Farmers’ Perceptions of Agricultural Extension Agents’ Performance in Sub-Saharan African Communities

Agriculture extension primarily deals with human resource development and the transfer of technology and knowledge from agricultural research centers to rural farmers. Extension agents are professionals in the extension system responsible for developing individuals in the community (Oladele 2015). However, a key failure point of traditional extension models is the number of farmers per extension officer – they cannot visit all the smallholder farmers effectively and in a timely manner. The ratio in Nigeria is currently one extension worker: 3000 farmers (Fawole and Olajide, 2012; Ogbe, 2016; Sennuga, 2019). This ratio is grossly inadequate and highly disturbing considering the World Bank'sstandard which is 1:500 (World Bank, 2010). Where extension workers act as bridges between researchers and farmers, for example, in traditional Training & Visit extension the ratio should be 1:200 farmers within a cluster so that they can have a meaningful impact by effectively teaching and monitoring the farmers‟ progress (Ogundele, 2016; Sennuga, et al. 2020). Furthermore, by focusing on lead farmers backed up by farmer to farmer extension, then a ratio of 1: 500 advocated by the World Bank could be effective. Key challenges facing extension workers in Nigeria include extremely low extension agent to-farmers ratios; alack of essential technical and communication skills for efficient functioning; alack of a definite plan of work; too few qualified and trained extension staff using outdated information; under resourced transport and logistics; poor, weak and deteriorated infrastructure; extension organization and management problems; unclear extension mandates; lack of job descriptions for staff; poor remuneration of the personnel; and a high rate of absenteeism among staff (see Naswem et al. 2008; Baig and Aldosari 2013; Sennuga, et al. 2020). Consequently, in a reaction to the worrisome performance in the agricultural sector, the Nigerian Government embarked on several agricultural interventions and reforms, with policies and programs explicitly designed at reinvigorating the sector to its enviable position in the Nigerian economy between 1959 and 2003. The use of ICT potentially allows extension workers to contact more farmers with appropriate and up-to-date information in a timely manner. Asenso-Okyere and Ayalew-Mekonnen (2012) stressed that traditional ICT, particularly radio, can enable extension worker to reach out to half a million smallholder farmers simultaneously in their local language with knowledge and information which enables farmers, strengthens them, assists smallholders in problem solving and allows farmers to make informed decisions. 1.1 Evolution of Agricultural Extension in Africa Africa is the only continent in the world where agricultural productivity is largely stagnant whilst populations grow rapidly, resulting in food insecurity and malnutrition among the populace (Madhusudan, 2005; FAO 2015). Agricultural production has been limited by various constraints, such as lack of adequate research in science and technology, inadequate dissemination of research, ineffective utilization of soil resources, low commodity prices and unstable markets for agricultural products, as well as storage issues (Awoyinka, 2009; Saingbe, 2010; Awerije, 2014; Sennuga, et al. 2020). All these constraints are frequently emphasized by the lack of capital which is fundamental for agricultural development (Kennedy, 2005). According to Simpson and Owen (2012) there are six key challenges facing agricultural extension in Africa: 1. Relevance and responsiveness of research to local concerns. 2. Systems learning and the generation of new knowledge. 3. Information flow and farmer-to-farmer communication. 4. Institutionalization and Local Organizational Development. 5. Changes in relationships. 6. The integration of the Farmer Field School into the existing program.

Experience from other parts of the world, particularly in the developing countries of Asia and Latin America, shows that agriculture has been rapidly transformed in recent years into a progressive commercial industry and treated as a full business (Thirtle and Piesse, 2013). Investment in the agricultural sector with adequate agricultural information technology has enabled farmers to intensify production and lead to sustainable development which enhances their standard of living as well as contributing significantly to national and rural prosperity within environmental constraints (Ali, 2011). This could also happen in Africa if smallholder farmers could be assisted with the necessary resources to intensify their farming activities through increased use/effectiveness of agricultural extension services delivery and information technology. There is a general consensus that extension services, if successfully applied, could result in outcomes which include observable changes in attitudes and adoption of Good Agricultural Practice technologies and improve the quality of lives of farming households (Yegbemey, et al. 2014, Sennuga, 2019). Similarly, it has been recognized that effective agricultural extension services could accelerate development in the presence of other important factors such as markets, agricultural improved technology, availability of supplies, production incentives (quality seeds, fertilizers and herbicides) and transport. Over the years, a number of extension models have been adopted in developing countries to enhance the effectiveness of agricultural extension services and service delivery. According to Anandajayasekeram et al. (2008) a model may be defined as a schematic description of a system, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be utilized for the further study of its characteristics.

Top-down extension approach is a system whereby agricultural information from the Universities or Ministry of Agriculture is disseminated to farmers through extension agents and is directly related to the diffusion of innovation theory. This extension structure is known as Transfer of Technology (TOT) through extension workers who are also passive recipients of technology from the researchers to farmers. Top-down methods characterized the United States extension model, which was also instituted by many colonial governments in Africa (Anandajayasekeram, et al. 2008). In Africa, the system helps to promote agricultural messages that have been designed and developed by research scientists, with limited input by the ultimate users (farmers) of the technologies. Technologies are spread vertically in the top-down approach (Anandajayasekeram, et al. 2008).

In developing countries, agricultural extension services have been the exclusive domain of the public sector and government responsibility, while inmost developed countries, extension services are mainly privatized (Swanson and Samy, 2012) as agriculture becomes more commercial. Public extension deals with diverse policy issues, including responsiveness; relevance; cost-effectiveness and accountability (Swanson and Samy, 2012). The overall objective has constantly been to contribute to the increase of agricultural production and productivity of the rural population (Shinn et al. 2009), utilizing mainly a top-down approach, through the Transfer of Technology (TOT). As mentioned previously, this model is strongly linked to the diffusion of innovation theory proposed by Rogers. This theory is known for the linear technology transfer which tends to work better only in the developed nations. Rogers himself moves away from linear technology process with the convergent model in the latest version of his theory (Rogers, 2003, Anandajayasekeram, et al. 2008). In this model, technologies are generated at research stations and diffused to extension agents who in turn disseminate them to the farmers (Davis and Place, 2003), in other words a one-way transfer of information.

The information flow from the Ministry of Agriculture is absolutely supply-driven and not area-specific (Raabe, 2008), meaning that inmost cases the technical knowledge transferred into the field is distorted, outdated and often wrong for the specific situation. Thus, farmers seethe quality of the information provided by the public extension staff as a major shortcoming (Oladele, 2015), where a top-down approach continues to hinder the full potential of the extension service delivery system (Raabe, 2008). Under the Ministry-based extension model, smallholder farmers‟ access to extension is also an issue, because of the low level of outreach by public extension services. The public extension model often has little to offer in terms of messages to a large section of the rural population. In fact, there is no specific answer to farmers‟ problems because it has not been a research concern to reach the farming community (Eicher, 2007). The top-down approach to information dissemination to farmers in Nigeria has indeed received various criticisms, while calls for participatory approach in both agricultural policy formulation and information dissemination that incorporates farmers‟ contribution persists (Emeana, et al. 2019).

As a result, public extension came under attack in the 1980s because of the cost of financing it coupled with condemnations of insignificance, inefficiency, ineptness and lack of equity (Rivera 2001). In addition, the current ratio of extension agents to farm families is extremely low inmost developing countries and this has been a continual threat to efforts in achieving food sufficiency. This case is not different in Nigeria even with the current ratio of 1:3000 farm families; some states such as Lagos, Nigeria reported 1:10,000 (Ogundele 2016; Sennuga, 2019). Ideally, the ratio should be 1:200 farmers within a cluster so that they can make a meaningful impact by effectively training and monitoring the farmers‟ progress. Since the mid-1980s, agricultural extension has become a “pluralistic” method (Birner and Anderson, 2007). Public extension leaders have recognized the interdependent economic and social roles of NGO and private sector extension models in agricultural and rural development projects. The new ideas include decentralization, cost-recovery, outsourcing and involvement of other key stakeholders (Ferroni and Zhou, 2012). According to Swanson and Samy (2002), collaboration among the three key stakeholders is important to effectively work together in partnership for the development of the agricultural sector and rural community (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: Conceptual framework depicting a Public, Private and NGO Partnership Adapted from Swanson and Samy 2012 This model also describes the partnership between the key players in agricultural extension and advisory services for sustainable agricultural development. The major responsibility of public extension is typically human resource development, technology transfer and educational programs in order to complement the social capital development of NGOs and the role of private sector extension model (Swanson and Samy 2012; Figure 1). In developing countries, there is a lot of collaboration between private sector, government, non-governmental organization and international donors to address food security issues and sustainable development (Sennuga and Fadiji, 2020).

According to World Bank (2010), public extension is incapable of serving resource-poor farmers due to inadequate linkages between research and extension; inadequate finance support; and poor human resource and facilities. In addition, the system‟sdesigner stressed the following characteristics: 1) a single line of command, with several tiers of management between the field and supervisor; 2) in-house technical expertise, whereby subject matter specialists are to provide training; 3) exclusive dedication to information dissemination; and, 4) a seasonal workshop with research personnel among others (Anderson and Feder, 2003). Farmers‟ perceptions regarding agricultural extension agents‟ performance in Northern Nigeria is yet to be established and this is why this study was conducted. Therefore, the main objective of this study is to investigate farmers‟ perceptions regarding agricultural extension agents‟ performance in Kaduna State, Nigeria. The specific objectives of this study are to: i. Examine the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers and extension agents; ii. Investigate farmers‟ perceptions regarding extension agents‟ performance; iii. Examine the relationship between farmers‟ perceptions regarding extension agents‟ role in helping smallholders to increase crop production; iv. Explore the preferred sources of agricultural information among smallholder farmers; v. Highlight the current problems affecting extension services in the study area.