Decentralization and Access to Agricultural Extension Services in Kenya

1. Decentralization and Access to Agricultural Extension Services in Kenya Omiti, J.M., Mugunieri, G.L. and E. Nambiro

2. Introduction • Decentralise to make Extension Services more accessible, accountable and also empower clientele (farmers). • Two common forms of decentralisation: • Shift extension provision to other institutions - e.g, KTDA for tea, HCDA for horticulture • Change management of programs through farmer participation in decision-making and responsibility for extension programs

3. Empowerment and Participation • Empowerment entails: • Capacity Building • Raising Awareness • Greater farmer participation to exert pressure on extension services to provide timely and relevant advice

4. Extension Delivery Systems • Public delivery and public finance – traditional government extension but diminished budgetary support (high potential areas) • Public delivery and private finance – contracting public staff (high potential areas/high value produce) • Private delivery and private finance – privatised extension (high value enterprises, Agrovets) • Private delivery and public finance – NGOs, CBOs (low potential areas)

5. Research Problem • Decentralisation appears to have been successful for high-value produce (tea, Coffee, horticulture, etc) • Some segments have not benefited, e.g. • Low-value/traditional food crops • Agro-pastoral livestock production • Segments of smallholder dairy • Can these poor farmers afford privatised extension services?? • What are the workable delivery models for enhanced growth of Rural Economy?

6. Research Objectives • Identify types, quality, cost and access to different extension delivery channels • Identify opportunities for broader participation in a decentralised environment

7. Methods and Data • Kakamega District - High potential • Ikolomani & Municipality Divisions • Makueni District - Low potential • Kibwezi & Makindu Divisions • Random sampling of households - 250 farmers • Primary and Secondary data • Logit and Probit models • Willingness to Pay (Contingent Valuation Method)

8. Major Extension Delivery Systems • Kakamega (high potential) mainly served by Public delivery and private finance • Makueni (low potential) dominated by Private delivery and public finance • Limited public delivery and public finance in both districts • Increased decentralisation enhanced level of awareness (empowerment) by farmers of the different channels for extension service delivery

9. Determinants of Access to Extension • Distance to source (-) • Gender (favouring male) • Age (-) • Education level (+) • Ownership of telephone (+) • Social capital (+) • Income (ability to pay) (+)

10. Ranking of Different Extension Channels

11. Effects of Decentralization • Stimulates formation of farmer organisations (social capital), a proxy for participation which is believed to facilitate accountability of extension to farmers. • Enhances social capital which is an importantdeterminant of access to extension service. • Encourages a pluralistic approach in the provision of extension services, with synergy within this pluralism.

12. Conclusions • Develop strategies to exploit and build on partnership and pluralism arising from decentralisation • Strengthen and implement policies that will institutionalise pluralistic extension services • Promote development of social capital so as to foster an efficient and sustainable extension system • Emphasize formation and strengthening of farmers' groups for sustainable rural development • Promote mechanisms to enhance co-ordination amongst different extension service providers.

13. Acknowledgements • Farmers • Enumerators • SAGA programme • Colleagues (for comments and suggestions) • THANK YOU ALL