills. The FGD participants urged for
agricultural extension staff to facilitate the organization of
farmers into production and marketing groups or
cooperatives to increase their bargaining power in
commodity and input markets and to facilitate efficient
service delivery. Extension officials, however, stated that
despite their importance cooperatives are not well
developed in Eritrea due to delays in the promulgation of
cooperative laws
Local institutions taking on responsibility for extension
require investments in staff development, facilities, and
management systems. Needed fiscal transfers should be
provided from central government to decentralized
implementing agencies to finance decentralized extension
services, recognizing that over the short term
decentralization rarely reduces requirements for central
government financing. Policy makers must allow time-
perhaps several years-for local institutions to develop this
capacity and experience needed for effective program
management.
Decentralization would not be effective especially when
administrative and technical capacities are
underdeveloped at local levels, and insufficient checks and
balances are in place. Experience has shown that in order
for decentralization to be effective and sustainable, the
right combination of factors and conditions must be
present. Its pace should not be too rushed, to allow for
adaptation, nor too slow to allow the process to forge
ahead. As a general rules of thumb decentralization
requires (World Bank, 2000): (a) sufficient financial
resources to ensure the accomplishment of the tasks
under the responsibility of the local and decentralized
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 061
institutions (b) actual empowerment of decentralized
institutions and enough power to influence the political
system and the development activities; (c) accountability
mechanisms such as local elections to improve
transparency and representation, as well as public access
to information on costs of services, delivery options,
funding sources and performance levels; (d) legal and
institutional framework clearly specifying the powers and
responsibilities of local governments to avoid interference
and overlapping with central government; and (e)
adequate capacities of local institutions to ensure delivery
of the appropriate services. There is little doubt that much
remains to be done before regional and local governments
in Eritrea will exercise significant control over
developmental, planning and budgeting activities. It also
seems clear that there is a continued need for “tinkering”
with the existing institutional arrangements in order to
increase downward accountability and transparency with
local government.
For successful decentralization in the agricultural sector,
local agricultural staff must have the requisite technical
and managerial capacity to provide services that are
relevant to the needs of farmers. The study reveals that
regional and local administrations do not have the capacity
that the national government has. Most of the regions, in
Eritrea, lack capacity to plan, manage, and evaluate
extension programs and lack the financial management
capacity to procure needed services. Agricultural
extension services are also not responsive enough to
farmers’ demand and in most of the cases they are not
participative. The functional analysis further reveals that in
developing countries like Eritrea there are four
requirements for successful decentralization. These are:
providing local people with substantial real influence over
the local political system and local developmental
activities; ensuring availability of financial resources
adequate for decentralized institutions to accomplish their
tasks; ensuring adequate administrative capacity in local
units to carry out their tasks; and establishing reliable
mechanisms for accountability of politicians and
bureaucrats to local people.
Decentralization does not mean that the national
government is to withdraw into a minimalist role of classical
liberalism. On the contrary, government should play an
activist role: in the mobilization of people in local
participatory development; in the provision of local support
by pump-priming local finance and underwriting risks; in
the supply of technical and professional services to build
local capacity; in the facilitation of watchdog mechanisms
for service quality standards, evaluation and auditing; in
the investment of large infrastructure, and in the framing of
coordinated mechanism to face externalities (FAO 2000;
Rivera and Zijp 2001; Rivera & Alex 2004). Furthermore, it
has been noted that only national governments can
promote increased institutional pluralism in extension
service provision and oversee the quality enhancement
and assurance necessary for rural development (Rivera
and Qamar, 2003). .
Habtom GK. 062
This study reveals that there are limitations both in human
and institutional capacity at regional, sub-regional and
village administration levels across a number of local
governments working units, leading to, in some cases,
slow program implementation, late preparation and
submission of required reports, and poor-quality reports.
This indicated that decentralization cannot be created or
accelerated by policy decisions alone, it will instead evolve
over time as regions, local economies and cultures
transform themselves and acquire the necessary skills and
knowledge. The functional analysis at region level
revealed that many local organizations lack capacity to
plan, manage, and evaluate extension programs and lack
the contacts and financial management capacity to
procure needed services; sub-regions have poor
communication linkages; inadequate resources including
finance, personnel and transport; there is reluctance of
competent staff to be posted at sub-region level due to
poor accommodation and services and weak structural
linkages to regional administration and village and area
administration institution. At area and village
administrations level, the functional analysis further
revealed that village and area administration has minimal
staff resources, limited capacity to adopt and implement,
limited government planning processes for local
development; and focus on emergency relief rather than
developmental activities. Decentralized systems,
especially in their early stages, require strong centralized
monitoring and evaluation systems to provide policy
makers with necessary information to understand how well
programs are functioning, who is benefiting, and what
impacts the programs are having. Peremptorily, the policy
of decentralization requires concomitant improved legal,
regulatory and financial framework to ensure clear division
of responsibilities, accountability and transparency.
It has been noted that most of the institutions that support
the agricultural sector need capacity building, particularly
at the region, sub-region and village/area administration
levels. Building local government capacity is a prerequisite
for decentralizing extension services, because local
governments often do not have the technical and
managerial capacity to take on responsibility for managing
technology programs. Local institutions taking on
responsibility for extension require investments in staff
development, facilities and management systems.
Extension staff must have adequate capacity and must be
trained in technical agriculture to be able to assist farmers
with improved crop varieties, planting techniques, efficient
input use, market conditions, and more effective
production management techniques (Anderson, 2007).
Policy makers must allow time-perhaps several years-for
local institutions to develop this capacity and experience
needed for effective program management. Crook &
Sverrisson (2001) noted that decentralized systems need
sustained government support to succeed, because most
decentralization reforms need a reasonable length of time
to become established. In their view it takes between ten
and fifteen years in the context of financial and political
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
stability for a decentralized system to show results that can
fairly judged. From the analyses, it has been noted that
there is a need for the creation of a national strategy for an
agricultural extension system that gives space for
pluralistic advisory services while still nurturing the
efficiency, effectiveness and inclusiveness of the public
agricultural extension service. In addition, proper
decentralization needs to be promoted to improve
participation and encourage all categories of farmers to
develop a sense of ownership and become beneficiaries
of the agricultural extension system.
CONCLUSION
Most regions, in Eritrea, lack capacity to plan, manage,
and evaluate extension programs and lack the contacts
and financial management capacity to procure needed
services. Building local government capacity is a
prerequisite for decentralizing extension services,
because local governments often do not have the technical
and managerial capacity to take on responsibility for
managing technology programs. Decentralized systems,
especially in their early stages, require strong centralized
monitoring and evaluation systems to provide policy
makers with necessary information to understand how well
programs are functioning, who is benefiting, and what
impacts the programs are having. Decentralization
requires also improved legal, regulatory and financial
framework to ensure clear division of responsibilities,
accountability and transparency.
The functional analysis at region and district levels
revealed that districts has poor communication linkages;
inadequate resources including finance, personnel and
transport; reluctance of competent staff to be posted at
district level due to poor accommodation and services; and
weak structural linkages to regional and local
administration institutions. The functional analysis further
revealed that districts have minimal staff resources; limited
capacity to adopt and implement; limited government
planning processes for local development; and focus on
emergency relief rather than developmental activities.
Most of the institutions that support the agricultural sector
need capacity building, particularly at regional and district
levels. Experience has shown that in order for
decentralization to be effective and sustainable, the right
combination of factors and conditions must be present.
Decentralization is less effective when administrative and
technical capacities are underdeveloped at local levels,
and insufficient checks and balances are in place.
On political factors, the study has shown that there has
been a relatively strong political commitment to
decentralize service delivery and ensure improved access.
This has been done through the promulgation of several
laws and policies since 1996, with the country taking
further steps in 2012 to consolidate decentralization. While
there is demonstrable political commitment, organizational

factors appear to be adversely affected the extension
system in Eritrea. On the organizational side, the
decentralized agricultural extension practice, in Eritrea,
has serious challenges: it is less responsive to the various
needs of farmers; its agricultural inputs are poorly
accessible to majority of smallholder farmers due to high
cost of input; it has limited market information and access
to credit; its research and technology transfer systems are
ineffective and underfunded; it has low availability of year
round irrigation; it relies on rain fed farming system and
declining soil fertility; it lacks effective mechanism for
linking research, extension and farmers; the agricultural
education system is poorly integrated with research and
extension systems; and it is affected by high incidence of
pests and diseases. The FGD participants stated that
some of these challenges can be faced by modifying the
training and visit system-for example, by working with
groups rather than individual farmers, or by increasing
reliance on radio and other mass media, and by educating
and enabling farmers to define and solve their own
problems, and by allowing farmers to determine and take
some responsibility for the extension services they require.
RECOMMENDATIONS
▪ Develop participatory technology generation and
dissemination involving NARI, MoA, regional
agriculture and land departments, and farmers, and
permit the development of technologies which are
responsive to smallholders’ farming system and ensure
cost-effective extension services.
▪ Strengthen the capacity of regional branch offices. Most
of the regions, in Eritrea, lack capacity to plan, manage,
and evaluate extension programs and lack the contacts
and financial management capacity to procure needed
services. Building local government capacity is a
prerequisite for decentralizing extension services,
because local governments often do not have the
technical and managerial capacity to take on
responsibility for managing technology programs.
Future capacity development initiatives should be
designed to maximize learning at each of the three
levels of capacity development: individual,
organizational, and enabling environment.
▪ To promote improved access to agricultural services, in
a decentralized system, there is need for clear legal
framework, good governance and adequate
institutional capacity. Stakeholders must participate in
planning, implementing and evaluating extension
services through accountability mechanisms, and there
should be adequate funding to ensure the sustainability
of decentralized agricultural services.
▪ In order to sustain improvements in agriculture,
government should provide to farmers sustainable and
reliable market access and outlets for their produce,
and develop and expand a sustainable nationwide
market information system that is transparent and
accessible to all agricultural sector stakeholders;
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 063
▪ The MoA should focus on strategic areas: streamlining
agricultural policy framework; creating an enabling
environment for the private sector; improving delivery
of support services (technical service backups);
promoting marketing, agro-processing and trade;
mainstreaming agricultural development issues in other
sectors, and strengthening institutional implementation
and monitoring frameworks.
▪ A bottom-up approach that is people-centred which will
enhance popular participation, understanding and
recognition of farmers’ indigenous knowledge and
experience should be put in place and use for
identification, planning and implementation of
agricultural extension projects. Furthermore, a policy
that would stimulate formation of farmer’s organization
which will encourage self reliance, demand driven and
cost-recovery should also be put in place.
▪ The MoA should develop performance measures by
clearly stating organizational objectives and the
relationship between inputs and outputs; workload and
productivity; outcomes of products and services;
service quality and client satisfaction. The public should
know what the MoA is doing and how its work is
performed. The Ministry should develop published
standards by which the public can judge whether the
MoA is performing satisfactorily and even doing a good
job. The MoA should enhance also public reporting
systems on the overall performance of the Ministry.
This involves providing information to the
public/farmers on the performance of regulatory
services, NARI and agricultural extension services.
REFERENCES
Ameur C. (1994). Agricultural Extension: A step beyond
the next step. World Bank Technical Paper 247. World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Anandajayasekeram P, Puskur R, Sindu ,W and Hoekstra,
D.(2008).Concepts and practices in agricultural
extension in developing countries: A source book.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute),
Washington, DC, USA, and ILRI (International
Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.275 pp.
Anderson, J.R. (2007). Agricultural Advisory Services.
Background Paper for the World Development Report,
2008. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Anderson, JR. and Feder, G. (2004).Agriculture extension,
good intensions and hard realities. The World Bank
Research Observer, 19(1): 41 – 60.
Anderson, JR, and FederG (2003). Rural Extension
Services. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper
2976.
Axinn, G. (1988), Guide on Alternative Extension
Approaches, FAO, Rome.
Besley, T., Pande, R. and Rao, V. (2007) Political
economy of panchayats in south India, Economic and
Political Weekly, 42(8): 661-66.
Habtom GK. 064
Besley, T., Pande, R., Rahman, L. and Rao, V. (2004) The
politics of public good provision: Evidence from Indian
local governments, Journal of the European Economic
Association, 2(2-3): 416-26.
Beynon, J. Akroyd, S., Duncan, A. and Jones, S. (1998),
Financing the Future: Options for Agricultural Research
and Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa, Oxford Policy
Management, Oxford.
Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E.,
Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., Mbabu, A.
Spielman, D.,
Horna, D., Benin, S., Cohen, M. (2006). From best practice
to best fit: A framework for designing and analyzing
pluralistic agricultural advisory services Worldwide.
Discussion paper: DSGD-37, EPID-155, FCND-210
and ISNAR-5. IFPRI, Washington, DC, USA.
Buttel, F. (1991). The Restructuring of the American Public
Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer
System: Implications for Agricultural Extension; in:
Rivera, W.M. and Gustafson, D.J. (Eds.); Agricultural
Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution and
Forces for Change. Elsevier Science Publishers.
Amsterdam.
Byerlee, D. (1998), “Agricultural Extension and the
Development of Farmers’ Management Skills”, In
J.Howell (ed.), Training and Visit Extension in Practice,
Agricultural Advisory Unit Occasional Paper 8, ODI,
London, pp. 8-27.
Carney D (1998). Changing Public and Private Roles in
Agricultural Service Provision Overseas Development
Institution, London pp. 110-115.
Chizari, M., Karbasioun M. and Linder, J.R. (1998).
Obstacles facing extension agents in the development
and delivery of extension education programs for adult
farmers in the province of Esfahan, Iran. J. Agric. Educ.
39(1): 48-54.
Contado, T.E. (1997). Formulating Extension Policy. In:
Swanson BE, Bentz RP and Sofranko AJ (eds),
Improving agricultural extension: A reference
manual. 3rd ed. FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.
Crook, R.C., Sverrisson, A.S. (2001) Decentralization and
Poverty-Alleviation in Developing Countries: A
Comparative Analysis or, is West Bengal Unique? IDS
Working Paper 130, Brighton: Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex.
Dancey, C P & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without maths
for psychology. Pearson Education.
Dinar A. (1996). Extension commercialization: How much
to charge for extension services. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 78(1).
Dinar, A. and Keynan, G. (2001). Economics of Paid
Extension: Lesson from Experience in Nicaragua”,
American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(3), 769-
76.
Eremie, S. (2006): Capacity building in agricultural
extension: the World Bank experience in Nigeria,
Journal of agricultural Extension, Vol. 9, pp1 – 7.
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
FAO (2000), Agricultural Knowledge and Information
System for Rural Development (AKIS/RD): Strategic
Vision and Guiding Principles, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations and the AKIS
Thematic Group of the World Bank, Rome, pp. 20.
FAO (1997).Improving agricultural Extension: A Reference
Manual. Swanson B.E.,Bentz R.P. and Sofranko A.J.
(eds). FAO, Rome.
Garforth, C. (2004). Demand-lead approaches. In: Rivera,
W. and Alex, G. (Ed.), Demand–Driven Approaches to
Agriculture Extension: Case Studies of International
Initiatives. The World Bank, -Washington, DC. pp. 3-6.
Gautam, M. (2002), Agricultural Extension: The Kenya
Experience: An Impact Evaluation, Operations
Evaluation Department, World Bank, Washington,
DC.
GoSE, Government of the State of Eritrea Ministry of
Agriculture (2006) Eritrea national agricultural
development strategy and policy, Volume 1.
Unpublished Government Document.
Guilford JP, Fruchter B (1973). Fundamental Statistics in
Psychology and Education. 5th edition, New York,
McGraw-Hill.
Habtom, G.K. (2014). Public Administration Reform in
Eritrea: Past Trends and Emerging Challenges. Journal
of Public Administration and Policy Research
6(3):44-58.
Hakim C (1987). Research design: Strategies and choices
in the design of social research (No. 13). Allen and
Unwin.
Haverland, B. and F.P. Kapila. (2000). Technological
aspects of extension service in developing countries.
Instt.of Tropical & Subtropical Agric. Czech Univ. of
Agric. Prague. 33: 3-9.
Holden S, Ashley S and Bazeley P. (1996). Improving the
delivery of animal health services in developing
countries. A literature review. Livestock in
Development. Crewkerne, UK.
Holloway, G.J. and Ehui, S.K. (2001), “Demand, Supply
and Willingness-to-Pay for Extension Services in an
Emerging Market Setting”, American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 83(3), 764-8.
Issa, F. O., S. J. Auta and M. F. O. Jaji (2010). An
Overview of the Challenges of Agricultural -- Extension
Practice, Capacity Building and Sustainability in
Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural and Rural
Development., IJARD 1 (2).
Keynan, G., Manuel, O. and Dinar, A. (1997). Co-Financed
Public Extension in Nicaragua, World Bank Research
Observer 12(2), 225-48.
Lai, K. C. and Cistulli, V. (2005).Decentralized
Development in Agriculture: An overview. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 10pp.
Leeuwis, C. and Van den Ban, A. (2004).Communication
for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural Extension.
Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford. 424pp.
Lele U, Pretty J, Terry E, Trigo E. (2010). Transforming
Agricultural Research for Development. Report for the
Global Conference on Agricultural Research (GCARD).

Leta, G., Kelboro, G., Stellmacher, T., and Hornidge, A.K.
(2017). The agricultural extension system in Ethiopia:
Operational setup, challenges and opportunities.
Working paper 158, Center for Development Research
University of Bonn.
Manor, J. (2011). Perspectives on Decentralization.
Working Paper No. 3. Sweden: Swedish International
Centre for Local Democracy.
Mullen, J.D., Vernon, D. and Fishpool, K.I. (2000),
“Agricultural Extension Policy in Australia: Public
Funding and Market Failure”, Australian Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics 44(4), 629-45.
Nagel, U. I. (1997). Alternative Approaches to Organising
Extension. In Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R. P. and
Sofranko, A. I. (Ed.), Improving Agricultural Extension.
A Reference Manual. Rome: FAO. pp. 13-20.
Ojha, G.P. & S.R. Morin. (2001). Partnership in agricultural
extension: Lessons from Chitwan (Nepal). Agricultural
Research and Extension Network. Network Paper No.
114, July 2001. Overseas Development Institute.
London.
Oladele, O. I. (2011) .Features of agricultural extension
models and policy in selected sub -Saharan Africa
countries. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for
International Development, 105 (1): 35 - 44
Oladele O.I., Koyama O., and Sakagami J.I. (2004). Africa
in search of extension system: Experience from
Nigeria. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment
Finland 2 (1): 276-280
Parker, A. (1995). Decentralization; The Way Forward for
Rural Development (Policy Research Working Paper
NO 1475). Washington DC.; The World Bank.
Peterson, W. (1997). The Context of Extension in
Agricultural and Rural Development. In: Swanson, B.
E., Bentz, R. P. and Sofranko, A. J. (Ed.), Improving
Agricultural Extension. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome, Italy. 206pp.
Pretty, J.N., & Chambers, R. (1993). Towards a Learning
Paradigm: New Professionalism & Institution for
Agriculture (Discussion Paper No. 334). Brighton, UK.
Institute of Development Studies.
Rivera, W.M. and Qamar M.K (2003) Agricultural
Extension, Rural Development and the Food Security
Challenge. Food and Agriculture of the United Nations,
Rome.
Rivera, W. M. and Zijp, W. (2001).Contracting for
Agricultural Extension: Case Studies and emerging
practices. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau
International, Wallingford, London.
Rivera W. and Alex G. (2004a). The continuing role of
government in pluralistic extension systems. Journal of
International Agricultural and Extension Education
11(3): 41-52.
Rivera W. and Alex G. (Editors), (2004b). Decentralized
system: Case studies of international initiatives.
Agriculture and rural development discussion paper 8,
Extension reform for rural development. World Bank.
Rogers, E. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. First Edition.
New York, Free Press.
An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea
Int. J. Public Admin. and Pol. Res. 065
Russell, D.B. Ison, R.L., Gamble, D.R., & Williams, R.K.
(1989). A Critical Review of Rural Extension Theory &
Practice. Sydney; Faculty of agriculture & Rural
Development, University of Western Sydney.
Saliu, J.O., Obinne, P.C. & Audu, S.I. (2009). Trends in
Agricultural Extension Services in Africa: Options for
New Approaches. Journal of Agricultural Extension and
Rural Development, Vol. 1(3). PP. 071-076. Academic
Journals
Saviroff, M., Lindarte, E. (2002) Reforming National
Extension: The Recent Experience of Venezuela.
Extension Case Study. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank.
Schwartz LA and Kampen J. 1992.Agricultural Extension
in East Africa. World Bank Technical Paper 164, World
Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Scoones, I., & Thompson, J. (Ed.). (1994). Beyond Farmer
First: Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural Research
& Extension Practice. London; Intermediate
Technology Publications.
Sharma, R.; Swanson, B.; Sadamate, V. (2001). Field-
Testing New Methodologies for Planning and
Implementing Extension Programs: A Comparison of
Innovative Extension Projects in India and the United
States.
In Association for International Agricultural and Extension
Education. Proceedings: 17th AIAEE Annual
Conference, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Semwenda, A.J. (2016) Challenges facing agricultural
extension in the current institutional context: The case
of Hai District, Kilomanjaro region. A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Masters of science in agricultural education
and extension of SOKOINE University of Agriculture,
Morogoro, Tanzania.
Sulaiman, R. V. (2003). Innovations in Agricultural
Extension in India, Part 1. Retrieved from FAO.
[http://www.fao.org/sd 12003/KN0603a en.htm] site
visited on 23/02/2019.
Swanson, B. E. and Samy, M. M. (2004). Introduction to
Decentralization of Agricultural Extension Systems:
Key Elements for Success. In Rivera, W. and Alex, G.
(Ed.), Decentralised Systems: Case Studies of
International Initiatives. Washington, DC. World
Bank.pp1-5.
Tapa, T. Ojha, G. (2002) Projectization in the Context of
Extension Reform in Nepal. Extension Case Study.
Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Thirtle, C., Lin, L. and Piesse, J. (2002), “The Impact of
Research Led Agricultural Productivity Growth on
Poverty Reduction in Africa, Asia and Latin
America”, draft paper, Imperial College, London.
Tossou, R. C. and Zinnah, M. M. (2005). Towards the
search for better institutional arrangements for
agricultural services in decentralized context. The
Case of Republic of Republic Benin. Journal of
International Agricultural and Extension Education,
12(3): 43- 52.
Habtom GK. 066

Umali-Deininger D. (1997). The public and private sector

in agricultural extension: Partners or rivals. World Bank
Research Observer 12(2):203–224.
United Nations (2005). Policy Dialogue: Decentralization
for Poverty Reduction. from UN. [http://www.
unescap.orgIpdd/CPRlCPR2005/English/CPR2
L2E.PDF] site visited on 17/03/2014.
UNDP, (2009), UNDP Report.
www.hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles//ERI.html
Van den Ban, A.W. (2000), Different Ways of Financing
Agricultural Extension, Agricultural Research &
Extension Network Paper 106b, Overseas
Development Institute (ODI), London, pp. 8-19.
Wilson, M. (1991), “Reducing the Costs of Public
Extension Services: Initiatives in Latin America”, In
W.M. Rivera and D.J. Gustafson (eds.),
Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional
Innovation and Forces for Changes, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 13-21.
World Bank (2004). Mass media and communications
technologies in extension. [http:/ www.esd.worldbank.
org/ais/index.cmf?Page=mdisp&m=03&p=4] site
visited on 20/9/2013. Yin,
World Bank (2000).Decentralising Agricultural Extension:
Lesson and Good practice. [http://siteresources.
worldbank.org/INTARD/8258261111063678817/20431
788/Decentalization.pdf] site visited on 12/8/2019.
World Bank.(1995). Participation Source Book.
Washington, DC, USA.
Zijp W. (1998). Extension: Empowerment through
communication. In: Wallace IR (ed), Rural knowledge
systems for the 21st century: Rural extension in
western, central and eastern Europe. Proceedings of
the symposium held at Reading, Cambridge
and Edinburgh universities 6–17 July 1997. AERDD,
The University of Reading, Reading, UK.

Accepted 2 November 2019

Citation: Habtom GK. (2019). An Overview of the

Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension
Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea.
International Journal of Public Administration and Policy
Research, 4(3): 045-066.

Copyright: © 2019 Habtom GK. This is an open-access

article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.

An Overview of the Challenges of Decentralized Agricultural Extension Practice in Developing Countries: The Case of Eritrea