Posted July 1996

Harmonizing T&V Extension: Some Experiences from Turkey

Introduction

In some countries, there have been modifications of some of the principles of T&V (e.g., reducing the fortnightly training schedules) and changes in the extension strategies employed (e.g., less reliance on individual contact farmers and more reliance on farmer contact groups). Advocates of T&V extension contend, however, that while organizational patterns will vary in different countries, the management and functional norms of T&V extension should not be altered because to do so dilutes the efforts. Certain features of the T&V system, according to its proponents, cannot be changed significantly without adversely affecting its operation (Benor and Baxtor, 1984).

While one of the main principles of T&V extension is to create a single unified national system of extension, the reality in most countries is that there are multiple extension initiatives including those of commodity boards, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), farmers' groups, agri-businesses, and others. Integration of these multiple sources of extension within a unified national extension system is difficult to achieve and, given the diversity of farmers, does not guarantee that the needs of certain groups of farmers for technical services will be met. Some observers of extension contend that a rich variety of extension approaches may better meet the diverse needs of different groups and types of farmers (Arnolt,1994).

Finally, the T&V system has been criticised for its excessive emphasis on "message delivery". Schuh (1989) contends that T&V extension "tends to focus on identifying useful knowledge messages and diffusing them among farmers... There is little development of cognitive skills or the ability to think things through".

This message transfer approach contrasts sharply with an extension approach that has an educational focus -- that is, extension that is designed to help farmers develop their own skills for acquiring and analyzing knowledge/information. These contrasting approaches have clear implications for how extension is organized and how farmers participate in the process.

This article discusses the conventional organization of extension services in Turkey and an effort to re-orient the system according to the principles of T&V extension. Similarities and differences between "conventional" extension approach and the T&V approach are presented, with particular focus on modifying T&V extension to fit Turkish conditions and on the need to introduce a more participatory, team approach to working with farmers.

Conventional extension in Turkey

The current "conventional" extension system, is characterized by a technology transfer approach as opposed to facilitating farmer participation in technology development and dissemination. It does not attempt to target specific groups of farmers, and uses mainly face-to-face communication with little use of mass media. Linkages to research are weak. Extension agents provide mainly advice, although they sometimes provide inputs for activities such as demonstrations. The focus tends to be on individual crops and livestock rather than the household economy/farming system. In-service training is irregular at best.

The conventional extension system is also characterized by a lack of coordination between towns and villages; inadequate funding; insufficient training material and equipment; a lack of two-way flow of information between extension workers and farmers; lack of transportation for extension workers; and a reluctance on the part of staff to reside in towns/villages. In 1984, T&V extension was introduced to address some of these factors that were limiting the effectiveness of the conventional extension system.

The T&V extension approach in Turkey

Table 1 (below) compares the conventional extension approach with the T&V approach as implemented through the TYUAP. The major differences between the two approaches are with respect to extension-research linkages, individual versus group contact and the provision of regular in-service training. The T&V approach tends not to involve extension workers in input supply services for farmers and is more inclined to focus on specific crops. Both approaches generally ignore the mass media and focus more on top-down technology transfer than on farmers' participation in deciding programme goals and how programmes should be implemented and evaluated. Table 1 also shows the characteristics of a proposed alternative -- the Extension Team Approach (ETA) -- which is described in the following section.

As the Table shows, there are substantial similarities between the conventional extension approach and the T&V approach. It also indicates that it is possible to achieve some re-orientation of the extension organization through the T&V approach, with positive benefits such as improved training and extension-research linkages.

However, T&V extension, with its focus on individual contact farmers, has not reached a wide range of Turkish farmers. In particular, it has not had much impact on mixed crop farming systems since village-level extension workers have tended to focus on specific crops grown in monoculture. With monocropping, extension responsibilities are narrower and it is easier for extension workers to transfer technology than in mixed farming systems where there is a high level of crop variation and thus diverse production problems.

The Turkish experience with T&V extension suggests that it is difficult to replace the existing "conventional" extension system with a "new" system. While certain aspects of the T&V system have been successfully implemented with positive results, aspects of the "old" system have remained, and in some ways the two systems display common weaknesses, for example, an emphasis on top-down technology transfer. The flow of communication from farmers to extension staff, and especially from certain groups of farmers (e.g., mixed-crop producers), is lacking in both systems, although the communication flow between extension and research units is improved in the T&V system.

In general, the T&V approach in Turkey demonstrates centralized control of programme planning with decisions about which crops to concentrate on and which practices to be taught to farmers made by "professionals" (i.e., SMS). Extension activities follow a rigid schedule with little input from farmers with the result that programmes tend to lack relevance to local farm problems. In many cases VEWs, who are supposed to live in their work areas but often do not, have become essentially little more than purveyors of centrally-prepared messages.

The participatory, team approach to extension

Farmers, selected by farmers' groups/villages, are part of the teams in a consultative/collaborative mode and with joint decision making responsibility. An important function of these farmers is a "farmer-to-farmer" extension role. Supported by extension staff, they are the main contact with targeted groups of farmers in the team's area of work. Group discussions are used to determine farmers' problems, needs, resources and self-help capabilities. Based on assessments of current farming systems, modifications are proposed and on-farm tests and demonstrations of proposed practices established. Group level workshops are used to monitor and evaluate results.

Instead of transferring fixed technical packages, the extension team presents groups of farmers with alternative potential technologies to evaluate themselves, thus recognizing the critical role of farmers' technology evaluations of (e.g., rewards, risks costs) in adoption. This allows farmers in diverse production environments to experiment with and locally adapt a flexible range of technologies. The focus is on understanding farmers' own innovations and their experimentation with and adaptation of proposed technologies. Farmer-to-farmer training is used as a method to communicate technologies to groups of farmers wanting solutions to the same or similar problems. Subject-matter specialists backstop the efforts of team farmers and extension staff by appraising technological options, helping to design appropriate on-farm tests and to evaluate results and by providing training.

Harmonizing T&V: a case study

Extension performance in the area generally was poor: the organization and structure of extension functions was not clear, extension workers, who were in short supply, spent much of their time on bureaucratic matters and "programme planning was quite technocratic, with very little participation from the village clientele" (Contado and Maalouf, 1990).

Through the project, extension was reformed following many of the principles of T&V extension, but with a village-level team approach and farmer participation as the basis for extension activities. A clear line of supervision was established and the responsibilities and functions of extension staff at the provincial level were clearly delineated with subject-matter specialists playing a key support role for extension technicians and village-level extension workers.

Priority farming problems and needs were identified through village meetings. Selected farmers, called "foremen", were trained and hired as village extension workers. At the village level, the "extension team" consisted of technicians, foremen and leader farmers who were backstopped by subject-matter specialists at the provincial level.

Following the T&V methodology, training of extension technicians and foremen was carried out every two weeks by subject-matter specialists. Working with the leader farmers as the point of contact, groups of farmers were reached through on-farm trials and farmer-conducted demonstration/training workshops.

The cost of the project and the sustainability of its results were a major concern in the evaluation of the project (Contado and Maalouf, 1990). During the project life, extension expenditures increased eight-fold. In the project area, the extension cost per farmer was 27% higher than the national average and the expenditure per extension worker was about 28% higher. These project costs were associated with increases in extension staff, increases in coverage and intensity of extension activities, and increases in operational and training costs.

At the same time, the impact of this intensified extension effort was impressive. For example, about 65% of the 85,300 farmers in area (or 55,500 farmers) were in direct contact with extension through the various field activities. In terms of production increases, wheat production increased 76%, barley 64%, rice 86%, while cow and goat milk production increased 65% and 128%, respectively. Overall, agricultural productivity in the project area (as measured by the value of the agricultural domestic product, AGDP, in the two provinces) increased eleven-fold. While various factors undoubtedly contributed to this increase, improved extension was a major factor.

Conclusion

• Emphasis in all activities on farmer participation as the means to achieve extension relevance and sustainability of actions.
• Emphasis on an issues/problem-oriented approach, on organizing farmers to participate in technology development and dissemination, and on assessing their problems, needs and resources as the basis for proposing farming modifications.
• Extension efforts directed to specific groups of farmers with a farming systems/household economy orientation as opposed to specific crops or commodities.
• Use of both mass media and face-to-face/group communication, with farmers participating in message design and delivery, and messages communicated to specific audiences with similar characteristics.
• Strong linkages established with research, with other area development efforts and with farmers through a team approach that places emphasis on the consultative/collaborative role of farmers
• Emphasis on providing advice, but with educational as opposed to technology transfer goals.
• Regular in-service training for extension workers and team farmers, and the use of group-level activities for technology assessment and farmer training.

If some basic elements of the T&V system, such as regular in-service training and improved research-extension linkage, are maintained and the Extension Team Approach is introduced at the town/village level, the result would be an extension system that is better suited to the needs of Turkish farmers and which gives them an active role in technology generation, evaluation and diffusion. The design of such a system will require "harmonizing" the T&V approach with the existing system and with a participatory team approach to extension.

References

Bagchee, A. (1994). "Agricultural Extension in Africa". Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Benor, D. and M. Baxtor. (1984). "Agricultural Extension. The Training and Visit System". Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Contado, T.E. and W.D. Maalouf. (1990). "Agricultural Extension in Corum-Cankiri: A Case Study Under the Rural Development Project in Turkey". Rome: FAO.

Kumuk, T. (1990). "Some Observations on T&V Implementation in Turkey". Agricultural Extension Seminar, January 10-12, Izmir, Turkey.

Osborn, T. (1995). "Participatory Agricultural Extension: Experience from West Africa". London: IIED.

Schuh, G.E. (1989). "Extension Support Activities and Technology Utilization for Poor Small Farmers". In "Technology Systems for Small Farmers" (A.M. Kesseba, ed). Boulder: Westview Press.