agricultural extension in sudan, policies …2002), scaling up the impact of rural development ngos...
TRANSCRIPT
Supervisors: Associate Professor Tekeste Negash and Professor Kjell Havnevik
MASTERSTHESIS NO. 27 Mohamed Eltahir Eltayeb
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN SUDAN,POLICIES AND REALITY
THE CASE OF KHARTOUM STATE
Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesDepartment of Rural Development and AgroecologyUppsala, 2005 • ISSN 1403-7998
No. 13 Lloyd, Sarah E. (2001), The emergent landscape in Sweden: A case study of relationships betweensocio-economic and ecological space in Jokkmokk.No. 14 Nilsson, P-O. (2002), Local management of natural resources: A case study of local communitiesrelations to protected areas.No. 15 Bueschel, Doreen. (2002), Dependency on a woodland resource: Contribution of non-timber forestproducts to the livelihood of San Vakwangali Households in western Kavango, Namibia.No. 16 Omenge, Philip Manyi. (2002), The role of butterfly farming in forest conservation and communitydevelopment in Kenya.No. 17 Wigforss, Niclas. (2002), Scaling up the impact of rural development NGOs in Nepal: a case study ofFORWARD.No. 18 Sonnvik, Per. (2002), From coping to development in a peripheral rural community: A case study fromDrevdagen in Sweden.No. 19 Aheto, Denis Worlanyo. (2002), The policy approach to HIV/AIDS prevention impacts & challengesto rural development: A comparative study of Thailand and Ghana.No. 20 Nyang’au, Isaac Mbeche. (2002), The role of informal sector in rural development: A case study of carpentryand tailoring in Gucha district, Kenya.
DEPARTMENT PUBLICATIONS
The Department of Rural Development Studies publishes
- FTP Newsletter,- a Masters Thesis series- a Proceedings series- a Rural Development Studies series, and- a Working Papers series.
The Masters Thesis seriesTheses of exceptional merit are published in this series after being subjected to a review and editingprocedure.
No. 1 Huber, Bernard (1999), Communicative aspects of participatory videoprojects: an exploratory study.No. 2 Duveskog, Deborah (1999), The Andean lifeline-irrigation canals: An exploratory study of managementand the use of water resources in El Angel Watershed, Carachi, Equador.No. 3 Marquardt, Kristina (2000), Locally developed agriculture- a possibility or obstacle for preventingsoil degradation?No. 4 Forsberg, Lorentz (2000), Nutcracker culture- An exploratory study of cashew processing women i nSouth-eastern Tanzania.No. 5 Legesse, Belaineh (2000), Smallholders' risk perception and coping strategies- The case of Kersaand Babile, Eastern Ethiopia.No. 6 Gahiro, Leonidas (2000), Coffee production and export marketing structure- The case of Burundi.No. 7 O'Hara, Peter (2000), A marriage between trade and aid, a better chance for an effective developmentNo. 8 Nkongolo, Muela Ngalamulume (2000), Customary tenure and land reform in South Africa- TheCunu Tribal Authority.No. 9 Kassa, Habtemariam (2000), Livestock production, household food security and sustainability insmallholder mixed farms- A case study from Kombolcha Woreda of Eastern Ethiopia.No. 10 Sodarak, Houmchitsavath (2000), Shifting cultivation practices by Hmong, Khamu and ethniccategories in the Nam Nane Watershed, Nane District, Luang Prabang Province, Lao PDR.No. 11 Salih, Mohamed Kamal-Eldin M. (2000), Description of migrant settlement in Greater Khartoum-With special reference to the Western Sudanese, their expectations and their experiences.No. 12 Khalid, Zeenath & Quintana, Paula (2001), Livestock and differentiated rural livelihood systemsin Northern Pakistan.
The Master thesis series continued:
No. 21 Osbeck, Maria (2002), Going beyond HIV/AIDS: A study of HIV/AIDS affected farm household innorthern rural Thailand.No. 22 Hofisi, Fortunate (2003), Farmer field schools as a learning process for resource.poor farmers: TheAfFORest experience in the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe.No. 23 Awuonda, Moussa (2003), The Voices of Dunga: Crtical study of Lake Victoria fisherfolk and theirperspectives on fishery management, globalisation and environmental crises on their livelihoods and local institu-tions.No. 24 Otto, Lilja May (2003), Hamburgers and Coke or Bread and Roses? Learning responsible consumption.No. 25 Giang, Le Minh (2003), Community Forest Management: A case study of Tay people at Tat village, TanMinh commune, Da Bac district, Hoa Binh province, Vietnam.No. 26 Widengård, Marie (2004), Intellectual property rights in common bean breeding: Opportunities andconstraints for local and participatory breeding in Nicaragua.
Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesDepartment of Rural Development and AgroecolgyBox 7005S-750 07 UPPSALASweden
Telephone: +46 18 67 26 35Fax: +46 18 67 34 20E-mail: [email protected]
Table of content Abstract .........................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................4 Introduction...................................................................................................................6 1.1. Some facts and figures about Sudan ...............................................................7 1.2. Brief history of agriculture and agricultural policies in Sudan.......................8 1.2.1. Agricultural modernization in independent Sudan ......................................9 1.3. Brief history of agricultural extension in Sudan ..........................................12 1.4. View on the Agricultural Extension strategies in Sudan..............................14 1.4.1. Methods of communication with the farmers used by the extension departments ...............................................................................................................14 1.5. The social interaction and the household ......................................................16 1.6. Objectives ...........................................................................................................16 1.7 Methods................................................................................................................16 1.8. Limitations of the study .....................................................................................17 The Theoretical Framework.....................................................................................18 2.1. What is agricultural extension? .......................................................................19 2.2. Extension models ..............................................................................................20 2.3. The technology transfer model........................................................................21 2.4. Farmer First model ............................................................................................22 2.5. Participatory Model............................................................................................22 2.6. Sustainable development extension model...................................................23 The Empirical Study..................................................................................................25 3.1. Shambat agricultural area ................................................................................26 3.1.1. Coordination between the farmers ..............................................................30 3.1.2. The relation between the farmers and the extension agents at Shambat area..............................................................................................................................32 3.1.3. The life of the farmers at Shambat area.....................................................33 3.2. Suba village ........................................................................................................33 3.2.1. The demographic features of Suba Village................................................34 3.2.2. Result of interviews with the group of farmers at Suba village ...............34 3.2.3. The matrix ranking method ...........................................................................36 3.2.4. Resistance to New Innovations....................................................................37 3.2.5. Interview with extension agents in Suba village........................................38 3.2.6. The relation between the farmers and the extension agents ..................39 Discussion and Conclusion......................................................................................41 4.1. Farmers’ perceptions to new innovations ......................................................42 4.2. Discussion on the farmer’s source of information at Suba village .............43 4.3 The extension models........................................................................................44 4.4 Applying the interdependency approach model to agriculture extension ..45 4.5. Results ................................................................................................................46 4.6 Some strategies for enhancing agricultural extension services ..................48 References .................................................................................................................52 Appendices.................................................................................................................55
List of figures 1. Sustainable development extension model………………………………………242. Some samples of publications used by agriculture extension administration………………………………………………………………………293. Venn diagram: Cooperation between the farmers at Shambat agricultural area………………………………………………………………………. ………..31 4. The interdependency approach model to agriculture extension .……………….46
List of tables 1. Central issues in the four extension models ….....………………………………212. Some Statistics about the farmers in Shambat agricultural area ….…………….263. Sources of information for farmers at Shambat area ………….…….……. 274. Matrix Ranking. The preferences of farmers at Suba village to different sources of information……………………………………………………………..37
2
Abstract
The objectives of this thesis are, firstly to explore the farmers conditions in Khartoum
State in relation to the agriculture extension services delivered to them by the State
Ministry of Agriculture. And then compare the conditions of the farmers with the
declared agriculture extension policies by the agriculture extension administration.
To accomplish these objectives I have chosen two agriculture areas inside Khartoum
State which are Shambat area and Suba village (See appendix 1). Interviews with two
groups of farmers have been done in addition to one group of extension agents in
Suba village. I used (PRA) research methods to gather information from the farmers.
The main conclusion of this study is that the declared agriculture extension policies
are not realistic. The declared model is participatory model, while the actual practice
isn’t. The farmers are not included in the design of the policies. Financial constraints
are major barriers for adopting new agricultural innovation among farmers. Moreover
there is an ineffective use of the available sources of communication with the farmers.
The suggested recommendations by the study are to use the interdependency approach
model to extension, where the farmer’s status and needs are considered as bases for
setting the policies.
3
Acknowledgement
I would like to direct my thanks to my supervisor Tekeste Negash. I would also like to
thank all my lecturers at the department of Rural Development studies, and the
administration as well, for providing a good atmosphere for completing all the courses
and providing part of fund to the research trip. Thank you very much all of you. I
would like also to address special thanks to Professor Kjell Havnesik for editing the
thesis and the valuable comments. I address special thanks to MADRAT students
program for their friendship and company. I also would like to extend my thanks to
the farmers at Suba village and Shambat area for their hospitality and collaboration
during the field trip.
4
TO THE SPIRIT OF MY FATHER, ELTAHIR ELTAYEB
5
Chapter One
Introduction
6
Agriculture is the primary source of employment for the majority of the world
population (Hornik, 1993). It is known that agricultural operations are taking a
progressing manner regarding new inputs, food storage and new farming techniques.
To integrate all these factors together it requires adequate flows of information
(Hornik 1993).
The broad concept of agricultural extension as an informal way of teaching
agriculture is not new; in ancient times, farmers learned from their own experiences
and the experience of the previous generations. They passed on their farming
knowledge to the offspring. It was an informal way of education, it was not
organized, and it had very little resemblance to what now has become conventionally
recognized as agricultural extension service.
Agriculture in Khartoum State is an important sector in the state economy, owing to
the growing demand for farm products resulting from the rapidly growing population
in the State.
1.1. Some facts and figures about Sudan Sudan is situated in the north-eastern corner of Africa and is the largest African
country (see appendix 1), with a total area of about 2.5 million km². On the north-east
it is bordered by the Red Sea and it shares common borders with nine countries.
The cultivable area is estimated to be 105 million ha, or 42% of the total area. The
cultivated land is 7.6 million ha, which is 7% of the cultivable area. Only about 3%
consists of permanent crops, the remaining area consists of annual crops. (FAO 1997)
The population of Sudan are about 28 million (1995), of which 75% are rural. The
average population density is about 11 inhabitants/km, but there are substantial
regional variations and half the population lives on just 15% of the land (FAO 1997).
The annual demographic growth rate averaged 2.8% between 1985-93. Some 80% of
the population works in the agricultural sector (FAO 1997). In 1994, agriculture
accounted for 37.1% of Sudan’s GDP and it provided over 80% of the country’s
exports (FAO 1997).
The different ethnic groups and peoples imply various regional tendencies. Most of
the population lives in the Nile valley. The northern Sudanese are mostly farmers and
cattle breeders. In the Southern states people depend on hunting, fishing, cattle-
breeding and some farming.
7
Sudan’s ethnic and linguistic diversity remained one of the most complex in the
world. There are nearly 600 ethnic groups who speak more than 400 languages and
dialects (Ismail 1986). Since 1980s there is a huge migration towards towns as a result
of the famines, as well as the war in the south. Differences have served as a partial
basis for ethnic classification and as symbols of ethnic identity. Such differences have
been obstacles to the flow of communication in some parts of the State. The most
widely spoken language in Sudan is Arabic, and it is the official language of the state
as well.
The climate of Sudan ranges from Desert types in the north and tropical Semi-Arid
and sub-Humid climate with a short summer rainy season in central Sudan, to
Tropical Wet-Dry and Tropical Rainy climate types with progressively longer wet
seasons in the southern regions (Walsh 1991).
1.2. Brief history of agriculture and agricultural policies in Sudan Large-scale irrigated agricultural project, established at the beginning of 1900 which
aims at The Gezira project which designed mainly to produce cotton (Trilbach 1991).
This project was extremely important for the British, as there was an almost
unsatisfied demand for cotton from the growing textile industry in Lancashire,
especially when supplies from Egypt and USA were proven to be unreliable (Gaitskell
1959). The plain between the Blue and the White Niles south of Khartoum was found
to be ideal. The project was opened in 1925. It proved a great success. The social and
financial services were acceptable to the local farmers who were provided with
adequate provision for the production of food crops in addition to cotton (Craig 1991).
The main water source for project irrigation came from The Sennar dam where water
could be distributed by gravity over more than a million fedans. Additional
advantages of Sennar dam was using of saqqiya and small pumps which facilitated a
proliferation of small pump schemes, producing grain crops, fodder crops, and
vegetables (Craig 1991).
Transformation of agricultural production along the white Nile continued with the
completion of Jebel Aulia dam 50 km south of Khartoum in 1937 ( Trilsbach 1987).
Due to raising the level of water for much of the year, the use of diesel pumps
increased and the use of saqiya and shaduf reduced which were the traditional ways of
irrigation by that time (Craig 1991). The growth of pump irrigation continued to
8
expand as a result of high demand of cotton in the international market due to
shortages of cotton in Korea and Egypt (Craig 1991).
Mechanization of the rain lands was the third step towards modernization of
agriculture in Sudan. The idea was to increase the production capacity of dura and
seasam of Butana plain (east Sudan) by mechanizing the agricultural operations. Early
experiments took place by 1930s, where the area around Gadarif city was included in
the project later (Trilbach 1987). The plan was initially set to use a mixture of
unskilled labor and improved machinery. A little consideration was given to
environmental suitability of the method, to management, technical planning and to
fair sharing of profits.
There were insufficient incentives for the majority of the participants (Habashi 1968).
The whole project was reappraised in the mid 1950s it was handed to private investors
(Davies 1964). Quick profits were generated by exploiting the land for the benefits of
the investors, while the farmers gained little income (Trilbach 1984). Agricultural
mechanization program expanded in small areas in the Nuba Mountains in the heart of
the country. The mechanization of rain-fed land still dominates the southern Butana
(Trilbach 1987).
The western region got a little attention in terms of agricultural investments, near the
grassland areas of Kordofan and Darfur. The construction of El Obeid railway line
was the main development, and led to effective flow of the agricultural products of
these regions (gum Arabic and rainland products) to the other parts of the country, and
to the points of export as well (Trilbach 1984).
Agricultural diffusion was minimal and in many areas the southern economy was still
based on hunting and gathering. Only a fraction of projects were directed towards
development of agriculture in the west and southern parts, which eventually led to an
imbalance of regional agricultural production in the country. The agricultural
practices in these regions remain virtually unchanged, thus contributing to the
political and regional problems which exist in Sudan today.
1.2.1. Agricultural modernization in independent Sudan Contribution to GDP decreased due to political instability during that period. The ten
year plan of economic Sudan became independent in 1956, it inherited a complex
9
system of traditional agriculture, and a variety of irrigated systems and mechanized
cultivation.
The main agricultural development since 1956 was the construction of the high dam
in Aswan in Egypt, as a result of Nile water agreement in 1959. The main effect was
that it flooded parts of northern Sudan, especially large parts of Wadi Halfa town. The
Egyptian government agreed to compensate the Egyptian Nubians for the flooding
and for resettlement (Trilbach 1984). As part of the Nile waters agreement Sudan’s
allocation of Nile waters also increased substantially. Financial resources from Egypt
as compensation and the greater availability of water led to the development of new
large-scale irrigation schemes. The Gezira scheme was expanded with the Managil
extension, whilst many of the displaced Nubians were resettled on a new irrigation
scheme on the river Atbara at Khashm el Girba, recently renamed as New Halfa
scheme. The objective of Sudan was to grow more cotton and other crops such as
sugar (Trilbach 1984).
In the 1960s other projects were established. Small pump irrigation schemes were
initiated along the White Nile with both private and governmental capital
(Trilbach 1991). A number of agro-industrial projects were initiated in different parts
of the country with the support of some Eastern European countries, e.g. Karima fruit
canning factory in the north and onion processing plant in Kassala in east of the
country. The extension of the railway to Wau in the south and Nyala in west
facilitated easy transportation of rain-fed crops and livestock to the different parts of
Sudan. Another major investment linked to 1959 Nile Waters Agreement was the
construction of Roseires dam on the Blue Nile.
These could be considered as the main national projects in colonial and independent
periods. The effective use of all these facilities really relied on the national policy
being adopted by each Sudanese government. Four periods in the evolution of
national agricultural policies could be distinguished for the Sudan (FAO 1986; Eltom
1986; Salam 1986).
During the first period (1956-69), the colonial-type agricultural policy continued
basically unchanged. The Gezira Scheme was nationalized and enlarged with the
Managil Extension (Wohlmuth 1984). There were attempts to change the agricultural
production structure of the country towards a diversification between mechanized
10
agricultural products and traditional cash crops. Moreover an extension of the
railways to different parts of the country led to encouraging agriculture in some parts
of Sudan (Wohlmuth 1991).
The contribution of the agricultural sector in GDP during this period varied between
61% in 1956 to 38.2% in 1970 (see appendix 2). As we can see the agricultural sector
and social development 1961/62 -1970/72 emphasized on developing the modern
irrigation project and mechanized agriculture (Ministry of finance and economics
1961). Although the plan was abandoned in 1964, the bias towards mechanized
agriculture expansion continued which led to serious deterioration of soils and
pastures (Wohlmuth 1991).
The second period started with Numeiri’s May Revolution in 1969. The bias against
traditional agriculture continued unchanged. The unplanned expansion of mechanized
farming and the neglect of the traditional agriculture led to productivity decreases in
rain-fed farming and to enforced migration of labor to the modern sector and to urban
areas (Wohlmuth 1991). The five year plan 1970/71-1974/75 reinforced the bias
towards modern agricultural sub sectors and the promotion of agro-industry, the plan
was extended essentially unchanged until 1977 (Wohlmuth 1991). This was due to the
adoption of a strategy known as ’bread basket’ in 1973 where the government
intended to increase the expenditure for the agricultural modern sector and promote
agro-industry for the sake of exporting agricultural products to the Arab countries. It
was only the six years plan of economic and social development 1977/78-1982/3
which recognized explicitly the importance of Sudan traditional agricultural sector,
but the allocation of funds didn’t reflect that insight (Wohlmuth 1991).
The third period started with the rehabilitation initiated in 1980, where the
Government of Sudan with the funds of the World Bank, constructed reform programs
for the irrigated agricultural subsectors. The rehabilitation programs extended until
1987 (Craig 1991), aiming at rehabilitation of the agricultural projects, improvement
of incentive systems and production relations, changes in exchange rate, taxation, and
pricing policies to ensure better returns to producers and optimum supply of inputs.
In early 1985 discontent with Numeiry’s regime had been growing and in April while
visiting USA, he was deposed by a military coup led by Lt. Gen. Swar Al Dahab, who
after a period, passed the reigns of government to a civilian government headed by
Sadiq Al Mahdi. Again in 1988 and early 1989 following further discontent in the
11
country and within the military, another bloodless coup took place on June 30, 1989
led by Brig. Omar Hassan Ahmed El Bashir who formed a 15 member Revolutionary
Command Council for National Salvation. As head of State, Prime Minister and
Minister of Defence, he quickly dismantled civilian rule, the constitution was
suspended, and the National Assembly and all political institutions were dissolved. In
mid October 1993 Brig. Omar Hassan Ahmed El Bashir dissolved the Revolutionary
Command Council; and on October 30 announced the formation of a new
government. Further changes took place until the last reshuffle in the Cabinet in
December 1996.
The fourth period started with 1989-onwards. A notable development in agricultural
production in the 1990s was the emergence of livestock exports which rose from US$
57 million in 1994/ 95 to around US$ 100 million in 1998, while earnings from cotton
fell from US$ 162.8 million to US$ 95.6 million during the same period. Export
volume grew at around 140% during 1995-98. The recent discovery of petroleum
stands to diversify exports further (Bank of Sudan 1999). The share of agricultural sector
in GDP varied between 47.6 % in 1997 to 46.6 % in 2002 (Bank of Sudan Annual
reports 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002). The recent economical development went
through the Comprehensive National Strategy (CNS) adopted by current government
at the beginning of 1992. Preparations are now under way to formulate a 25-years
National Strategy (2002–2027) (FAO 2004). However, the implementation of the
(CNS) (1992-2002) was far below the expectations and there were inherent
contradictions in the components of the strategy (FAO 2004).
1.3. Brief history of agricultural extension in Sudan The history of agriculture extension and agricultural technology transfer started in
Sudan at the time of establishing the research centers in 1902, with the establishment
of experimental cotton farms in Shendi (120 km north of Khartoum) on the main Nile
and in Alkamleen (60 km south of Khartoum) on the Blue Nile (Hassan 1981). In
1904 the department of agriculture established Shambat Research Farm where some
botanic and agronomic work was carried out (Edris 1975). The failure of agricultural
season on rain-fed mechanized farming schemes near Gadarif led to the establishment
of the first experimental farm in 1952, devoted principally to food crops research at
Tozi (100 km north east of the present site of the Roseires Dam). The research on that
station was focused on solving problems related to rain-fed production of sorghum,
12
sesame and groundnuts (Hassan 1981). Research on horticultural crops, forestry,
sugarcane and wheat was accelerated in 1962/63 with the establishment of stations at
Eldamed, Sennar, Guneid and Kashm Elgirba (Hassan 1981). New dimension to
agricultural research began in 1969 with the construction of the Food Research Center
in Shambat (Khartoum North) to support the burgeoning food processing industry
(Hassan 1981). The soba research station was established in 1973, to study the means
of increasing crop production under saline conditions (Hassan 1981).
Recently agricultural extension services are provided by different Governmental
departments and corporations. The agricultural extension department of the Ministry
of Agriculture and Animal resources is the main Governmental body responsible for
providing a widely diffused extension service. There are also some other bodies
offering extension services such as, The Sudan Gezira Board, The Mechanized
Farming Corporation, El Rahad Agricultural Corporation, the White and Blue Nile
pump Schemes, and some NGO’s. Among these only the Sudan Gezira Board has
managed to established in 1968 a relatively efficient and well organized extension
services (Zahlan 1986). The other corporations are still in the early stages of
developing their extension services (State Ministry of Agriculture 2002).
By 1958 the Ministry of Agriculture and irrigation established the agricultural
extension division with cooperation with the Government of the United States (Anas
1991). At the beginning the extension services were given to the pioneering projects,
later this service started to be directed towards all agricultural activities in the country
in a gradual pattern (Anas 1991). Agricultural extension services have been affected
in the past and by the government policies. The last government regime has neglected
agricultural services and there are no incentives for the extension workers. Moreover
there are some changes in the structure of agricultural extension administration for the
first time (State Ministry of Agriculture 2002). The budget allocated for this service
has been reduced. The municipalities being responsible for the agriculture extension
services are responsible for paying the extension workers. Some NGO’s interfere to
provide this service in the most neglected regions especially in western part of the
country (State Ministry of agriculture 2002).
13
1.4. View on the Agricultural Extension strategies in Sudan Increasing productivity through improving farmers knowledge by different kinds of
media are basic goals of agriculture extension in Sudan (Anas 1991). The Ministry of
agriculture adopted different strategies, to strengthen the relation between agricultural
extension and research corporations at the national and international research levels,
and to extend the opportunities to disseminate the results of the agriculture researches
to be used in the agriculture extension programs. Another goal is to make the
necessary channels for the technical information between the agriculture research
centers and farmers through the extension agents, and feedback from farmers to the
researchers to find suitable solutions (State Ministry of Agriculture 2001). Moreover,
the state attempted to provide facilities for the preparation of the administrators and
technicians involved in the technology transfer from the research centers to the
farmers with the methods that the farmers accept and understand (Alsheikh 1991).
Another goal of agricultural extension is to reorganize and implement the related
programs to Agricultural extension activities given to Sudan government from the
International NGOs or foreign countries, through the creation of favorable conditions
in the relations with the African and Arabs Agriculture extension institutions (State
Ministry of Agriculture 2001). Collecting all the statistics related to the Agricultural
extension, and send it regularly to the Administration of agricultural planning and
statistics, in the ministry of Agriculture and Natural resources Management is also one
of the primary goals of the agriculture extension (State Ministry of Agriculture 2001).
1.4.1. Methods of communication with the farmers used by the extension departments Method of group-communication is used when a group of farmers is ready to learn
something new about the agricultural operations. It takes place in different forms,
such as meetings, training of leaders, lectures, conferences and group discussion,
trips, schools, explanatory experiments (department of agricultural extension,
Khartoum north section 2001).
Explanatory experiments are considered as one of the best tools of communication
with the group, where farmers touch practically the effect and the advantage of the
experiment (Alsheikh 1991). For this tool to be more effective some points are
supposed to be followed. Firstly the experiment should be done in one of the farmer’s
field. Secondly the experiment should be done by the farmers themselves. Third the
14
role of the extensionist is the technical supervision. Fourth the location of the
experiment should be in place where the farmers can easily watch the result later.
The extension activity based on explanatory experiment divided into four sections,
which are, experiments to explain results, experiments to explain methods, field day
and trips (Alsheikh 1991).
With experiments to explain results farmers can see the effect of new inputs in the
agricultural operation, e.g., new fertilizer. The farmers should prepare all the tools and
equipments required for the experiment, and the field in which the experiment should
be done has to be owned by a cooperative farmer among the farmers groups, and a
good member in the society. Furthermore he is supposed to accept the idea of the
experiment, hence the other farmers can gather in his field keeping records and
observations, and later publish the experiment results (Department of Agricultural
extension, Khartoum north 2001).
The indirect communication includes radio and TV programs that relate to extension
services. Tools of communication are very important at the early stages of any
innovation. And later comes direct communication. The mass media programs are
good for the awareness of farmers with natural changes such as rains and floods.
There are two TV programs presenting information related to agriculture. One is on
the national TV channel and the other in the State TV channel. As well there is a daily
radio program presented in the farmers’ local language. These programs are presented
in non-scientific language that can easily be understood by the farmers.
Another tool the extension department uses is the farmer book, usually five to fifteen
pages. It describes a single agricultural operation for one product, for example
tomatoes, potatoes etc.
15
1.5. The social interaction and the household The family is a “reservoir” for the Sudanese, which combines economics assistance,
political influence, social support and psychological security. Associations with
relatives and friends are of great importance. These associations have complicated
interactions of reciprocal rights and duties which guarantee a network of support for
the individuals in all aspects of life. On one hand these associations are enlivened by
occasional informal visits and sporadic exchange of favors. On the other hand they are
dutifully and religiously conducted on special occasions such as weddings, funerals,
and Islamic fasts when all the members of the family are under obligation to
participate. For the women, these visits are of great importance in terms of
interactions with people not belonging to their own household. Through such
meetings, the woman plays the role of intermediary of important information, which
introduces new fields of interaction. For instance, in the case of planned marriage,
especially between different extended families, the men are completely dependant on
the women’s information.
1.6. Objectives The agricultural extension is an important service that usually is offered by the State;
hence it is the main source of technical information and new innovations that take
place in the field of agriculture.
The main purpose of this study is to examine the agriculture extension services in
Khartoum State, and to elaborate the different models of agriculture extension and
evaluate their effectiveness. Two agricultural areas, Suba village and Shambat area,
are used as case studies.
1.7 Methods The research method used in this study is participatory rural appraisal which is
essentially of qualitative nature.
Semi structure interviews have been done with farmers and the extension agents.
Interviews with the farmers took the longest part of the research time. Interviews were
conducted most of the time in the fields. Some interviews with the agricultural
extension agents were also carried out in the fields and in the department of
agricultural extension of the State ministry of agriculture.
16
Venn diagram was used to explain farmers’ levels of cooperation in Shambat area.
There are different levels of cooperation between the farmers in this area, in which the
agricultural extension services not exist.
I have also used matrix ranking to explain the preferred media of agricultural
information in Suba village. Farmers were asked separately to put some seeds in
different blocks each of which was titled with one of the information media that is
available for them ranging from 1 to 5. This method was easily understood by the
farmers. The aim of the method was to see what source of information the farmers
prefer.
Secondary information has also been collected from the state ministry of agriculture
records and some other governmental publications and reports.
1.8. Limitations of the study The study didn’t cover the Agricultural areas inside Khartoum State that totally
missed direct agricultural extension services. The relation between the farmers and the
marketing centers in which farmers sell their products was not covered by the study.
17
Chapter Two
The Theoretical Framework
18
This part of the study deals with four different models of agricultural extension and
technology transfer. This part demonstrates the different directions of information
flows from its different sources to the target groups. Some definitions are illustrated
to facilitate the understanding of the mechanism of communication patterns and how
it can affect farmers’ behavior.
2.1. What is agricultural extension? Agricultural extension could be considered as a bridge between the scientists and
governmental bodies and agricultural practice or farming (Timmer, 1982). Science in
this context, is not only understood to be natural science (physics, chemistry, biology)
and its applications, but also the branches of knowledge which more directly concern
with people and society, such as economics, sociology and cultural anthropology
(Timmer,1982). The term governmental bodies here refer to the whole governmental
activities concerning land ownership and tenancy, soil protection, irrigation, transport
facilities, labor problems, marketing, rural credit, cooperative and education. All
practical”know how” with regard to the results of science and all relevant information
ought to be explained to the farm people (Timmer, 1982). But the bridge is not for one
way traffic only. The extension agents in the fields should also reflect on the farmers’
needs and problems to the agricultural research stations and governmental bodies in
question (Timmer, 1982). This implies that the extension agents’ approaches and
methods will vary according to the level of socioeconomic evolution of the villagers.
The problem analysis the extensionists should go through is not only associated with
production in a narrow sense, but also with the economic, social, and cultural
conditions in the village community concerned. These conditions affect the
production in a great measure. In this context development work is different from
research in that research has its primary objectives to describe and analyze realities,
whereas development work is aimed at extending the possibilities of action
(Thogersen 1989). From this perspective dealing with the rural welfare directly from
the production side may be justified, but only if the proposed course of action agrees
with the human factor (Timmer, 1982), i.e. if the innovation in question satisfies a
genuine need of the farmers. Development through agricultural measures should not
only be technically possible and economically justified, but also socioculturally
acceptable (Timmer, 1982, p 40). So it is obvious that the basic problem of
19
agricultural development policy is also a problem of adjusting farming to
sociocultural changes in a changing world.
Agriculture extension in Sudan started with the establishment of research centers by
1902, in different cities in the center of the country. The purpose was to support
establishment of big agricultural projects in different parts of The Sudan as well as to
solve problem related to agricultural productivity. Nowadays agricultural extension
services are provided by different agencies distributed along the country for the
purpose of exchanging and diffusing new innovations and information between the
research centers and governmental bodies and the farmers in the fields. As realized at
the beginning of The Gezira project, the possibilities of farmers development seem
successful in terms of production relations and social welfare that reflected in terms of
population settlement and clear human and physical development between 1925 and
late 1980s. Mechanization of the rain lands in Butana plain and the area around
Gadarif (east Sudan) in the early 1930s was initially set to use a mixture of unskilled
labor and improved machinery. A little consideration was given to environmental
suitability of the (method), management, technical planning and to fair sharing of
profits. Later the results were not showing actual development in the region
especially for the local people, whom are still working as a hired labor for a group of
investors who are in most cases not settled in the same region. The imbalanced
development in the country during the last five decades due to irrational agricultural
strategies led to the recent problems in the different regions in the country.
2.2. Extension models Four extension models are being studied in this part;
(a) Technology transfer model, (b) farmer first model, (c) participatory approach
model, and (d) sustainable development extension model.
The first model contains top-down technology transfer from researchers to farmers
through the extension agents. The second is the farmer first approach, considers the
importance of the role of farmers in research and extension from the bottom up. The
third model is a participatory approach which in some ways integrates and extends the
first two models. The participatory approach relies on the involvement of researchers
and farmers, as well as other stakeholders in the extension process. While these
models are by definition idealized abstractions of reality, they provide guidance on the
development and use of more specific extension techniques. The following table
20
shows the three models as different strategies with its aim and the key players in each
strategy.
Technology Transfer
Farmer First
Participatory Approach
Sustainable development extension
Strategy Top down Bottom up Interactive Interdependent
Aim Technology adoption
Empower farmers
Co-operative action
Sustainable development
Pre-cursors Research and development
Experienced farmers
Participatory of key stakeholders
Collaboration of stakeholders
Key players Scientist / extension agents
Farmers Stakeholders/ facilitators
Farmers/ extension agents/ scientists
Table (1): central issues in the four extension models. Source: Geoff Norton & Elaine Brough (1995)
2.3. The technology transfer model This model is a top-down approach for technology transfer. The starting point is from
the scientific institutions, where scientific experiments are done by the scientists. The
research priorities are also determined by the scientists according to this approach.
Scientists generate new innovations they believe are good for farmers and then pass
them to extension agents. The extension agents then transmit information about the
innovation to the individual farmers and explain the likely benefits in order to
encourage them to adopt the innovation (Chambers, Pacey & Thrupp, 1989). In many
cases farmers do not adopt the new innovations rapidly for many reasons. The
scientists often concentrate on a product or a process which may not fulfill a genuine
need for the farmers. For example some innovations which are not suitable to the
farmers in the field seem to be suitable in the laboratories. Poor infrastructure and lack
of capital for promotion of the innovation also represent constraint to widespread
adoption (Frank & Chamala, 1992). In other cases there is a successful transfer of
technology, but subsequent problems with the use of the technology might emerge.
21
2.4. Farmer First model The farmer first model contrasts with the technology transfer model (see table 1). The
farmer first approach supports the farmers in the sense that it respects the indigenous
knowledge of farmers – knowledge which may be unknown by the scientists (Frank &
Chamala, 1992). This approach considers the farmers as the basic units for setting
research priorities. Farmers are involved with their habits, customs and inherited
experiences and their own evaluation and the researchers and scientists learn from and
with them. Accordingly all the services to farmers become decentralized,
differentiated, and versatile (Chambers, Pacey & Thrupp, 1989).
The major objective of this approach is to give farmers the power to dominate their
situations and to create a better future by themselves rather than being passive
recipients of new technology. The researchers and scientists have the role of assisting
the farmers by linking the farmers situations to scientific models that provide different
approaches for farmers development. The process is bottom-up with emphasis of
what the farmers want to change.
All the field work related to research is done in the farmers’ fields. The outcome of
the research process is usually a basket of choices from which to select, rather than a
package of practices to be adopted. In this way farmers are encouraged to make wise
and informed decisions based on their own situation (Chambers, Pacey & Thrupp,
1989).
The outcomes of this approach are that the decisions farmers will take may not be
associated with government policy. The farmers’ selection of the new technology may
also limit the marketing of other technologies.
2.5. Participatory Model Recently many researchers, extension officers and farmers have recognized the need
for a cooperative, participatory approach to examine interacting sets of issues. Using
this approach, an ill-defined agricultural problem situation is viewed as a complex
human activity system (Wilson, 1992).
The participatory approach (see table 1) views research, development, and the
extension process as both cyclic and interactive, involving a wide range of key
stakeholders. Emphasis is on the involvement of key stakeholders in a cooperative and
22
flexible process to facilitate the implementation of specific innovations by primary
producers. Several types of workshop/appraisal techniques could be used, ranging
from rapid rural appraisal, participatory rural appraisal, focus groups, and structured
workshops (Chamala & Mortiss, 1990). The common features of these approaches are
qualitative data gathering, active participation of those having an interest in the
research outcomes, and responsiveness to decision-makers both on and off the farm
(Fliegel 1993) points out that the participatory approach applies particularly to
packages of technologies rather than single innovations.
2.6. Sustainable development extension model Ensuring that information and the systems that support its generation and
dissemination are responsive to the needs of those involved in decision-making, is one
of the crucial parts in an extension system designed to support sustainable
development (Allen.W & Margaret. K 2002).
If we considered this as the left hand of sustainable development extension, then the
right hand could be the tools and processes in the extension approach that develop the
capacity of players in the information system, and the users of information, to make
meaning of it, constructively debate is of great value and contribute to the process
development (Allen.W & Margaret. K 2002).
These two complementary parts are very important for sustainable development
extension models; the process is shown by Geer and others (1996). They propose an
interdependency approach to extension as seen in (figure 1). They argue that this
model provides for involving stakeholders in defining their needs and setting the goals
of the extension program. The outcomes of this collaborative stakeholder process,
provides direction for the development of outputs in the form of research,
management strategies and other forms of technology. Once the outputs have been
achieved, the objectives of extension programmers are defined and these are then put
out into the wider community, often through the more traditional processes of
extension such as talks, field days etc., which then eventually lead to some level of
implementation.
23
Users
Extension Agents
Researchers
Definition of users’ technology and other information needs
Relevant outputs sought from research and other agencies
Definition of objectives of extension
Implementation of programs with user communities
Interaction
Figure (1): Sustainable development extension model Source : MAF (Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry, New Zealand) Technical Paper No: 2002/03.
24
Chapter Three The Empirical Study
25
3.1. Shambat agricultural area Shambat agricultural area is located between the river Nile and two faculties of
agriculture which belong to two different universities (University of Khartoum and
University of Sudan). The farmers of this area are mixed between local people and
commercial farmers in the sample we choose 7 are local farmers and three are
commercial farmers. Some statistics about the 10 farms and the farmers are provided
in table (2).
Farm NO
Size/ Fed an
Farmer Age
Family Background. Agriculture/Non Agriculture
Educational Level
Family members
Agricultural technical information sources
1 13 56 years agriculture Primary School
7 Experience, TV, Commercial Advertisement
2 12 49 agriculture Intermediate School
5 Experience, Radio. Friends.
3 10 35 Non agriculture University 3 TV, Radio, Commercial advertisements,
4 10 41 agriculture High secondary school
5 Experience, Friends.
5 10 52 agriculture Primary school
8 Experience, Friends, Commercial Advertisements.
6 8 45 agriculture university 5 Publications, Friends, TV, Radio.
7 7 53 agriculture Intermediate school
8 Experience, Friends, Radio.
8 6 40 Agriculture High secondary school
2 TV, Radio, Friends.
9 6 30 Non agriculture university 1 publications, Friends. TV.
10 5 56 agriculture Primary school
10 Experience, Friends,
Table (2) : Some Statistics about the farmers in Shambat agricultural area. 1 fedan = 4200 sqm . Primary school 6 years. Intermediate school 3 years . High secondary school 3 years with optional specialization in ; academic, technical studies, commercial and agricultural studies.
26
The purpose of this table basically is to relate the farmers’ educational and family
background to the media of information they use to get the agricultural and technical
information of which a part is the inherited experience from previous generation.
A semi structured interview is also done with the farmers to get more explanation
about the mechanisms of getting the technical information from the different sources
(see appendix 3), taking each source of information separately.
No of farmers
Educational level
Experience Friends Radio TV Advertisement Publications
3 Primary school
3 2 0 1 1 0
2 Intermediate school
2 2 2 0 0 0
2 High secondary school
1 2 1 1 0 0
3 University level
0 2 2 3 1 2
Table( 3) : Sources of information for farmers at Shambat area.
Radio:
The radio agriculture extension program represents the daily link between the farmers
and the extension office in the state. The program is about 15 minutes every day at the
time when the farmers are supposed to be in the breakfast time between 10 to 11 in
the morning. The lunch time is between 15 to 16 in the afternoon. The program is
prepared in a simple language emphasizing local terms. In order to attract the farmers
to the program it also contains some songs, drama and sometimes jokes. Such radio
programs are seems useful for a farmer who hasn’t enough experience, for instance
with the plant protection methods, and insects’ lifecycles in the fields. This study
showed there is little awareness about radio programs with in the farmers who are
coming from agriculture background families; hence they think the information
presented in these programs is a repetition of something they already know.
The study found that 50% (5) of the interviewed farmers listen to this program but not
on a regular basis. Those who are coming from a non agricultural family background
think it is useful to listen to the extension radio program, especially at the beginning
of the agricultural activity for the first time practically. All farmers who listen to the
agriculture extension radio program comment about the unsuitable time of the
27
program. Farmers do most of the work in the morning period when the temperature is
relatively low. The old farmers are usually not highly (officially) educated, while the
knowledge they inherited from their fathers represent a good base for their work, it
may even be sometimes reference for the highly (officially) educated farmers. As
seen from the study none of the old farmers listen to the extension radio program.
TV: The first program is a weekly program for half an hour that has been presented for
more than 12 years. As a national program it contains different visions from different
parts of the country ranging from desertification, forestry, food industry and so on.
These program is more related to modern than traditional agriculture. It reflects
activities done and being done by different organizations. This TV program could be
useful only if the audience knows the scientific terms used in the program. A
subsistence farmer may get general information about a certain topic related to
agriculture. But such information may not be related to his daily farm activities. Those
who graduated from agricultural college can easily understand the high level language
of the program as reflected in table (3). The three interviewed farmers follow this
program regularly, while the rest of the farmers are not viewing it regularly. In
general the program is prepared to serve the large commercial farms and the state
forestry programs.
The second agricultural extension TV program is from the Khartoum state local TV
channel. It reflected the farmers’ activities in the state and the problems facing them
from time to time. This program takes the same features of the extension radio
program in the sense of language, where the presenter try to use the local agricultural
terms, which can be understood by all farmers. Some of the traditional farmers were
following this program as seen in table (3). They said they can really understand and
follow the agricultural problems in the state local TV channel, furthermore they can
predict the marketing channels of distribution in some parts of the state.
Publications:
The publications farmers usually read are issued by the government agricultural
extension administration (figure 2). They show in pictures and drawings how to plant
and protect a specific agricultural product, for example tomatoes, onions and potatoes.
It also explains the methods of land preparation for each product. These publications
are very useful for the farmers who can read them; the language of the publications is
28
very simple. The publications are distributed freely to the farmers by the agriculture
extension administration, and they are also available at the extension offices and
farmers’ unions. The young farmers depend to far extent on their agricultural
operation on these publications. Some Arab organizations in the country are also
issuing some publications, hence large part of the fruits production of Sudan is
exported to the Arab gulf area. The size of the publication is most often10 to 15
pages.
Figure (2) :Some samples of publications used by agriculture extension administration Source : Agriculture extension administration, Khartoum north.
The publications are also used as reference when it comes to handle a certain
agricultural problem. The young farmers usually read these publications each season
in order to update their knowledge. Usually the graduated farmers are aware of the
publications. As realized in table (3), two of the graduated interviewed farmers
consider publications as one of the main sources of agricultural information. The rest
of the farmers are not much aware about the publications.
Experience:
The inherited agricultural experience is to a large extent a great knowledge for the
farmers who came from agricultural families. Those farmers think that they have
enough knowledge to do all the farm work. Experience is power to old farmers. They
can judge the problems which might come without accurate anticipation. They are
considered as reference sources in traditional agriculture. It has been realized during
this study that modernization affects the traditional agriculture experience, as can be
seen in table (3) under the experience column. The dependency on experience has
been diminished from one generation to another. The three old farmers who are
29
interviewed in this study depend on their experience as one of the main sources of
information, while the farmers with university education do not relay on inherited
experience. Some of the educated farmers do not much aware about traditional
experience; hence they prefer the scientific sources of information. But some of the
educated farmers refer to old farmers in some cases.
Friends:
In most cases farmers got some information from their neighboring farmers which are
often about the prices of new seeds in the market and the places of the stores that sell
such seeds. Also farmers pass information to each other if there is a new innovation
adopted by a farmer. The social life of the Sudanese society makes it very easy to
make friends. This study found out that all farmers relied on friends to get agricultural
information. That is also reflected later in this study by analyzing the levels of
cooperation between the farmers of Shambat.
Advertisements:
According to all farmers interviewed, the information they get from the
advertisements, is through posters pasted on the walls of the companies they visit to
buy the agricultural inputs. The advertisements usually don’t provide all the
information required, but function as guides to know more about the advertised
products. All the farmers interviewed agreed that advertisements are sources of
information. Two of the farmers stated that they are following the information
presented by advertisement.
3.1.1. Coordination between the farmers There is an obvious coordination between the farmers in Shambat area at certain
levels. The diagram below shows the degree of coordination between the farmers. The
farmers themselves helped in making this diagram.
30
Figure 3: Venn diagram: Cooperation between the farmers at Shambat agricultural area.
The distance between the circles represents the rate of cooperation. The circle
represents the activities. The letters represent the cooperation activities. The outside
frame represents the ten farms.
The letters refer to:
• A: spraying the pesticides in the fields. • B: using of natural fertilizers • C: Information. • D: feeding the animals. • E: preparing the land.
The diagram in figure (3) shows the activities of the farmers, and the areas of
cooperation between them. Below is an explanation of how the mechanism of
cooperation between the farmers works considering the above diagram.
The farmers usually have a meeting to agree about the use and the time of spraying
the pesticides in the fields. That is so because if there is big time difference of
spraying the pesticides the insects can move from one field to another. So their plan is
to spray all the farms with the pesticides at the same time to get the maximum effect.
The farmers of Shambat area depend to a large extent on natural fertilizer in the
preparation of the land. Some of the farmers have a number of cows, donkeys and
hens. The wastes from these animals are used in fertilizing the lands. The farmers who
have a surplus of the natural fertilizers prefer to sell it to the neighboring farmers. The
31
farmers usually exchange information that relate to agricultural between each other,
where some of them are coming from agricultural family background whereas others
are graduated from agricultural colleges. They don’t hesitate to ask each other for
specific information. The farmers who have animals in their farms sometimes
cooperate in buying and transportation of the fodder. The farmers usually prepare the
land without any coordination with others, since each farmer decides what to produce
independently.
Two farmers at Shambat area backing animal wastes Photo : Mohamed Eltahir Eltayeb
3.1.2. The relation between the farmers and the extension agents at Shambat area The extension service in Shambat area is not provided in regularized form. The
extension agents don’t visit the farms continuously. The farmers don’t trust the advice
of the extension agents to the extent of adopting a new innovation. One reason is that
farmers know the extension agent will not follow up the adoption of the new
innovation with them in their fields. The farmers try to get some useful information
from the extension agents mainly regard existing agriculture operations, but not to
develop a new technique. The extension agents can’t promise to re visit. When the
farmers were asked about their perception on the extension services they commented:
“We know that the extension service is possible only if we have really big farms, but
since the farms we have are relatively small we may not enjoy the agricultural
extension services on a regular basis.” The farmers think it is important for them to
have a regular extension service in order to attain a certain level of progress, since
32
there are always new innovations and new agricultural techniques, ‘’it is unfair that
some farmers know about it and others don’t’’, commented one of the farmers.
From the interviews results it is obvious that there is not a good relation between the
farmers and the agricultural colleges in Shambat agricultural area. Many researches
are done by students every year with the farmers. Farmers have a negative perception
about the students because the relation between them most often ends after the
students finish their field studies.
3.1.3. The life of the farmers at Shambat area The farmers of Shambat area have a good social life. They know each other families
and they have excellent family contacts. Most of the children of the farmers study in
the surrounding schools. Agriculture and animal production are the main activities of
the farmers in this area.
Agriculture generates some income that satisfies most of the family needs. However
the economic situation of the farmers is better than for those who have normal jobs.
This is so because the farm output can help in satisfying most of the family needs of
food. The evening time is for the socialization either in a form of family visits or
chatting with friends. The life of the farmers is relatively simple compared to the rest
of the capital city society. Women have different roles. Some are housekeepers while
others work in other places. Women have no role in the farms.
The market of the agricultural products is good due to high demand of food because
of the heavy internal migration towards the capital city due wars in some parts of the
country and poor labor market in other regions.
3.2. Suba village The aim of this part is to examine the extension practices in this area and to know the
perceptions of the farmers regarding the extension services offered by the agricultural
extension administration in Khartoum State. Farmers in this area represent 5% of the
total population which is 25 000 inhabitants (Suba locality 2002). The methods used
in this part are semi structured interviews with a group of farmers. Matrix ranking
method is also used with 7 farmers, to identify which source of information is
preferable to the farmers.
33
3.2.1. The demographic features of Suba Village This area is known as west Suba (see appendix 1). There are two main activities for
people who live in West Suba, the production of bricks (building blocks) by the side
of the Blue Nile, and the production of vegetables and fruits. The main activity of the
people in this area in the past was mainly agriculture and breeding of animals. The
population of the village came from different parts of Sudan. One of the elderly
people commented that ’’the population of Suba is representing the population of
Sudan’’.
The percentage of the people who work in the production of bricks is greater. There
are also small shops scattered around the village. Some of the people also work in
different occupations in Khartoum. A very small proportion of the local people work
in the surrounding factories.
Approximate population contribution as mentioned by some elderly local people is,
youth 37%, women 30%, elderly 15% (above 65 years old), infants 18%. Regarding
the social and educational services in the area, there are two primary schools one for
male and the other for females, and there is also (high) secondary school for females,
and no (high) secondary school for males. Secondary school students go to the
schools outside the village . All the schools in the village have been constructed by
the local people.
There is only one social club but it is not well established. There are no spaces for
popular sports (football) and the whole village lack planning. There is only one
political party the national conference party (The Government party). There are two
health centers, one of them constructed by the local people and the other private.
There is also a university hospital about 5 Kms from the village. The most common
disease is malaria. The village is connected with a very good water network for the
houses. The electricity network is part of Khartoum city electricity network.
3.2.2. Result of interviews with the group of farmers at Suba village As a result of interviews with a group of 20 farmers the following result could be
realized (see appendix 4). The area is well covered by the extension services, access
to information is easy for the local people due to the close distance to urban centers. A
number of innovations were adopted by some farmers in the last two seasons. The
contact with the extension agent is through the field days, which is organized every
34
week, the extension agents are almost from agricultural family’s background, so they
know the local terms of the farmers. The main source for technical information is
through the extension agent as the relation between the extensionists and the farmers
is quite close. The extension agents participate in most social occasion in the area.
35
Two farmers in the field at Suba village Photo: Mohamed Eltahir Eltayeb.
Some farmers resist using the new innovations or a new technique in the agricultural
operations (for example chemical fertilizers) for the following reasons:
• To adopt new innovation means extra costs, and some farmers may not get
loans or support from the banking system.
• Some times the older farmers think it is better for them to use Traditional
agriculture without chemical inputs, because it is the system that they inherited
from their fathers. They think it is the better option as long as there are no
problems with the system.
• Some farmers don’t prefer to adopt the innovation in its earlier stages. They
prefer wait for one season until they see the results of the innovations in other
fields and they follow even the marketing of the products that produced with
new inputs and materials.
3.2.3. The matrix ranking method Matrix ranking method is used with 7 farmers, to show which way of communication
is preferable to them. Seventy pieces of seeds were distributed to the seven farmers
(10 per each farmer), and we draw the table bellow in the ground (table 4). Four
sources of agricultural information are on the left side of the table the farmer has to
distribute the ten seeds between the four sources of information, having up to five
seeds for each source, the higher the numbers of seeds represent the higher preference
of the farmer to the source of the agricultural information.
36
A B C D E F G Total
TV 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 10
Radio 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 12
Hand books
3 3 3 3 4 3 2 21
Field days
4 3 4 3 4 4 5 27
Total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 70
Table 4: Matrix Ranking. The preferences of farmers at Suba village to different sources of information.
Based on this matrix ranking done with the even farmers, the first preference for
them is the field days and they argue on this by saying ‘ we can have a dialogue with
the extension agents’ , actually they can have a good chance to tell the progress or
failure in the applicability of the adopted innovations. It allows them to prepare all the
questions they want to ask or any explanations. The extension agent can explain to
them in different ways until they understand the total message.
The second preference is the hand books (publications). Hand books are distributed by
the extension agent to farmers. The materials explain how to use the new inputs in a
very simple language. Some of the hand books are prepared for the young farmers;
they show how to prepare the land to grow a certain agricultural product, plantation
methods and harvesting ways.
The radio is the third source of information to them, where the programs offered to
farmers are sometimes useful for them.
TV programs of extension are the fourth preference for the seven farmers according to
them they are sometimes complicated, they can’t understand most of the terms used
in some of these programs.
3.2.4. Resistance to New Innovations Some farmers resist using some new innovations. These farmers don’t participate in
the extension program regularly and they think the new innovation may lead them to
add extra money to their annual budget. Others don’t prefer to use heavy chemical in
the agricultural operations and they are satisfied with the local materials especially for
37
fertilization of the land. Some of them see that some of the innovations are not
suitable for them due to their farms size. Other farmers reject the adoption of the
innovation at any of its stages. They appear to be convinced that the new innovations
will not work. Most of these farmers who reject innovations are older farmers; they
don’t like to take the risk which may lead to negative results, they prefer the
traditional models of agriculture.
3.2.5. Interview with extension agents in Suba village Based on a semi structured interviews with six extension agents in the area (see
appendix 5) they are satisfied with their work with the local people. The years of
employment of extension agents are on average three to ten years. The educational
level of the extension agents is completion of agricultural high school training. The
main sources of technical information are through training in the agricultural
extension administration. The most popular methods of communication are through
farmer’s days which include posters, lectures and informal talks with the farmers.
These farmers’ days are organized every week in a field of one of the local farmers.
According to the extensionists, the purpose of using this method is its ability to spread
information practically to a number of farmers and at the same time to get feed back
from the farmers and to answer all the questions in the field practically. Another
communication method which extension agents advise the farmers to use is the radio
and the farmer book. During the meetings the extensionist mention the time of the
extension programs in the radio channels. If the farmers failed to understand some
messages in the radio so they are allowed to come to the extension office and ask.
Most of the production of the farms is vegetables which could be sold in Khartoum.
The sizes of the farms are between 20 to 40 fedan (4200 sqm) apart from the big
commercial projects in the area. The farmers usually live with their families in the
village, where they enjoy access to electricity and telephone services.
38
Two extension agents with a farmer in the field at Suba village. Photo: Mohamed Eltahir Eltayeb
The relation between the farmers and the extensionists looked very good, taking into
consideration that two of the extensionists are from the same area. Trying to convince
the farmers with a new agricultural technique seems not a difficult task for the
extensionists in this area. According to the extension agents it is easy for ideas to
move between the extensionists and the farmers in both directions. The extension
agents appreciate local innovations and they can spread this information through the
extension administration to others. The extension agents complain about the new
administrative system which established in 1996, which forces them to follow the
regulations of the localities administration instead of the agriculture extension
administration. Now the extension agents are expected to asses the income and the
properties of the farmers in their area of work and report the numbers of the animals
and the expected income from the agricultural season. The extension agents feel that
their new responsibilities interfere with their work as communicators of effective and
sustainable use of resources.
3.2.6. The relation between the farmers and the extension agents The farmers of this area prefer the extensionists who have connection with the area.
And not strangers. When questioned about the reasons they said that they don’t feel
free with strangers while they feel more free with the extensionists whose family
background is from the same area where they live and work. They don’t have
39
problems with extension agents who come from other parts of the country, but they
don’t feel the same degree of freedom as they do with the extensionists from their
own area, who can communicate informally with them at any time, e.g. in the shops,
during the eating time and so on.
40
Chapter Four
Discussion and Conclusion
41
4.1. Farmers’ perceptions to new innovations A norm is defined as the most frequently occurring pattern of event behavior for the
member of a particular social system (Rogers 1962). Norms influence the diffusion of
new ideas. Cultural resistance to new ideas is often found in food habits. For example,
pork meat is not allowed to be eaten by Muslim according to Islamic principles. Food
habits are generally embedded deeply in a society’s traditions; they are affected
directly by cultural values (Rogers 1962).
Based on the result of this research part of the farmers don’t accept new innovation,
because they think the government has its own objectives. Farmers are required to put
extra efforts in to the experiments without having any support from the banking
system in most cases. Some innovations don’t suit the farmer’s situations e.g. the size
of the farm and the financial facilities and support.
During the last ten years the government imposed two tax systems. The regular tax
and the zakat system. The latter is derived from Islamic laws, while the first is the
heritage of the colonial time. With the implementation of double taxation, producers
started to give inaccurate information to the tax authority and to the zakat agents as
well, in order to minimize the tax of their products. The tax and zakat authorities’
reaction was to leave the estimation of the producers to the local administration
agents, tax and zakat agents have also the right to take the equivalent of the tax and
zakat in kind. Since it is difficult to pay tax and zakat in fruits and vegetables, many
farmers switched from grain production to fruits and vegetables production. The tax
and zakat authorities then turned to the extension agents to help them assess the
production values of fruits and vegetables. The main effect of this policy is the loss of
trust between the farmers and the extension agents. Since the extension agents are
being part of the local administration structure and not the agriculture extension
administration, they don’t get a good response from the local administration when
they complain about using the same information for other purpose than the
agricultural extension services, and how this new role has changed the relation
between them and the farmers in a relative way. This new situation led some farmers
not to attend the extension agents’ sessions regularly and even some of them are not
taking the relation seriously any more.
42
4.2. Discussion on the farmer’s source of information at Suba village We can see in table (4) the field days have the greater preference compared to other
sources of information, due to the possibility of discussion with the extension agents.
The time and the place of discussion are mostly determined by the farmers and some
times the discussion can extends for more than the determined time.
The farmers less rely on the radio and TV programs. The radio program time is
usually around the breakfast time, which is not fixed for most of the farmers
especially at times of land preparation or harvesting time. Some farmers comment that
‘‘we think it is a good program, but we really don’t have time to listen to it
carefully’’. The state TV agricultural extension program was given a positive
response among the farmers who were following it since the language of the program
was understandable by the simple farmers. The agricultural extension program at the
national TV channel usually deals with the forestry and irrigation methods. The
farmers in Khartoum state see it some time as unsuitable program for them. It rarely
discuses their problems and the presenter is always trying to use a scientific language.
The publications are printed in a form of small book. They explain a complete
agriculture operation for a certain agricultural product, for example bananas,
watermelons, tomatoes, potatoes, etc. These publications are published by the
Agricultural extension administration at Khartoum State and edited by agricultural
research corporation at Shambat. One publication contains ten to fifteen pages. This
publication shows in its introduction why this agricultural product is important
considering its nutrition elements. Then it states which season is mostly suitable for ,
what kind of land is suitable and the exact suitable date for planting. Then it shows the
classification of the product and the different types of the seeds needed for each class
of the product, preparation of the seeds before putting it in the land ‘ if needed’,
preparation of the land, fertilization and irrigation. Further explanations about the
different kinds of the insects, different diseases which disturb the growing of the
products and the method of protection. Then it shows the time of harvesting and the
harvesting and storing methods. At the end it states the productivity per fedan.
The young farmers prefer these books. As mentioned by some of them ‘it is simple
and easy to read, the drawings are clear and also the photos’. Since it explains the
agricultural operation in a very simple language most of the farmers can understand it.
43
But the danger of using these publications is that it requires a comprehensive reading
before practice. Strict instructions and frameworks on how to do something tend to
block innovation and lead to standardization ( J N P retty, I Guijt, J Thompson, I
Scoones 1995). When asked about the negative side of these publications, extension
agents argued that regular updating of publications doesn’t block new innovations.
4.3 The extension models
As we can see in the first three models Technology transfer model, farmer first model
and participatory approach model (sections 2.3, 2.4 & 2.5) none of them deals with
sustainability. Technology transfer model is top down. Farmer’s indigenous
knowledge is not exploited. The technology for the farmers in this approach comes
from the research centers and policy makers. The choice between different
technologies is non-existent, since the farmers were not assisted in designing these
strategies. The scientists often concentrate on a product or a process which may not
fulfill a genuine need of the farmers. For example some innovations which are not
suitable to the farmers in the field seem to be suitable in the laboratories.
The farmer first model is the opposite of technology transfer model. The process starts
from the bottom and the farmers are the basic units for designing the strategies, and
they can choose between different technologies. The limitation of this approach is that
farmer selection of technologies may not link with the national policy of the country.
The participatory approach depends on positive response of the decision makers based
on high quality research output, the interdependency model of extension ( section 2.6)
considered the users ( farmers) as the corner stone of the whole process. Based on
this model the farmers themselves set their own objectives, then the development of
the extension strategy could start and interaction between the research centers and
extensionists could lead to the suitable definition of information tools and the
technology to be used. Having a look at the other experiments can help in reaching the
objectives of the extension program. The implementation phase of the Greer &
Greer’s (1996) model requires that those who are required to implement change on the
ground must have the capacity to take up the technologies or ideas. Communities with
good social networks, a high level of trust and therefore good social capital, are more
44
likely to implement change successfully than those without those features (maf
technical paper no 2002/03).
The extension model that is used by the agricultural extension administration is a
bottom up model theoretically, but practically it is a top down model since the farmers
are partially absent in designing the agricultural policy in addition The tax system
policy is not corresponding with the agricultural policy. Farmers do not feel that they
work in a favorable environment. The tax rate is very high compared to the farmer’s
income. And as realized by this study the agricultural extension services are not
organized to cover all the farms in the state due to poor coordination between
different institutions concerned with the agricultural issues in the state. Taking the
example of Shambat area, where the farms are located near to the research
institutions, in spite of this farmers are lacking the agriculture extension services.
Even the declared model of the agriculture extension which appears to be partially
participatory ignores the farmers’ economical status.
4.4 Applying the interdependency approach model to agriculture extension To apply the interdependency approach model of extension to agriculture extension,
as seen in figure (1), there should be an additional link between the implementation
level of the extension programs and the extension institutions regarding the perception
of the farmers towards the new programs in a form of a feedback process (figure 4).
Such a feedback should be discussed at the interaction level between the different
partners who participate in designing the policies. Feedback from the farmers
regarding the applicability of the extension programs in the fields plus the
consideration of the farmers’ changing social and economical situations need to be
regarded as basics in setting the objectives of policies for agricultural extension
strategies. The sustainability feature of the model could thus become more realistic
since changes among the farmers could be integrated in a cyclical process. Such new
changes on the ground could in the long run lead to re designing the goals of the
extension program.
45
Farmers
Agricultural extension institutions.
Research institutions Interaction
Definition of farmers’ technology and other information needs
Relevant outputs sought from research and other agencies
Definition of objectives of extension programs
Implementation of programs with farmers communities
Feed- back, and percepti-ons of farmers
Figure 4: The interdependency approach model to agriculture extension.
4.5. Results
1. The extension work is hindered by a number of administrative problems. The
major one is the lack of understanding among the top policy makers concerning the
philosophy and objectives of extension education. This obviously appears from the
consequences of applying a new administration system, where the extension agents
in the fields and the agriculture extension administration in the state ministry of
agriculture have been separated. With in this new system the extension agents are
being linked to the localities administration. The locality administration concerns
in most cases are with the locality returns on tax and zakat rather than presenting
services to the people of the locality.
2. Lack of cooperation between the different organizations working in the field of
agricultural extension and administration leads to unsuitable use of extension
models by these organization. This is also due to absence of the NGO’s and local
46
organizations in the fields. The Islamic government since early 1990 adopted a
policy to minimize the work of NGO’s in the country for political reasons. And
even those organizations which manage to get a permit to work are usually faced
by lack of cooperation from the different state departments. The other face of
lacking cooperation is that, agricultural faculties in agricultural areas have no
serious relations with the surrounding farmers e.g. shambat area .
3. Farmers usually tried to understand the objectives of the extension agents in the
area at the beginning of the communication process. If the farmers misunderstand
the objectives of the extensionists, they usually do not respond regularly to the
meetings and the agricultural extension sessions do by the agricultural extension
agents. In Shambat area the farmers may not respond to the agricultural extension
agents, due to lack of follow up of the complete operation from the extension
agents’ side.
4. Not all farms are covered by direct extension services, due to lack of a good
management structure of the agriculture extension administration. As we can see in
Shambat area, it is lacking the direct extension services, although it is in a middle
of agricultural faculties and research centers, and not so far to the agriculture
extension administration.
5. Absence of farmers associations. It is well known that in the last fifteen years, the
farmer unions have been led by a group of farmers who have big agricultural
projects in the country. They are not giving more awareness to small farms.
6. By the end of 1996, a new structure of agricultural extension administration was re
designed , that the extensionists became linked with the administration of the
locality, and not to the state extension administration. This process led to a more
complex relation between the extensionists them selves, because the top
management of the localities are usually have no relation with the agricultural
extension work, because of this it was not given priority in their agenda.
Furthermore the extensionists some times do some duties, which have no relation
with the extension work; this is so because of lack of manpower at the locality
level.
7. The training centers give more emphasis to the agricultural information, and less
awareness to human and behavioral sciences. This pattern has been shown by this
47
study, when some farmers complain about the financial facilities needed for
adopting new technologies. The extension agents transfer the agricultural
information to the farmers, which don’t include economic and social parts. During
the last fifteen years the social structure of the Sudanese community in general has
changed due to severe deterioration in the economic situation, hence the inflation
rates record very high levels, then these changes really led to some changes in the
society’s relations and even in family relations. All these issues are absent in the
agricultural extension sessions.
4.6 Some strategies for enhancing agricultural extension services
1/ The extension model should be built on the economic and social background of the
farmers. It is of great importance for the agriculture extension strategy to include the
economic and social norms. The economic status of the farmers can really play a great
role for technology transfer to the farmers. In addition to the economic and social
attitudes of the farmers, those factors are very important to be study deeply. The
economic status a lone is not an indicator for decision making of individuals, the
habits, patterns of living; traditions and customs are also related issues. For example
in the western part of Sudan there is a big nomadic tribe known as Bagara, it has huge
amount of cows, by reference to economic standards they are rich. But when we go
back to their traditions and customs, the cows itself have spiritual value, and it is
against the norms of the tribe to sell them. Regarding this point the economic
standards alone can’t give a complete definition of the tribe socio-economic status.
Another example from the farmers’ societies is if farmer has a big piece of land and
living in a society where the land is a source of power and social status, the owners of
these lands may even avoid sell or hiring it. In these societies the farmers normally
tend to borrow from the banking system, if they face shortage in their budget.
Establishing financial facilities for the farmers with easy contractual conditions is of
great important for attaining successful agricultural seasons.
In the modern societies where agriculture is becoming a profitable business, the
situation is different. Where farmers some times work as hired labor in the farms
don’t have share in the output in most cases. The owners of the land can sell the land
at any time if the output is not encouraging their profit expectations.
48
2/ There should be a mechanism for rehabilitation of the extension management
system in the state, since the extension agents should be linked directly to the
extension administration in the state, instead of the localities. The agriculture
extension in Khartoum state as shown by this study is neglected for different reasons.
Rehabilitation of this system should start from restructuring the management system.
The agricultural extension should be design as one unit, with a certain hierarchical
management structure. The extension agents at any level should belong to the
agriculture extension administration. Finding funds to rebuild the agriculture
extension stations in the different parts of the state, in order to facilitate the
networking between the different parts of the departments of agricultural extension. It
is also important that strategy of using mass media, should be design on the
preferences of the farmers especially the timing and the content of the programs for
more efficient popular communication.
The extension agents are always preferred to be from they same area the work in. As
long as the extension agents are aware of the societies’ habits and norms, the transfer
of ideas will be easy. Moreover the relation between the farmers and the extension
agents will take an informal structure, where the cultural communication can play
vital role in the diffusion of innovations, assessing farmers’ attitudes and perceptions
towards the new agricultural techniques.
3/ The policy makers should take great consideration farmers needs and combine them
with the state and national needs of the country. If the transfer of technology from the
research centers to the farmers through the agricultural extension fulfils the genuine
needs of the farmers, then the response of the farmers could be really high. Involving
the needs of the farmers in the major polices of the state can play a cornerstone for
successful agricultural extension strategies. The farmers associations can explain the
problems of the farmers they represent, while strong farmers’ unions can play a role in
changing the government strategies towards farmers’ needs. Due to absence of the
farmers unions in the country, the agricultural extension funds are being reduced in
each annual budget of the state. So the voice of the farmer’s union is the lowest
among the other labor unions. Empowering the farmers union and associations will
help even the state to know what problems the farmers are facing and their suggested
solution for their problems based on their experience. As long as the circle of
49
communication between the farmers and the policy makers is not closed, the strategies
can not be well defined.
4/ The extension agents should have the opportunity to enjoy a participatory extension
work. Since the extension agents are the link between the on farm and off farm
people, it is of great importance that the extension agents participate in the farmers’
practical life. Through participation the farmers and extension agents’ relations could
become stronger. The extension agents can practically touch the effect of habits,
norms and customs in the farmers’ life, and they can really know the needs of the
farmers and how these needs could be fulfilled in the view of the farmers, through
participatory working with the farmers.
Accessing to indigenous knowledge which leads to building trust between the farmer
and the extensionist is important. The best means of access is by looking, learning and
joining in with traditional practices and through informal interviews about these
practices whilst staying with farmers in their homes or gathering in small groups.
Knowledge about local customs, dresses and behaviors by the outsider extension
worker is very important. It is important to pay respect to local, Promote the concept
of mutual learning, listen to farmers and asking them about what they know as well as
sharing ideas, knowledge and concepts is as well important.
5/ The farmers’ perception on the innovations should be given great consideration,
before starting the diffusion of innovation program. Most innovations may have
positive results in the laboratories, but shifting innovations to the farmers fields is
another challenge. The farmers’ perceptions towards the innovations playing a big
role for success of the innovation in the fields. Getting the perceptions of the farmers
are usually expressed during the trial stage of the diffusion of innovations process.
Farmers’ perceptions at the beginning of the diffusion process are important, because
it can lead to change of the extension strategy into another track based on the farmers’
suggestions and perceptions on the new innovations. It also will reflect the farmers’
capacity in using the new innovation.
6/ Finding a mechanism of feedback of farmer’s perceptions to the extension program
are of great importance for the sustainability of the agriculture extension strategies.
Information of the farmers’ perceptions towards the policy and applicability of the
extension program is the link point between the farmers’ community and policy
makers. The farmer’s perception at the level of implementation of the extension
50
program goes through the extension agents who work with the farmers communities.
A change in the farmer’s behavior or attitudes to a certain innovations should be
considered when re defining agricultural extension objectives.
51
References Allen, Will & Margaret Kilvington ( 2002). Sustainable Development Extension MAF Technical Paper No: 2002/03. http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/rural-nz/people-and-their-issues/education/sustainable-development-extension/index.htm. (accessed February 2002). Alsheikh, A (1991). Agricultural guide for technicians and agricultural extensionists, in the production of vegetables and fruits. Chapter 1. Cited by Anas.
Anas. A. A. Hassan A Alsheikh, Matian Brpwon. (1991). The guide of technician and agricultural extensionists, in the production of vegetables and fruits. University of Sudan. Carey, Harry A. Rome (1999). Communication in extension and teaching & learning. FAO publication, Rome. Chamala, S., & Mortiss, P. (1990). Working together for land care. Brisbane: Australian Academic Press. Chambers, R., Pacey, A. & Thrupp, L. A. (1989). Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Davies, H.R.J. (1994). An agricultural revolution in the African tropics. Tijdschrift voor Economisch en Social geograpfie, 55, 101-8.
Department of agricultural extension records 2001. Khartoum north section.
Edris, H. 1975. Agriculture Research Capabilities and Scope in the Sudan, NCR, Khartoum.
Eltom, A. (1986). Towards a long-term agricultural development strategy and related policies. Paper. First National Economic Conference, Agricultural Sector Conference, Khartoum, 18-20 February 1986. Agricultural Information Center, Agricultural Extension Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Khartoum.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) Technical Cooperation Programme (1986). Agricultural policy development. Sudan. Technical report: agricultural policy planning development in the northern region of the Sudan. FAO. Rome. Fliegel, F. C. (1993). Diffusion research in rural sociology, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Frank, B. & Chamala, S. (1992). Effectiveness of extension strategies. In G. Lawrence., F. Vanclay, & B. Furze (Eds.), Agriculture, environment and society (pp. 122-140). Melbourne: Macmillan.
52
Gaitskell, A. (1959). Gezira: a story of development in the Sudan. Faber and Faber, London. Greer, J.; Greer G. 1996. Experiences of agricultural extension. MAF Policy Information Paper No. 12. http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/publications/agext (accessed June 2001). Habashi, W. (1968). The development of agricultural production in the Sudan. Lectures presented to the Department of Extra-Mural Studies. University of Khartoum.
Hall, Edward T. (1976/1981). Beyond culture, New York. Doubleday. Hornik, Robert. ( 1998 ). Development communication-Information, Agriculture and Nutrition in the third world. New York, University Press of America. Inc. Internet, FAO web site. December 2003. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/AB574E/AB574E03.htm#4807 Ismail, E. 1986. Bukra Insha Alah. A look into Sudanese culture. Hundt Druck Gmbh, Köln. Printed in Germany. ISBN 3-9801259-0-4.
Ministry of Finance and Economics (1961). The ten year plan of economics and social development, 1961/62-1970/71. Ministry of Finance and Economics . Khartoum. Norton, Geoff & Elaine Brough. Electronic journal of Extension. August 1995. Volume 33 Number 4. http://www.joe.org/joe/1995august/a1.html Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Pest Management, University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia . Pretty, J; Guijt I; Thompson, J; Scoones, I. (1995). IIED Participatory Methodology Series. Participatory learning and action, A trainer’s Guide. Russell Press, Nottingham. Rogers, E. M & Thomas M. S. (1999). Intercultural Communication. Waveland Press, Inc., Illinois. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
Sabir, Edward (1935). “Communication” in Encyclopedia of the social sciences. Volume IV, New York. Macmillan.
Salam, M. M. A. (1986). Agricultural policy formation and administration. In the agricultural sector of Sudan. Policy and systems studies. Ithaca Press. London.
Sayeed. Hassan, J.M. Ahmed, M. Hussein. 1986. The Agricultural Sector of Sudan, Policy and Systems Studies. Chapter 5. Abdul Hameed Shoman Foundation, Amman.
53
Seymour, J; Foster, J & Brough, E. (1994). Workshop report: Use of Trichogramma as a bio control agent in Australia. Brisbane: Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Pest Management. State Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources records. 2001.
Thogersen, Jens Ole Boyer; Povl Norgaard Anderson; Christian S.E. Jensen and Lasse Solheim, (1989). The role of agricultural extension. Proceeding of the 9th European Seminar on Extension Education in Sweden.
Timmer, W. J. D. Sc. (Agriculture). The human side of agriculture. Vantage Press, New York, 1982.
Trilbach, A. 1991. The agriculture of Sudan. Chapter 12. Center for Agricultural Strategies Series. Oxford University Press.
Trilbach, A & Hulme, M. ( 1984). Recent rainfall changes in central Sudan and their physical and human implications. Institute of British geographers.
Trilbach, A. (1987). Agricultural west of the White Nile. In Rural development in White Nile province. United Nations University Press, Tokyo.
Walsh, R.P.D. (1991). Oxford science publications. The agriculture of the Sudan. Edited by M. M. Craig. Oxford University Press. Wilson, J. (1992). Changing agriculture: An introduction to systems thinking. Kenthurst, Australia: Kangaroo Press.
Wohlmuth, K. ( 1991). The agriculture of the Sudan. Chapter 12. Oxford University Press.
Wohlmuth, K & Hansholm, D. (1984). Economic policy changes in the democratic Republic of the Sudan. Research report. University of Bremen.
Zahlan, A. 1986. The Agricultural Sector of Sudan, Policy and Systems Studies. Chapter 5. Abdul Hameed Shoman Foundation, Amman.
54
Appendices
1. Map of Sudan
,
1. Shambat
2. Suba
Source: http://www.derreisefuehrer.com/images/maps/SD01M.GIF1 and 2 are the areas of the study.
55
2. Gross Domestic Product ( GDP) for Sudan in the periods between 1956-2002
Year
Percentage of contribution of agriculture in GDP
1956 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
61.0 % 57.3 % 47.7 % 38.2 % 40.0 % 34.4 %
The contribution of the agricultural sector in G DP for the years 1956-1980.
Source: Zahlan 1986., Elhassan 1976Economic surveys.
Year
Percentage of contribution of agriculture in GDP
1983 1984 1985 1986 1987
35.5 % 31.1 % 35.9 % 35.4 % 32.5 %
The contribution of the agricultural sector in G DP for the years 1983-1987 Source: Craig 1991,Bank of Sudan Annual report.1989.
56
Year
Percentage of contribution of agriculture in GDP
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
47.6 % 48.7 % 49.8 % 49.4 % 46.6. % 46.6 %
The contribution of the agricultural sector in G DP for the years 1997- 2002.
Source: Internet, Bank of Sudan Annual reports.1999,2000 ,2001 and 2002.
57
3. Semi structured interview with the farmers of Shambat area 1/ what is the suitable source of technical information for you?
2/ Do you think the information you get from such media, satisfy all the required agricultural technical information needed ?.
3/ what kind of relation do you have with the faculties of agriculture near by your farm?
4/ is there any contact between you and the agricultural extension agents in Khartoum state?
58
4. Semi structured interview wit the farmers in Suba village 1/ do you think the area is well covered with the extension services? 2/ can you get the agricultural technical information easily? 3/ how do you contact with the extension agent. 4/ do you think it is easy to communicate with the extension agent? 5/ how is the relation between you and the extension agent? 6/ is there any resistant to new agricultural innovations, and what are the reasons in such behavior if it exist?
59
5. Semi structured interview with a group of extension agents in Suba village 1/ what is your family background? 2/ how long have you been working as agricultural extension agent? 3/ what level of education do you have? 4/ what are the sources of training and updating of technical information? 5/ what are the most common tools of communication with the farmers, and why? 6/ what do you thing the reasons behind not covering all the state farms with the agricultural extensoion services?
7/ are you satisfied with your work?
60