the governance of service delivery for the poor and women:a study of agricultural extension and...
Post on 29-Nov-2014
2.169 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
The Governance of Service Delivery for
the Poor and Women:A Study of Agricultural Extension and Rural
Water Supply in Ethiopia
Regina Birner, Mamusha Lemma,
Tewodaj Mogues, Fanaye Tadesse
ESSP-II Policy Conference
22-24 October, 2009
Hilton Hotel, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia
Rationale of the research project
• Agriculture is back on the international development
agenda,
• but providing agricultural and rural services has remained
a major challenge!
• How to reach millions of farmers even in the most remote
areas?
• Governance reforms worldwide
• Decentralization – involving local communities in service
delivery – public sector reforms
• What works where and why?
• What works for the rural poor and for women?
Three-country research project: Ethiopia, India and Ghana
Page 3
Social and economic services
and infrastructure in rural areas
Rural roads
Electricity
Drinking water
Health and
education
Agricultural
extension
Agricultural
input
supply
What are the challenges of providing
rural services?
• Challenges to make the market mechanism work
• Public good – merit good – externalities
• Challenges for the public sector
• Transaction-intensive in terms of space and time
• Requiring discretion – difficult to standardize (extension)
• Challenges of involving local communities
• Local elite capture, social exclusion
• Capacity problems
• Special challenges to reach women with agricultural services
• Perception bias: ―Women don’t farm.‖
• Key to meeting the challenge: Creating accountability!
Page 5
$
Total costsincurred forachieving adefined outcome
AttributesDiversity of agricultural conditions
Oliver Williamson’s cost-effectiveness approach
to identify the efficient governance structure
Difficultiesofsupervision
TCP
Extension provided under standardized package approach
Extension provided with adjusted packages
TCA
a1
Extension provided with discretion of extension agent
TCD
a2
Page 6
$
Total costsincurred forachieving adefined outcome
AttributesDiversity of agricultural conditions
Oliver Williamson’s cost-effectiveness approach
to identify the efficient governance structure
Difficultiesofsupervision
TCP
Extension provided under standardized package approach
Extension provided with adjusted packages
TCA
a1
Extension provided with discretion of extension agent
with increased accountability
TCD
a2
National / State-level Ministries (NM)
National / State-levelPolitical Representatives (NP)
Development Agencies / Advocacy
NGOs (DA)
Community-BasedOrganizations (CO)
Local Political Representatives (LP)
Household Members (HH)
Public SectorService Providers (PS)
NGO / Privateservice providers (NG)
Services
PoliticalParties (PP)
Accountability Framework based on World Bank (2004)
Focus of the study in Ethiopia
• Access to agricultural extension
• High policy attention to extension, and increasing adaptation of
packages
• Knowledge gap: How much outreach has been actually achieved so
far in different regions? How well does the delivery mechanism work?
• Gender dimension of agricultural extension
• General government commitment to gender equality
• Knowledge gap: To what extent do agricultural extension services
address the needs of female farmers?
• Drinking water supply
• Government efforts to increase water supply through decentralized
provision, and water committees
• Knowledge gap: How do these delivery methods actually work on the
ground?
Study Design and Research
Methods
Page 10
Local Political Representatives (LP)
Household Members (HH)
Public SectorService Providers (PS)
NGO / Privateservice providers (NG)
Services
Household Members- Both HH head and spouse
separately (1,761 respondents: 843 men, 238 female-hh-heads, 680 female spouses)
Local Political Representatives- Kebele chair (156)- Kebele council member (312)- Kebele council speaker (156)- Wereda council member (156)
Service Providers- Development agents (312)- Agricultural cooperative head (156)- Water committee head (156)
Household survey Kebele level survey
Kebele level survey
Survey Design
Survey Design
8 weredas total, in 7 regions: Afar, Amhara, Beneshangul-Gumuz, Gambella, Oromia, SNNP, Tigray
Four paired weredas (in proximity to each other): One wereda of a pair in “leading” locally decentralised region, one in an “emerging” region.
In the case of one pair: Amhara and Tigray—de facto differences in history of local empowerment
Page 12
Survey Design
Household survey (quantitative): – in 4 randomly drawn kebeles of each of the 8 weredas– 35 randomly drawn households in each selected kebele– total of planned 1120 households, with up to two respondents in each household
Kebele-level surveys (quantitative):– in all kebeles of each selected wereda– total of planned 156 kebeles
Case studies (qualitative):– in one kebele in each of four weredas (in Amhara, Beneshangul-Gumuz, Oromia,
Tigray); ie weredas are subset of the above 8 weredas– interviews at the wereda and kebele level in these four weredas
In this first set of studies:
We mostly take a descriptive-analytical approach
Page 13
Agricultural Extension
Access to different forms of extension
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%E
xte
nsio
n v
isits
farm
/ho
me
Att
en
d
exte
nsio
nis
t's
co
mm
un
ity m
ee
tin
gs
Vis
it
de
mo
nstr
atio
n
plo
ts
Vis
it
de
mo
nstr
atio
n
ho
me
s
Tra
ine
d a
t
Fa
rme
r T
rain
ing
Ce
ntr
e
Se
rvic
e b
y
co
op
era
tive
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
inp
ut cre
dit
Men Women
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Access to extension, by poverty and
education
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%E
xte
nsio
nis
t at
farm
/ho
me
Exte
nsio
nst's
co
mm
un
ity
m
eetings
De
mo
nstr
atio
n
plo
ts
De
mon
str
ation
ho
mes
Farm
er
Tra
inin
g
Ce
ntr
e
Serv
ice b
y
coo
pe
rative
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
in
put cre
dit
Literate
Illiterate
Non-poor
Poor
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Access to extension by survey site (percent of respondents)
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
54
3937
25 24
118
2
39
27 27
18
24
1513
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
Visited by extension agent at farm or home
Attended extension agent’s community meetings
Access to extension and livestock services in India
(Percent households with contract during past year)
27.2
67.8
1.04.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Agricultural extension
Livestock services
Male-headed households (owning land/livestock, respectively)
Female-headed households (owning land/livestock, respectively)
ISEC-IFPRI Survey, 2006
Page 19
11.7% 12.3%10.9%
0.0%
2.1%
0.0%
1.8% 1.4%0.5%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Forest Zone Transition Zone Savannah Zone
Male-Headed Households Female-Headed Households
Female Spouses
Access to agricultural extension in Ghana(Percent households visited by agent during the past year)
ISSER-IFPRI Survey, 2008
Gender composition of extension staff(Percentage in sample)
ISEC / ISSER / EEPRI - IFPRISurveys
Satisfaction with agricultural extension(percent of respondents)
92.5 95.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
HH Heads Spouses
Very dissatisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Very satisfied
Adoption of new technologiesDuring the past two years, did you start to use some farming
practice for the first time, such as a new variety, new crop, new
input, new cultivation technique, new breed, etc.?
10.33.5
89.796.6
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Head Spouses
no
yes
Variables associated with visit by extension
agent and uptake of new practices
Variable Visit by
extension
agent
Started new
agricultural
practice
Gender (1=male) + ***
Education (1=literate)
Household status (1=head)
Wealth (consumer assets owned) + **
Household size + *** + ***
Male dependents
Female dependents - *
District dummies included included
Observations 1,753 1,740
Likelihood ratio chi-square test 250.69 *** 167.08 ***EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Reducing regional disparity in access to extension
• Federal support to emerging regions already ongoing
• What additional strategies could be used?
• Strategies to better target female farmers
• Linking extension with women’s groups
• Increasing female staff among extension agents
• Evaluating agricultural extension services
• Challenges in measuring farmers’ satisfaction
• High satisfaction rates in spite of low adoption rates
• Need for further methodology development, especially if
satisfaction data are to be used for management purposes
• Measuring adoption rates and productivity
• Further research needed if goal is to establish causality
Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Making extension more demand-driven
• Trade-off
• Better supervision in case of package approach
• Limitation to adapt to diverse local conditions
• How to increase discretion of extension agents, while using
other mechanisms to create accountability?
• Recent policy changes (Implemented after this study)
• Development of packages based on ―best practices‖ of local
model farmers
• Shifting of responsibility for monitoring from supervisors to
Subject Matter Specialists
• Increased role for kebele councils/cabinets
• Assessment of new approaches topic for future research
Drinking Water
Access to drinking water
(Primary water source)
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
National
average:
11%
(2004, WDI 2008)
Primary water source is improved source
Gender -0.287 *
(1 = male) (0.169)
Education 0.017 Afar-D -0.334
(1 = literate) (0.133) (0.217)
Respondent status 0.119 Amhara-D2 0.239
(1 = head, 0 = spouse) (0.127) (0.182)
Wealth (No. of consumer 0.046 * Benesh. G.-D -0.088
asset types owned) (0.024) (0.173)
HH size (No. of -0.019 Gambella-D 0.437 ***
HH members) (0.018) (0.164)
Working age women -0.010 Oromia-D -1.579 ***
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.241)
Working age men -0.010 SNNP-D -1.193 ***
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.205)
Female dependents -0.011 Tigray-D 0.165
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.185)
Male dependents -0.009 constant 0.595
(% of HH members) (0.009) (0.932)
No. of obs.: 960, LR χ2: 196.53***
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Average time to get water from different
water sources (in minutes)
Water source Wet season Dry Season
River, lake, spring, pond 58 91
Rainwater 6 –
Well without pump 74 102
Well with pump 71 82
Public standpipe 30 29Household’s private standpipe/ tap 3 3
Water vendor 63 80
Other 24 153
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
In Ghana:
Less than
30 minutes
Identification of public services with greatest problem, by socioeconomic status
Public service/ infrastructure:
Education status Wealth status
Literate Illiterate Non-poor Poor
Drinking water 28% 34% 28% 36%
Sanitation/drainage 0% 0% 0% 0%Small-scale irrigation 1% 1% 1% 1%
Health 17% 19% 18% 15%
Education 6% 3% 7% 3%
Electricity 14% 8% 17% 13%
Roads 16% 6% 15% 11%
Livelihood opportunities 2% 1% 3% 3%
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Identification of public services with greatest problem, by region
Afar- Amhara- Amhara- Benesh. G- Gambella- Oromia- SNNP- Tigray-
D D2 D3 D D D D D
Drinking water 65% 29% 25% 35% 28% 36% 19% 34%Sanitation/ drainage 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Small irrigation 1% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 1%
Health 21% 31% 22% 31% 8% 9% 11% 14%
Education 1% 8% 3% 3% 1% 9% 2% 5%
Electricity 0% 10% 21% 7% 6% 6% 16% 40%
Roads 0% 10% 22% 9% 6% 8% 33% 1%Livelihood opportunities 2% 4% 4% 1% 2% 1% 6% 3%
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Identification of public services of greatest concern, by gender
Public service/Infrastructure: Men Women
Diff. sign.
Drinking water 31% 34%
Sanitation/drainage 0% 0%
Small-scale irrigation 1% 0% *
Health 17% 19%
Education 5% 3%
Electricity 16% 11% **
Roads 14% 12% **
Livelihood opportunities 2% 3% **
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Particular concerns with drinking water supply
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Men Women Men Women
problem 7 years ago problem today
Not enough drinking water supply
Drinking water is of poor quality
Problems with collecting fees for water use
Other problems with water
Satisfaction with quantity and quality of drinking water supply
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Tendency to complain when dissatisfied with drinking water
Yes No Never been dissatisfied Yes No Never been dissatisfied
Question: During the past 1 year, did you approach anyone when you
were dissatisfied with the water quantity or quality?
Male respondents Female respondents
5% 3%
6%
16%
77% 91%
EEPRI-IFPRI Survey, 2009
Capacity of Water Committees
• Water committees receive limited training on technical
issues concerning water facilities
• But receive no training on ―soft skills‖: Community
mobilisation to maintain water systems; community
education and persuasion to use improved sources; etc.
• In several of the sites, receive little technical and other
support from wereda water desks
• In all case study sites except for one, water committee
heads were men (although other water committee
members included women)
Accountability and consultation in water provision
• Local knowledge and priorities in water service provision
• Sense of a lack of consultation with local water committees in siting and
construction of water facilities
• Found to be the case irrespective of facility provider (government or NGOs)
• Problematic relationship between water committees and
water users
• Water committees unable to persuade users to participate in maintenance
and pay fees
• Collapse of water facilities as well as water committees
• Fall-back to use of unimproved water sources when facilities don’t work,
rather than use complaint mechanism
• In Tigray, better ―short route‖ accountability mechanisms than elsewhere
• Though everywhere, much dissatisfaction about level of financial fees for
construction and maintenance of systems
Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Access to safe drinking water sources is very low
• 32% of study households—which is substantially higher
than nation-wide rural access of 11% (2004, WDI 2008)
• Weak accountability links may be a hindrance in translating
rural residents priority concerns into policy priorities
Placing access to safe drinking water higher on the priority
list (noting that it also has implications for productivity)
• Households identify drinking water as their main priority
concern
• yet they report relatively high satisfaction rates and hardly
take any action to complain.
Treat satisfaction data with care.
Conclusions and Policy Implications
• Water committees, the lowest level service providers, are
still insufficiently inclusive
Take measures to make committees inclusive – or
consider alternatives (Making it a responsibility of
councils?)
• Water committees not able to counter-act top-down
facility provision.
Draw on local knowledge and local considerations in
selecting sites – more discretion.
• Water committees have high discretion in setting rules,
fees, etc., but unable to effectively use this discretion due
to nearly no training on “soft skills”
Train water committees on community relations
Page 39
Conclusions
National / State-level Ministries (NM)
National / State-levelPolitical Representatives (NP)
Development Agencies / Advocacy
NGOs (DA)
Community-BasedOrganizations (CO)
Local Political Representatives (LP)
Household Members (HH)
Public SectorService Providers (PS)
NGO / Privateservice providers (NG)
Services
PoliticalParties (PP)
Accountability Framework based on World Bank (2004)
top related