EXTENSION PROGRAM COVERAGE AND UTILIZATION BY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF FARMERS IN ENEMORE AND ENER WOREDA, GURAGE ZONE

M. Sc. Thesis

Edlu Badwo

June, 2006 Haramaya University

EXTENSION PROGRAM COVERAGE AND UTILIZATION BY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF FARMERS IN ENEMORE AND ENER WOREDA, GURAGE ZONE

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension, School of Graduate Studies Haramaya University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (Rural Development and Agricultural Extension)

By Edlu Badwo

June, 2006 Haramaya University

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ALEMAYA UNIVERSITY

As Thesis Research advisor, I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated this Thesis prepared, under my guidance, by Edlu Badwo, entitled Extension Program Coverage and Utilization by Different Categories of Farmers in Enemore and Ener Woreda, Gurage Zone. I recommended that it be submitted as fulfilling the Thesis requirement.

_________________________ Major Advisor

_____________ Signature

___________ Date

________________________ Co-advisor

______________ Signature

__________ Date

As member of the Board of Examiners of the M. Sc. Thesis Open Defense Examination, we certify that we have read and evaluated the Thesis prepared by Edlu Badwo and examined the candidate. We recommend that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Rural Development and Agricultural Extension).

_______________________ Chairperson

_______________ Signature

___________ Date

_______________________ External Examiner

_______________ Signature

___________ Date

_______________________ Internal Examiner

_______________ Signature

___________ Date

ii

DEDICATION
To the Poor Farmers of Ethiopia

iii

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

First, I hereby declare that this thesis is my bona fide work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced MSc degree at Haramaya University and is deposited at the University Library to be made available to borrowers under the rules of the library. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Extension the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University, when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Edlu Badwo Place: Haramaya University, Haramaya Date of Submission: Appril 2006

Signature: __________

iv

ABBREVIATIONS
AKISRD ARDU CADU CD CPPs CSA DA EARO EPID EMTP FAO FSR HHs HYMVs MoA MPP I MPP II NARS NGO PA PADEP Agricultural Knowledge and Information System for Rural Development Arsi Rural Development Unit Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit Community Development Comprehensive Package Programs Central Statistics Authority Development Agent Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization Extension and Project Implementation Department Extension Management Training Plot Food and Agriculture Organization Farming System Research Household Heads High Yielding Maize Varieties Ministry of Agriculture The First Minimum Package Program The Second Minimum Package Program National Agricultural Research System Non Governmental Organization Peasants Association Peasant Agricultural Development Program

PADETES Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System PTD Participatory Technology Development PRA SMSs SRS T&V TLU TOT USAID WADU Participatory Rural Appraisal Subject Matter Specialists Simple Random Sampling Training and Visit Tropical Livestock Unit Transfer of Technology United States Agency for International Development Wolaita Agricultural Development Unit

BIOGRAPHY

The author was born in Enemor and Ener woreda, Gurage Zone, Ethiopia, in 1975. He completed his primary, junior, and secondary school education at the same place at Gunchire Junior Secondary Schools (1980-1991). After passing Ethiopian School Leaving Certificate Examination (ESLCE), he joined the former Alemaya University of Agriculture in September 1995 and graduated with B.Sc degree in the field of Agricultural Extension in July 1998.

Starting from September 1999 up to September 2004 he served in the same place MoA in Enemore and Ener Woreda in different areas; as Farm Management Expert, as a Coordinator of On-Farm Trial, Data Collection and Analysis of Agricultural Information, and Agricultural Training, as a Team Leader of Extension Communication and Farmer Training, and as an Expert in Agricultural Training. He joined the former Alemaya University in September 2004 to pursue his graduate program in Rural Development and Agricultural Extension.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost let me praise and honor the almighty God for the opportunity and capacity he gave unto me realize my aspiration. I am also greatly indebted for members of Jesuss families who have been praying for my success. Several individuals and organizations deserve acknowledgement for their contributions to the study. I am greatly indebted to my major advisor Ranjan S. Karippai (Ph.D) and co-advisor Habtemariam Abate (Ph.D) for their unreserved help, advice, directing, insight guidance, support on the field, critical review of my thesis manuscript, invaluable support and suggestions as without their professional help it was difficult to be successful in my academic, research work and thesis write up. I would also like to carry my gratitude to Enemore and Ener woreda Rural Development and Agricultural Office for providing me with financial support during the process of data collection. In addition, I would like to thank staff members of Enemore and Ener woreda Rural Development and Agricultural Office for their friendly and dedicated co-operation. I am indebted to the residents in Gunchire town for their invaluable encouragement and advice during the course of my study. My appreciation is given to Gurage Zone Rural Development and Agricultural Office that provided transport service to bring my major-adviser to study area and for field visit. My special thanks are given to my wife, W/ro Mesert Woldemariam and our family for their invaluable encouragement throughout the study period.

My special gratitude goes to enumerators, the members of the sample farm households, and key-informants for their valuable cooperation during data collection at the peak time of agricultural activity in the area.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page STATEMENT OF AUTHOR ABBREVIATIONS BIOGRAPHY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background 1.2. Statement of the Problem 1.3. Objectives of the study 1.4. Research Question 1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study 1.5. Significance of the Study 1.6. Organization of the Thesis 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Theoretical Background 2.1.1. Historical overview of agricultural extension service in Ethiopia 2.1.1.1. Imperial era viii IV V VI VII XI XII XIII XIV XV 1 1 4 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 9 9

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 2.1.1.2. Marxist regime 2.1.1.2. Era of decentralization 2.1.2. Coverage and nature of extension program 2.1.2.1. Extension towards resource-rich farmers 2.1.2.2. Extension towards resource-poor farmers 2.1.2.3. Extension towards women farmers 2.1.2.4. Diffusion versus participatory approach to reach different category of farmers 2.1.3. Level of awareness and utilization of extension program 2.1.4. Constraints in access and utilization of extension program 2.2. Empirical Studies 2.3. Conceptual Development of the Study 2.4. Hypothesis and Definition of Variables 2.4.1. Dependent variables of the study 2.4.2. Independent variables of the Study 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Description of the Study Area 3.2. Data Type and Data Source 3.3. Sample Size and Method 3.3.1. Qualitative data collection methods 3.3.2. Quantitative data collection methods 3.4. Data Analysis 4. RESULT AND DESCUSSION 4.1. Household Characteristics 4.2. Land Holding and its Characterstics 4.3. Livestock Ownership 4.4. Coverage of Extension Package by Resourc-Rich, Poor, and Women Farmers 4.4. Coverage and Utilization of Technological Packages 4.4.1. Maize package 4.4.2. Horticulture package 4.4.3. Coffee package 4.4.4. Poultry package 18 20 23 23 25 26 28 31 33 35 40 43 43 44 49 49 51 51 53 53 53 55 55 62 65 68 73 77 78 79 80

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 4.4.5. Fattening and dairy packages 4.5. Human Resource Development towards Effective Utilization of Packages 4.5.1. Participation in extension planning 4.5.2. Participation in extension training 4.5.3. Participation in farmers field day 4.5.4. Participation in exhibition 4.5.5. Participation in on-farm trial and demonstration. 4.6. Extension Service Rendered by Development Agents 4.7. Level of Awareness Regarding the Elements of Maize Package 4.8. Utilization Level of Elements of Recommended Packages 4.8.1. Utilization level of elements of maize package 4.8.2. Utilization level of elements of recommended poultry package 4.9. Status of Credit Use 4.10. Major Institutional and Physical Constraints 4.10.1. Access constraints of improved seed and fertilizer 4.10.2. Utilization constraints regarding improved seed and fertilizer 4.10.4. Constraints on participation of farmer organization (cooperative) 4.10.5. Constraints on access to market 4.10.6. Constraints on utilization of Development Agent 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS 81 82 84 84 85 86 86 87 90 93 94 95 96 97 98 100 103 104 106 108 108 110 114 124

5.1 Summary 5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations 6. REFRENCES 7. APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1. Distribution of sample HHs based resource level. ...............................................................56 2. Distribution of sample HHs based on their age....................................................................59 3. Family size and active labour force classification of the sample households ......................60 4. Educational level of the sample household heads ................................................................61 5. Land use and cropping pattern of the sample households ....................................................64 6. Livestock ownership of the sample households ...................................................................66 7. Type of houses owned by the sample households................................................................67 8. Distribution of sample HHs based on utilization level of combination of packages ...........75 9. Distribution of sample HHs participation in different types extension packages ................76 10. HHs participation in areas of human resource development.............................................83 11. Extension service rendered by Development Agents to sample HHs. ...............................88 12. Distribution of HHs by number of contact with Development Agent...............................90 13a. HHs awareness level regarding elements of recommended maize package ...................92 13b. HHs' awareness level of full package of maize.....93 14. HH distribution based on utilization level of elements of maize package ........................94 15. Distribution of HHs based on utilization level of components of poultry package ...........95 16. Status of credit use by sample HHs for improved seed and fertilizer. ...............................97 17. Constraints on access to package inputs (improved seed and fertilizer) ............................99 18. Utilization constraints of improved seed and fertilizer ....................................................101 19. Access and utilization constraints on credit .....................................................................103 20. Contraints on participation of farmer organization (cooperative) ....................................104 21. Constraints on access and utilization of market ...............................................................105 22. Constraints on utilization of Development Agents...........................................................106

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page

1. Conceptual diagram of the study. .........................................................................................48 2. Region, Zone and Woreda in which the study site is located..............................................50 3. Distribution of sample household heades based on resource level. .....................................57 4. Size of land holdings of the sample households..................................................................62

xii

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1. Distribution of sample households based on resource level and gender ............................125 2. Association and correlation tests of explanatory variables between user and non-user groups ................................................................................................................................126 3. Size of land holdings of the sample households.................................................................127 4. Coefficients of Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) .................................................................127 5. Work Sheet that shows haw the sample HHs are categorized into different resource-level using wealth ranking technque ..........................................................................................128

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Figure Page

1. Sampling procedure in the form of sketch table to select sample household-heads .........129 2. Distribution of sample household heades based on resource level. ...................................130 3. Distribution of sample HHs based on level of utilization of selected six packages (coffee, maize, horticulture, poultry fattening, and dairy)..............................................................131 4. Distribution of sample HHs based on level of utilization of maize packeges ....................132 5. Distribution of sample HHs based on level of utilization of elements of poultry ..............133

xiv

EXTENSION PROGRAM COVERAGE AND UTILIZATION BY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF FARMERS IN ENEMORE AND ENER WOREDA, GURAGE ZONE ABSTRACT Extension service in Ethiopia has a relatively longer history than many Sub-Saharan African countries. However, technological packages do not have wide coverage as they should, and even the beneficiaries are relatively resource-rich farmers. The study was sought to ascertain the level of awareness, utilization, coverage and associated constraints of the ongoing extension program by resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs of the farm families in Enemore and Ener woreda. Two stages random sampling procedure was followed to select six peasant associations and 150 households. Structured interview schedule was developed, pretested and used for collecting the essential quantitative data for the study from the sampled households. Focus group discussion and field observations were held with sample respondents, key-informants, DAs, senior experts, and concerned bodies to generate qualitative data. The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistical tools including mean, percentage, standard deviation, T-test, 2 = test, Cramers V, Gamma, Spearman Correlation Coefficient, and Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation coefficient; see difference, strength, and direction of relationship based on the level of measurement of the variables. The major output of the study indicates that utilization of technological packages was significantly influenced by the households resource level, particularly size of land holding and number of TLU owned, gender differentials, participation on areas of human resource development including education, training, planning, field day, exhibition, on farmtrial and demonstration, level of awareness, access to credit, and extension advice. The major constraints identified in access and utilization of technological packages were unavailability of input on the right time, insufficient, and poor quality of inputs delivery. It is examined that 38.7% of the total sample households have never used any of the available technological packages, of which resource-poor households accounts for 87.9%. Based on the findings, vital policy recommendations that deal with designing of programs, projects, and technological packages in line with addressing different target groups of farm families, strengthening extension service within its domain and supportive sectors, and enhancing participation of farmers in various area of human resource development are suggested. xv

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background

The population of Ethiopia has climbed to over 72 million. In addition to rapid population growth, current challenges of Ethiopian agriculture include severe natural resource degradation, increasing frequency of drought, the HIV/AIDS pandemic that is decimating the productive youth, and worsening state of poverty. A thriving agricultural economy is critical for reducing poverty, ensuring food security and managing natural resources, and to this effect, agricultural extension is expected to play an acceleratory role (Habtemariam, 2004).

According to Habtemariam (2004), the extension system in Ethiopia has a relatively longer history than many Sub-Saharan African countries. It has also enjoyed increasing government support over years, though not to be in the level expected. Though it increased its staff substantially to expand coverage, there is not that much of change in the way extension activities are planned, implemented and evaluated. Review of the evolution of the Ethiopian extension system under different political systems reveals the significance of prevailing policies and development strategies on the contribution that extension could make to agricultural development.

The extension system under the Imperial Era remained limited in its coverage, served mainly the better off. Development policies favored industrial development, neglecting the agricultural sector. Agricultural development plans also sidelined smallholder farmers and worked mainly with the better-off and commercial farmers in and around major project area. During the 1974-91 period, the extension system substantially expanded its coverage. However, the political environment favored collective and state farms at the expense of individual farmers, DAs were involved in non-extension activities, extension planning was very much centralized, and there were less donor supported extension projects. Institutional innovations such as PAs and cooperatives that were initially believed to promote popular participation in development were used to advance the then Partys objective. Distorted macro-economic policies, political unrest, and massive villagization and settlement programs

undermined the contribution that the extension system could have made. The post 1991 period is also marked with expansion of the public extension system (Habtemariam, 2004).

The current extension system (PADETES) work with agricultural extension program called package program has been underway since 1994 at national level as a major component of the Agricultural DevelopmentLed Industrialization (ADLI) development strategy of the government. This strategy intends, among others, to attain food self-sufficiency at national level by increasing productivity of smallholders (Tesfaye and Fekadu, 2000). The program works with the objectives of increasing production and productivity of small-scale farmers, through research generated information and technologies, empowering framers to participate actively in developing processes, increase the level of food self sufficiency, increasing the supply of industrial and export crops and ensuring the rehabilitation and conservation of natural resource base with special consideration of package approach. However, practically it is not participatory (Belay, 2003).

Female farmers are not considered and their agricultural activities and/or issues concerning them have been the last priorities in the countrys agricultural research agenda, and so lacked improved extension packages and services that assist them to improve their productivity. So far the extension system in Ethiopia is unable to address the cultural taboo against the participation of female farmers in ploughing and sowing, which subsequently reduce the rigid division of labor both at the household and field level. There is a lack of concern about the multiple roles of female farmers while doing research on identifying the priority problems and developing extension systems that are appropriate to the farm familys life cycle stages. Little efforts have been made to address and reduce the heavy burden of work that female farmers face. Often it is observed that major emphasis in agriculture is given to mens activities while the role of women and children in the Ethiopian farming systems has been ignored. Married women in particular are by-passed in the transfer of improved agricultural technologies assuming that they will get the information through their husbands (EARO, 2000).

In all of these three periods, extension was mainly served the better-off and more innovative, planning has remained top-down, accountability of staff has been to their superiors and not to the farmers, involvement of farmers and/or their organization in determining the course of extension has been almost nil, and there have not been clearly set objectives and functions for the extension system (Habtemariam, 2004). It is observed that, productivity of the small-scale farmers and adoption of many of the yield enhancing technologies is still very low (Brhane et al., 2004).

Without due attention for development of the majority of the resource-poor and women farmers, it is unlikely that Ethiopia will be able to feed her people, to develop its agroindustries, to provide adequate employment, to sustain or improve current level of foreign exchange earnings (Chimdessa, 1998).

In package approach, individuals do not view innovations singularly. They may be perceived as an interrelated bundle of new ideas. The adoption of one new idea may trigger the adoption of several others. The boundary around any given innovation is often not clear-cut or distinct. In the minds of potential adopters, one innovation may be perceived as closely related to promote a cluster or package of innovations to clients, rather than to treat each new idea separately. However, farmers do not adopt certain packages for various reasons. Important ones are resource limitations and the kind of the technology being promoted, its costs, complexity, labour requirement etc.

Technologies generated from research institutes are more likely suited to large farmers. According to Roling (1988), extension innovations are usually developed to suit the condition of progressive farmers to begin with. Development agents, extension professional subject matter specialists, farmers representatives, politicians, and researchers tend to contact only them. This also seems logical since such farmers tend to have a higher access to resources so that it is easier to develop technologies, but those technologies may not fit low access and resource poor farmers.

Knowledge and awareness about the relative importance of each package components to overall yield give farmers room for flexibility in stepwise adoption of the technology, according to their conditions and resources. Moreover, information on the contribution of each component of package facilitates better communication between the farmer and the extension agent. It also allows the farmer to have different options in the case of contingency.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

The agricultural sector and its problems have always dominated the Ethiopian economic scene. Despite various extension efforts have been done in the past, the performance of the agricultural sector has not been improving. The present performance of the sector neither matches its potential nor does it meet the countrys food demand. Therefore, the challenge in Ethiopia has been how to make advances in adopting and using technological packages in order to bring perceptible changes in the agricultural sector and eventually on the standard of living of the farmer (Chimdessa, 1998).

In Ethiopia, smallholders dominate agricultural production. They cultivate 95% of the cultivated area and are responsible 90% of the total food production (Cohen and Isaksson, 1998). Crop yields are generally low, averaging 1.2 tons of grain per ha (Seme, 1998). This low productivity can be attributed to (1) unavailability of appropriate technologies (2) farmers lack of awareness of recommended technologies that have been identified for their areas; (3) unavailability of inputs and supplies when needed by producers; and (4) policies that discourage technology adoption (Mulugeta, 1992).

Developing effective and sustainable service for recourse-poor farmers within the context of broader rural development strategies also becomes a crucial challenge. Many authors concur that extension has failed to reach resource-poor farmers but few effective strategies for overcoming this failure have been developed. Overall, resource-poor farmers lack access to land, reliable water source, extension service, and credit (and thus labor and capital goods). Most women farmers do not own land and can not obtain credit even where such inputs are

available to model farmers. The lack of services to lower income farmers may be partly due to extension staff choosing to work with larger and wealthier farmers (Lisa and Jacob, 1992).

Extension messages are especially critical in the case of resource-poor farmers; only few appropriate messages are developed for small-scale farmers because research stations generate packages of innovation based on extension profiles of progressive farmers. The assumption is combined with pro-innovation bias, that assumes all innovations are good and any one who do not adopt them is "traditional or bad" farmer. Small farmers may not adopt innovations because they lack the resource needed to adopt them, or they are not economic at a small level of production, or the technologies did not meet farmers need or generally they may not have awareness about the technology itself (Franzal and van Houten, 1992).

"Awareness" of the existence of innovation is the first and crucial element in the process of adoption or rejection of an idea to include or exclude into the exiting social system. Roling (1988) describes, that larger farmers have more contact to DAs and are more cosmopolites to various sources of information than small farmers. Majority of those small farmers have got information lately and indirectly thorough the process of trickle down approach. This creates economic gap between them through the processes of windfall profit and windfall loss.

The package approach to agricultural development is based on the knowledge that success in farming depends on the interaction of several practices and inputs. By adopting all at once farmers get the total yield effects of all the innovations, plus the interaction effects of each practice on the other. There is no reason to doubt the underlying logic of the package idea that inter-related resources when applied by the farmer in combination yield more than the sum total of the output produced by the resources when applied individually.

Women are often recourse-poor farmers with little access to land, credit, labour or extension services. The evidence shows that despite of a growing awareness of the need to reach women farmers; agricultural services are generally geared towards male farmers. This sometimes by design, but more often by default. Bias towards male farmers is evident in the delivery of extension message assuming that it will trickle across to women. Unfortunately, the

evidence clearly shows that it is often not taking place. It also evident in the message itself, which tends to focus on the activities of male farmers rather than the much wider range of agricultural activities of women (Lisa and Jacob, 1992).

In the study area most male farmers have not stayed long around their farm, since they are partially traders and moving here and there. Women farmers are the main actors to follow up and manage the farm. However, they are running without any legal access to resource, control over it, and only less proportion of the profit share reaches them; and even the extension program seems not appropriately designed to solve their problems, or to meet their needs and priorities.

Even though a number of studies have been made on the adoption of new agricultural technologies in different parts of the country, nearly all of them were aimed at identifying factors affecting the adoption process of a particular technology. However, to the best of the researchers knowledge, no study has been conducted to evaluate the level of coverage, awareness, utilization of recommended technological components within and between package(s), and associated constraints by different categories of farmers in Enemore and Ener woreda.

Therefore, this study sought to ascertain the level of awareness, utilization and coverage of extension program with special consideration of the "package approach" toward resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs, and identifying constraints in access and utilization of the extension packages (maize, coffee, horticulture, poultry, dairy, and fating packages) and services provided in the study area as the central focus of the research.

1.3. Objectives of the study

To examine coverage and nature of extension programs that are being provided for different categories of farming families (resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs), To assess the level of awareness and utilization of the ongoing extension programs by different categories of farmers, and To identify constraints of these different categories of farmers in access and utilization of the extension packages and services provided.

1.4. Research Question

1. What is the nature and coverage of extension programs that are being provided for different categories of farm families (resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs)? 2. What is the level of awareness and utilization of different categories of farmers on the ongoing extension programs? 3. What are the constraints of different categories of farmers in access and utilization of the extension packages and services provided? 1.5. Scope and Limitation of the Study

The scope of the research was to examine the level of awareness, utilization, and coverage of extension programs with special focus on package approach that were being provided for different categories of farmers (resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs). Further, the study has tried to identify constraints in access and utilization of extension packages. Though diversified extension packages are being carried out in Enemore and Ener woreda, the study focused in few selected packages that include coffee, maize, horticulture, poultry, dairy, and fattening packages. It was limited with a number of scarcities such as financial, human, time, and transportation. As a result, 154 farmers, of whom four of them were taken as reserve, from 6 PAs of the woreda were sampled. Though it was better to make wealth ranking for the total households of the sampling frame, it was done only for the sampling unit hence financial, human resources, as well as the time available for a graduate research were the serious constraint. 7

1.5. Significance of the Study

This study will contribute toward understanding of the level of awareness, utilization, and coverage of extension programs provided for resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs. It also explains the reasons why poor and female HHs are not efficiently using the current extension service provided. Farmers, extension agents, subject matter specialists, planners, researchers, policy makers, and other related government agencies, NGOs, and private sectors might use the result of this study. It serves as benchmark for further studies; to design and provide need based, and relevant technologies that suit the different categories of farmers (resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs of the farming community); for formulating and revising extension strategies and supportive policies that empower marginal groups of farmers; and to identify the area that needs special attention to address equity issues in the context of sustainable rural development.

1.6. Organization of the Thesis

After having introduced the study by relating to background, statement of the problem, objectives, significance of the study, scope and limitations of the study, in chapter two a literature review and conceptual framework, and hypothesis formulation and definition of variables are presented. In chapter three, research methodology is discussed with special reference to sampling, data collection, and analysis. The findings of the research are descriptively interpreted to see existence of mean significant difference and strength of association among categories of households in coverage, level of awareness and utilization of the available technological packages and constraints and factors related to access and utilization of the extension packages are presented in chapter four. At the end summary, conclusion, and recommendations are also put forth in chapter five.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review is developed in four-sections and sub-sections with indications to assist for drawing out the research question, objectives, and hypothesis formulation of the study. In the first section, the theoretical background that deals with the historical overview agricultural service in Ethiopia in the past few decades and today is made with a view to understand the main targets of the extension program and associated constraints at that and this era. Following to this, coverage, nature, and level of awareness and utilization of extension programs, and associated constraints in access and utilization of extension packages that are being provided for resource-rich, poor, and female HHs are reviewed to understand and develop concepts which constraints withhold utilization of technological packages that are commonly observed in various farm groups and in various parts of the world. In section two empirical studies, and in section three conceptual frameworks and hypothesis formulation in section four are presented.

2.1. Theoretical Background

2.1.1. Historical overview of agricultural extension service in Ethiopia

During the past few decades, Ethiopia has moved from Imperial government with a feudalistic economy, to a Marxist Military regime that promoted socialist economy, before finally moving to Ethnic Based Federal system advocating for decentralization and market economy. The following paragraphs review the development of agricultural extension in Ethiopia during these three different political and economic systems.

2.1.1.1. Imperial era

Agricultural extension work in Ethiopia began in 1931 with the establishment of the Ambo Agricultural School which is one of the oldest agricultural institutions in Ethiopia and the first agricultural high school offering general education with a major emphasis on agriculture. Apart from training students and demonstrating the potential effects of improved varieties and

agricultural practices to the surrounding farmers, the school did not do extension work in the sense of the term that we understand today (Belay, 2003).

In January 1943 the Imperial government passed a decree (No. 1/1943) re-establishing ministries, including MoA. Until 1943, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture were vested with the responsibility of all agricultural matters. The then activities concentrated on regulatory works, on preservation of game animals, skin and hide processing, improving quality seed supply, and encouraging farmers to plant trees (Belay, 2003). Article 37 of the 1943 decree accords authority to MoA to develop policies and implementation strategies that are necessary to discharge its responsibilities. Article 39 describes in detail the duties and responsibilities of MoA, viz. undertake tasks pertinent to the development of crop and livestock farming, promote livestock production and animal health services, organize fairs to demonstrate best practices to the public, establish model crop and livestock demonstration farms, encourage farmers, pastoralists and agricultural cooperatives through credit, facilities and making inputs, notably improved seeds available to users, undertake protection of wild life and forests, promote fishery and regulates fishery activities and water uses, engage in developing the use of water resources for agricultural development, and manage the cultivation of the Emperors lands, and conduct meteorological activities (MoA, 1984).

It was with the creation of the Ministry of Agriculture in 1943 that the country witnessed the commencement of limited extension activities in different areas. Even then, as there was no separate division in the Ministry responsible for extension work, different services to farmers were made available by the various divisions of the Ministry (Belay, 2003).

The agricultural extension service was not properly organized due to unclear objectives, unclear targeting of beneficiary farmers, unclear extension methods to be followed and lack of proper organization and definition (Aynalem, 2003). Elias and Agajie (2001) and Tesfaye

10

(2003) also agree that there were no coordinated activities of technology transfer during the pre-1953 period. The period was marked with sporadic activities of introducing exotic livestock breeds, vegetables, and fruit and fuel-wood trees. Religious missionaries conducted many of the activities related to technology introduction. The sources of the technologies were external and the clients were the better off. As a result the targets were mainly the landowners, and not the small holders (Elias and Agajie, 2001). There were no research centers, the number of trained personnel was limited, and there had not been any problem identification work conducted a priori. In general, there was no well defined extension system with defined extension objectives, targets, extension contents and communication methods.

The formal genesis of agricultural extension system was started with the establishment of the then Agricultural and Technical School at Jimma and the then College of Agriculture and Mechanical Arts at Alemaya opened in 1952 and 1953, respectively. These institutions were modeled on the Land Grant College system of USA where agricultural training, research and extension were fully integrated into one institution with three fundamental but related responsibilities; training high level manpower; promoting agricultural research and disseminating appropriate technologies (Belay, 2003).

During the 1953-63 period, also called the era of Alemaya College (Elias and Agajie, 2001), the college initiated a number of research fields that also served as satellite extension demonstration plots. The time was marked by highly centralized extension activities around satellite plots. Accordingly, besides the major research centers of Alemaya, Jimma, and Debre Zeit, the college stationed experts at Assela and Fitche who established demonstration plots with the cooperation of farmers. Poultry and fertilized eggs were distributed to the surrounding farmers from Debre Zeit, Alemaya, Jimma and Ambo. Two wheat varieties (Kenya 1 and Kenya 5) were also popularized though there had not been any adaptation trials. Besides college graduates, high school graduates were recruited and trained in agricultural techniques and communication skills to work as extension agents. Rural development workers were also used for technology transfer work. The agents, besides visiting and advising farmers, organized adult educational meetings and promoted formation of agricultural youth clubs. Then the number of

11

extension agents and sites grew over years, and by 1963, 132 nationals were working being stationed at 77 extension posts (Belay, 2003).

Most of the technologies (beekeeping, poultry breeds, wool producing sheep breeds, dairy crosses, vegetable seeds, improved storage and animal housing structures, coffee management, etc.) were imported though fewer number of wheat varieties were obtained from the Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center. The extension methods used were demonstration around research sites, and youth clubs were used as major fora of technology popularization. Research reports were periodically published by Alemaya College for wider dissemination of findings. The clientele of the extension system were therefore youths organized in youth clubs, and not adults and women. The number of trained personnel was inadequate, and institutions of technology generation, input delivery and credit provision remained extremely underdeveloped (Habtemariam 2004).

Again in October 1963, the Ethiopian Constitution was revised and approved. This was followed by the directive number 46/1963 that re-established MoA as one of the 19 ministries with clearly stated duties. With the increasing number of sites and extension personnel, the then government saw the need for transferring the mandate of agricultural extension from the Alemaya College to the Ministry of Agriculture. This was in 1963, and since then MoA has become literally the sole extension services provider in the country. In 1966, the Institute of Agricultural Research, predecessor of EARO, was established as an apex body to co-ordinate and lead agricultural research in Ethiopia, the Minister of Agriculture being the chairperson of the Board. This made that agricultural education, research and extension to become under different institutions. Many point to the early 1960s as a period marking the separation of agricultural research, education and extension in Ethiopia (Habtemariam, 1996; Elias and Agajie, 2001; Belay, 2003).

Following the transfer of the responsibility for national extension administration to the Ministry of Agriculture, extension service became one of the departments in the Ministry. When the Ministry decentralized its departments by establishing provincial offices, extension provincial supervisors were appointed in all the 13 provinces of the country (with the

12

exception of Eritrea). Each supervisor was in charge of six to eight extension agents. The latter were located along the main roads in the country and covered an area up to 25 or 30 km from their headquarters. Stommes and Sisaye (1979) state the situation of agricultural extension in the 1960s succinctly: since more than 60 per cent of the peasant population live at least a halfdays walk from all-weather roads and since the few extension agents had been assigned along all major highways, there was relatively little contact between extension agents and farmers. The feudal nature of the social structure in rural areas had also limited contacts and advice of the extension agents to big landlords and influential farmers.

Engagement in non-extension activities, limited number of personnel, fewer technological options, inadequacy of input and credit facilities, and poor research-extension linkage weakened the extension system. Slowly, the NARS became the major sources of technology, and the types and number of technologies being promoted by the extension system grew significantly (Elias and Agajie, 2001). With regard to extension approaches, community development programs that used the general extension model began in 1958 (Tesfaye, 2003).

The programme of community development (CD) was initiated as a strategy for stimulating popular endeavors to identify and tackle problems of a given community through self-help projects during the first Five Year Plan (1958-62). The programme of CD was concerned with almost all areas of development, using the extension concepts as the communication strategy. Its particular emphasis was in agriculture, rural artisan development and in social infrastructure and welfare activities. As a result some attempts were made to foster the participation of the rural community in the development efforts of the respective region through community development programmes. However, due to lack of finance and due to the absence of firm commitment on the part of the government agencies, it was not possible to evolve these development programmes into viable integrated rural development projects and another rural development strategy was, thus, sought. The country adopted an integrated rural development strategy in order to accelerate the economic growth and development of agriculture in the smallholders sub-sector (Assefa, 1995).

13

Until the middle of the 1960s, policymakers paid little attention to the development of peasant agriculture. For instance, during the First Five-Year (1958-l962) and the Second Five-Year (1963-1967) development plans, despite its importance to the national economy, agriculture received only 13.7 per cent and 21.3 per cent of the total investment, respectively. Even worse, almost all the investment allotted to the agricultural sector was channeled to the expansion of large-scale commercial farms engaged in the production of cash crops for export and raw materials for local industries. Following the increased realization of the continued stagnation of agriculture and pressure from international aid donors (Belay, 2003).

The other programme where extension has been exercised was the package programme that emerged during the Third Five Year Plan. The package approach to rural development was introduced around 1967 with the aim of developing the small-scale agriculture through the diffusion of a package of appropriate techniques. The typologies of the package approaches implemented were formulated as a project. The package project approach had the intention of transforming a given area of high agricultural potential in a limited time span towards a high productive area by systematically applying all the necessary material, technical and infrastructural inputs in the geographically defined locality operating under more or less self contained management (Assefa, 1995).

However, considering the fact that the countrys trained manpower, material and financial resources were insufficient to modernize peasant agriculture in all areas of the country simultaneously, the government opted for the comprehensive package approach. This involved the removal of barriers to production by concentrating efforts in strategically selected areas in which results could easily be seen (Belay, 2003).

With the financial and technical support of SIDA, the first comprehensive package project, the Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU) was initiated in September 1967 in the then Arsi Province. CADUs office was in Assella and was accorded administrative and financial autonomy, and was relatively free from political interference. Its organization did not follow political boundaries. Instead it was organized according to development zones in Chilalo Awraja. It had 31 extension and 34 marketing centers, and 414 model framers. Extension and

14

marketing agents managed the production and marketing aspects, respectively. Each extension agent worked with about 200 model farmers. The line of command was clear and more effective. The clientele were the smallholders with land holdings of fewer than 25 ha, but the beneficiaries were largely resource rich farmers. As its model farmers were primarily the better off, they were not representative farmers. Extension messages were mainly related to crop and livestock production, forestry, and farm implements. But the extension methods were limited to individual and group methods. Technology multiplication was also given due attention. CADU was said to have stronger follow up and evaluation (Habtemariam, 2004).

Based on the experiences gained CADU was later upgraded to become the Arsi Rural Development Unit (ARDU) to be implemented in several districts of Arsi. ARDU divided its mandate areas into 6 development zones and 57 development centers. In 1987/88, its 175 DAs served close to 242,000 households in 1,027 PAs, 164 farmers cooperatives and 406 producers cooperatives. ARDU targeted the heads of households as clientele, not women and youth groups. It has been criticized for neglecting resource poor and dry land areas, and for not involving farmers in the planning and implementation of extension activities. The dissemination of technologies by model farmers to other areas was below expectation. But it used diversified media to get its messages across and its staff gained practical experience (MoA, 1993).

It was soon realized that the comprehensive package projects failed to serve the very people for whom they were destined, the tenants and small-scale farmers. Most importantly, the principal beneficiaries were landlords and commercial farmers who reaped almost all the services rendered. In evaluating the experience from CADU, Schultz (1975) underlined the fact that the distribution of CADU loans between tenants and landowners has always been biased in favor of owners and so, proportionately, there have been roughly only half as many tenants on the credit list as there are in the target population. Other authors have shown that, by encouraging the process of mechanization in larger commercial farms, the package projects accelerated the eviction of tenants (Betru, 1975).

Though empirical studies on the impact of package programs on Ethiopian agriculture are lacking, CPPs seem to have had noticeable influence on improving productivity and

15

encouraging agricultural intensification and specialization in their immediate vicinities. It was later realized that implementing CPPs throughout the whole country could not be feasible because of the high manpower needs and costs involved. Some also reported that CPP benefited mainly landowners and commercial farmers as evidenced in the distribution of loans provided and accelerated the eviction of tenants by facilitating mechanization in large farms (Betru, 1975 cited in Belay, 2003).

The feudalistic mode of production limited the contact and the type of advice that these agents could give to smallholders (Stommes and Sisaye, 1979, cited in Belay, 2003). The extension method employed by CADU was the "model farmer'' approach until 1975. But the model farmer's approach in extension was criticized both from outside and within CADU itself. The second of the Comprehensive package projects, WADU, avoided the "model farmers" approach and instead demonstrated technologies on peasants' farms that were relatively resource poor. As a result, in 1971 the government, in co-operation with SIDA, designed an alternative strategy envisaged to be compatible with the availability of resources called the Minimum Package Project I (MPP-I).

As a result, the Minimum Package Programs (MPPs) were initiated in 1970/71 to be implemented in 220 woreda during the first phase, and in 440 woredas during the second phase. The idea of MPP was that farmers required integrated supporting services, viz. extension advice, fertilizer, improved seeds, farm credits, better tools and implements, and improved storage conditions. In 1971, the Extension and Project Implementation Department (EPID) was established under MoA with the aim of increasing peasant production by implementing the MPPs and following up CPPs and other related projects. Though under MoA, EPID had administrative and technical autonomy, making it free from MoAs bureaucracy, and was headed by a vice-minister. Overtime, it expanded in staff and opened a number of sites where in each development center a 0.5 ha of demonstration plot was managed and agricultural inputs were made available for farmers on sale basis. The First MPP (MPP I) was to be implemented during the 1971-74 period. MPP I was envisaged to extend services only to habitations within 3-5 km on either side of a motorable road, covering only one-fifth of the productive land (Nair, 1984). It was designed to provide small scale farmers with minimum essential services for agricultural development, i.e.

16

extension of tested technologies, facilitating access to credit, and provision of marketing advice (MoA, 1993). To implement the program, EPID set up organizational cells called MPP areas.

The selection of development areas followed three stages, passing from observation to demonstration and mini packages areas. Observation areas were selected by a DA to undertake fertilizer and variety trial for a year or two. If trials prove successful, the area would be considered as demonstration area for the coming season. The extension agent selected model farmers who were expected to be active and well respected members of the community. Each of the model farmers was supposed to extend what he learned to about 100 farmers (Nair, 1984). Besides, the extension agents sold fertilizer and seeds on credit. But landlords often dictated the possibility of tenants to access and use credit as the then credit policy required collateral from the landowner (MoA, 1993). By 1974, EPID had over 28 minimum package areas and more than 200 extension and marketing centres. Unlike the CPP, MPP I used an individual farmer extension approach where both model farmers and extension agents demonstrated innovations that increase productivity and income (Belay, 2003). Nevertheless, like the CPP, MPP also employed the general extension model (Tesfaye, 2003). Using MPP approach, EPID managed to provide extension services in close to half of the woredas in the country. But before MPPs were widely implemented, the Imperial Government was toppled down by the military following the 1974 popular revolution.

With respect to research-extension linkage, in 1974 IAR and EPID initiated a joint outreach program known as the IAR/EPID outreach program that lasted only up to 1977 (Tesfaye, 2003). This was the first major effort to rebuild the formal research-extension linkage that was broken in the early 1960s.

In summary, the extension system during the Imperial era had limited coverage, and its clients were mainly the better off. The overall development policy sidelined the development of the agricultural sector as agriculture received less than 2% of the budget allocation. Though the transfer of the extension mandate from the then Alemaya College to the Ministry of Agriculture had improved coverage and the launching of a number of donor pushed projects, signs of

17

improvements in terms of focus and quality of extension, linkages with research and the much needed complimentary services (credit, input, market, etc.) leave much to be desired. Besides, the land tenure system had a crippling effect on the contribution that the extension system could have made to the millions of smallholder farmers, as the aristocrats and the church owned most of the farmland. Consequently, the restrictive credit system discriminated against the landless tenants. Thus the beneficiaries of the extension system were mainly the commercial farmers and those smallholders in and around project areas (Belay, 2003).

2.1.1.2. Marxist regime

It was planned that, at the end of the MPP-I period, MPP-II would be undertaken over the 1975/76-1979/80 period. However, because of the political instability and major structural changes in the rural areas, including the formation of peasant associations and producers cooperatives as well as the implementation of the land reform, it was not possible to carry out this plan. There was not much organized and coordinated extension work in the country; therefore, until the beginning of the 1980s and it was only in 1981 that MPP-II was started (Belay, 2003).

But it included the promotion of co-operative development, expansion of applied researches and demonstration and seed multiplication responsibilities. The MPP II had covered around 440 districts of the total 580 districts in contrast to only 280 districts under MPP I. The MPP II adopted the peasant associations approach as the extension channels. Farmers associations and cooperative were the focal points of implementation, i.e., peasant associations, service and producers cooperatives. Like the case of MPP I farmers living away from the district capital have not been adequately served by the programmee because of logistic problems. Besides the transfer of new technology has been constrained by lack of transport facilities, inadequate financial resources, lack of trained extension agents, weak linkage between research and extension and limited capacity to multiply research products to be distributed to farmers. Although the official termination date of MPP II was 1985, the Training and Visit (T & V) extension approach commenced before then. The idea of the T &V extension approach was proposed earlier for evaluation (Adugna et al., 1991).

18

The Training and Visit extension system was initiated as a pilot project in 1983 with the assistance of the World Bank. The approach emphasized regular visits to contact farmers by the Development Agent (DA), monthly training of DAs by subject matter specialists (SMSs) and contact of SMSs with researchers every 3 months for seasonal training. The aim of the project was to test the appropriateness and suitability of the extension approach for Ethiopia. The project was tested in three areas: Ada-Lume, Arsi Negele-Shashemene and Tiyo-Hitosa, and was planned to terminate in 1991 (Adugna et al., 1991). However, a modified approach in which about 1300 farmers are assigned per DA was applied in the Peasant Agricultural Development Programme (PADEP), which was a follow-up to the MPP II.

The Peasant Agricultural Development Program (PADEP) was designed on the basis of the experience gained from MPP II and I with the aim of increasing food production and improving farmers' productivity of the major grain producing areas. The time between the termination of MPP II (1985) and the start of PADEP in 1988 was emphasized in the food self-sufficiency program, financed by the Ethiopian Government. The implementation of PADEP had been delayed because of the government resistance to conditions laid down by donor agencies. The PADEP acknowledged regional differences and stratified the country into 8 relatively homogeneous agro-ecological zones. 235 districts (181 cereal and 54 coffee producing districts) were selected as surplus producing districts. The program adopted the modified T & V extension system (about 1300 farmers are assigned per DA in different from the conventional T& V which used 1 DA for 800 farmers) (Adugna et al., 1991).

In a latest review, MoA itself criticized PADEP for being focused on organizational (political) than on technical support, working against interests of farmers, giving less emphasis for group approach, and for very limited teaching aids and demonstration fields (Habtemariam, 2004).

To conclude, the 1974-91 period is marked by a land reform that abolished the tenant-landlord relationships and private ownership of land, and by the introduction of institutional innovations such as PAs and cooperatives. National agricultural research and extension systems were also strengthened. But increased incidence of drought, unstable political and institutional environment, governments policy of controlling prices and free movement of agricultural products from

19

surplus to deficit areas, dislocation of rural communities through hurried resettlement and villagization programs, and the conscription of young farmers for the military retarded agricultural development. Reports indicate that agriculture grew at an annual average rate of 0.6% between 1973 and 1980 and at 2.1% per annum between 1980 and 1987. Habtemariam, 2004). The contribution that agricultural extension could make to agricultural development during the 1974-91 period was seriously undermined by such factors as giving utmost priority to state and collective farms at the expense of smallholder individual farmers, DAs were involved in many other tasks in addition to extension, extension messages also carried political objectives, and extension planning was highly centralized, less flexible, and top-down. As Elias and Agajie (2001) observed, though the clients of extension became the smallholders after the 1974 land reform, involving clients of extension in the planning process remain unchanged and farmers were treated as passive recipients of innovations.

2.1.1.2. Era of decentralization

With the change in government in 1991, the modified T&V extension approaches continued to use until Participatory Demonstration and Training extension System (PADETES) replaced it as the national agricultural extension system in 1995. PADETES adopted the merits of past extension approaches particularly that of T & V and the SG 2000 experience. The principle of the PADETES approach is to ensure the participation of the farmer in the delivery of extension in the country. This approach was based on on-farm demonstration plots approach known as Extension management Plot (EMTP). EMTPs are managed by participating farmers. The DAs serve as facilitating role in the management of the plots as well as train both participating and neighboring farmers to adopt the improved recommended packages. PADETES primarily focuses on the supply of improved technologies particularly (improved seeds, fertilizers, pesticides) and technical advise to raise agricultural productivity and income of the farming population. However, although this approach serves a number of farming community to increase the agricultural productivity, particularly some cereal crops (like maize, wheat, etc.), it fails to raise their income on sustainable manner mostly due to drop of out put prices (Adugna et al., 1991).

20

Belay (2003) suggested that, PADETES was not as participatory as its name implied as local extension agents selected 70-80% of participants. Besides, the focus of the extension workers remained on participant farmers. Belays study depicted that only 13.3% of the sample respondents had been visited by the extension agent in the 1998/99 main cropping season while farmers participating in the package programs were visited on average 4.4 times during the same period. His study also revealed that as high as 30% of the sample respondents from the extension program participants group stated that they had no intention of participating in the program again. Close to one-third of the respondents with intention not to participate next year stated that packages that they were involved were not profitable than their own technologies. Yet, secondary generation problems associated with the promotion of high input agriculture such as availability of inputs and markets for produces were not properly addressed. Besides, as agricultural products generally have low elasticity of demand, it is often the rich that will benefit from the advantages of increased profit before prices fall because of high supply. Moreover, it is yet to be seen whether blanket recommendations and promotion of fewer varieties across the board would not result in higher vulnerability in terms of disease incidence, lower drought tolerance, marketing failures, etc.

Some point at the competence of DAs, lack of adaptation trials for some site-specific technologies (e.g. lack of location specific fertilizer recommendation), and DAs physical capacity to monitor up to 300 farmers as major reasons for limitations in the acceptance of technologies by some farmers. The capacity at the local level to verify suitability of technologies for local specificities remains extremely low. During the 1994/95 Production Year alone, over 1,700 demonstration plots were lost for various reasons. The annual performance evaluation reports of MoA pointed out that seed and fertilizer quality, unavailability of seeds in sufficient quantity, quota based plans well over the capacity of staff, and inadequate follow-up as major problems observed in the implementation of extension package programs. Belay (2003) also concluded that extension programs were formulated without considering farmers needs and capabilities, and called for farmers participation in the planning and execution of extension programs, further research-extension linkage in undertaking adaptability trials before wider dissemination of extension packages, giving emphasis to farmers knowledge, changing the way the input credit

21

arrangements are organized and enforced, and designing mechanisms for the poor to participate in the program.

The extremely severe drought of 2002/2003 forced the government to focus on water harvesting activities. Since then, water harvesting is the motto and construction of small-scale water harvesting structures is being undertaken in a campaign like manner. Simultaneously, emphasis was also on producing crops for export, and area based specialization and diversification have become catchwords in extension. Recently, the focus seems to have been turned again to strengthening the regular extension program. One needs to note the frequent changes in policy signals for extension and the difficulty that this may entail in lower level of planning of activities (Habtemariam, 2004).

Cognizant of this fact, currently, there are additional approaches introduced like family based extension packages and area based specialization approaches. These approaches are focused to help farmers to produce what the market wants. But whether this approach will replace the PADETES and adopted all over the country as a sole methodology or as a part of PADETES remains to be seen.

To summarise, one could say that the general trend of agricultural extension in Ethiopia followed the international paradigms for agricultural development that were prescribed by international institutions and bilateral donors (community development and package programs of the 1960s and 1970s, for example). The tendency seems to have been from integrated and multi-faceted programmes in smaller and focused areas to smaller and thinner programs dispersed in a wider area. The organization of extension kept on changing and there has not been a well-defined agricultural extension policy and implementation strategy.

Underdevelopment of information and communication technologies has limited extension workers access to relevant information. Extension projects have nearly always been top down, heavily influenced by donor agencies. There have been frequent changes in approach and focus. It is appropriate to emphasize that much of the changes in approach were donor driven, there are literally no serious assessment of past performance to design future intervention strategies, and that enough time is not being given to draw lessons from changing approaches.

22

Moreover, often, extension projects were geared to promote high-input-high-output type of agriculture thereby assisting rich farmers who can afford to manage such production systems.

2.1.2. Coverage and nature of extension program

2.1.2.1. Extension towards resource-rich farmers

Roling (1988) suggests that nearly every extension service in the world operates on a progressive farmers strategy. Faced with a situation where few extension workers have to cover many farmers, in the absence of strong countervailing incentives, extension workers selectively focus on the progressive or wealthier ones, often not having direct contact with more than 10% of the farmers i.e., small percentage of the farmers receives the bulk of extension visits because more sophisticated farmers want more, not less, information and are in a position to demand it. Imperfection of progressive farmers strategy is that, apart from members of the social system having differential access to recourses, the innovations are usually developed to suit the conditions of progressive farmers (Long, 1985).

In Ethiopia, extension often is faced with the dilemma on deciding where to and which client to serve. This will be deciding challenge especially when resources allocated. This will be challenge specially when resources allocated for extension are short in supply or scarce. The challenge is faced in terms of agro-ecology, level of wealth, and gender. The extension system is organized of conflicting accountability systems. The extension agent should be answerable to the community, to the government or it should be go between them and also there are usually contradictions between local needs and central needs. The victim to these conflicts is usually the extension agent. He is not always free to think and practice according to his professional orientation (Habtemariam, 1997).

In addition, agricultural extension staff trained to advise on cash crops or to prepare farm plans are drawn to the more progressive farmers, historians, sociologists and administrators especially when short of time can best satisfy their interests and curiosity through informants among the better or less poor, those engaged in family welfare and family planning work find

23

that bases for the adoption of any new practices can most readily be established with betteroff and better-educated families (Chambers, 1983). Most diffusion studies find that innovative farmers have a higher access to recourses than others (Rogers, 1983). They are therefore better able to adopt innovation and can afford to run risks of innovation.

Extension professionals, subject matter specialists, farmer representatives, politicians and researchers tend to have contact only with progressive farmers, any targeting that goes on is done with them in mind. This also seems logical since such farmers tend to have a higher access to resources so that it is easier to develop technology that fits within the narrow margins low access and resource poor farmers (Long, 1985).

According to Roling (1988), extension workers and progressive farmers attract each other like magnet. It means that farmers who are in special restrict sense noted 'innovative' i.e., who accept and utilize many of the innovations offered by extension workers relatively early, tend to be favorite target clients of extension workers, these farmers will, on the their part, actively request clients of extension workers to come and assist them. This happens even whather the extension workers know about diffusion or not. There are at least four sound reasons for this common observation: 1. Progressive farmers have relatively larger holdings so that production targets set by extension can be reached with relatively few farmers. 2. Progressive farmers demand assistance. They complain if they are neglected and some are powerful enough to affect the career of the local extension worker. 3. Progressive farmers usually have the economic means to try out new ideas. They can afford to run risks. 4. Progressive farmers usually set the standard for good farming. They are a professional challenge to the extension worker. What's more, extension workers often learn from progressive farmers what to tell others.

However, the progressive farmers strategy dose not take into account possible differences in access to recourses which might make an innovation marginally relevant or keep it out of reach altogether for certain categories of farmers. This has been a series shortcoming of the

24

progressive farmer strategy and has led to the systematic neglect of millions of relatively smaller-scale farmers and farmers in marginal areas by agricultural extension. Such neglect is, in fact, built into most extension services (Roling, 1988).

Progressive farmers strategy is that the differences in the rewards for innovation for later, as compared to early adopters. These deferential rewards make diffusion processes key mechanisms in reinforcing inequality and social differentiation. Early adopters enjoy higher wind-fall profits for a considerable time before others catch up. During this time, those earlier adopters therefore enjoy higher incomes (Roling, 1988).

2.1.2.2. Extension towards resource-poor farmers

Farmers, particularly resource-poor ones, will only adopt technologies if net yield gains are significantly greater than before (Mills, 1997). A good technology has to guarantee sustainable productivity across various agro-ecological and over a period of time. The possible outcomes of a research undertaking are commonly conceptualized in terms of yield increases or avoided yield losses. However, such yield increases often require additional inputs, which lower the effective value of yield gains. Given the wide variation in circumstances between and within countries, a single methodology for improving extension services for women farmers is not appropriate. The approach chosen for any particular situation must be suited to that specific situation, and should be based on the socio-cultural and religious precepts of the farming community and on the institutional organization and resources of the country (Lisa and Jacob, 1992).

Important aspect of the ideology of technology development in progressive farmer strategy assumes one can speak of the farmers; since they are assumed to form a homogeneous population, the same innovation is thought as being relevant for all the farmers. The only aspect in which the farmers differ, according to the progressive farmers strategy, is their "innovativeness," i.e., their eagerness, entrepreneurship, or venturousness. They differ in some mental capacity, or attitude. Most extension practitioners will feel they are entirely justified in

25

going to those who are keen, who help themselves and therefore deserve to be helped (Roling, 1988).

For many years we thought that farmers conservatism was the reason for their failure to adopt new technologies developed for them by agricultural scientists. However, research has shown this view often is not correct, and that the situation in which they farm makes it unprofitable for them to adopt these technologies go to landlords or to middlemen. Hence it is hardly surprising that farmers are not very interested in learning about them. If this is the case the farmer will need help to organize himself or herself effectively in order to promote agricultural development (van den Ban, 1996).

In reality, poor farmers are usually very innovative if appropriate technologies and tangible opportunities are offered to them. Instead of passive elements manipulated by abstract social forces, poor farmers can better be regarded as active participants who try to shape the development process and deal with changing circumstances (Long, 1985).

2.1.2.3. Extension towards women farmers

Gender studies on division of labor in agricultural sector in Ethiopia revealed that up to 40% of farming activities are done by women, especially in food production and processing (Almaz, 2000). Despite the significance of womans role in agricultural development, evidence thought developing countries show that womens farming productivity and efficiency levels often remain very low. Among the key reasons for this is lack of technical advice on production and marketing, cultural practices, skills and technology. Extension services frequently fail to provide adequate information to women farmers through failing to recognizing their specific needs. In addition to their productive tasks they are frequently over burdened with household responsibilities which they cannot delegate, they are often less educated than men and have a more limited access to resources such as credit. If an extension program deals effectively with those constraints, it will be easier for women farmers to get involved in activities (FAO, 1996).

26

Men and women perform different tasks they can substitute for one another only to a limited extent and this limitation creates different demands for extension information also, as men leave farms in search of paid employment in urban areas. Women are increasingly managing and operating farms on a regular and full-time basis (World Bank, 1995). It is now widely demonstrated that rural women, as well as men, throughout the world are engaged in a range of productive activities essential to household welfare, agricultural productivity (Samanta, 1994).

Evidence suggests that women have not benefited as much as men have from publicly provided extension services (World Bank, 1995). Most local government staff, researchers and other rural visitors are men. In most societies women have inferior status and are subordinate to men. These are variations and expectations, but quite often women are the poor and deprived class within a community. They often work very long hours, and they are usually paid less than men. Rural single women, female heads of household, and widows include many of the most wretched and unseen people in the world (Chambers, 1983).

Although women pay a major role in food production, agricultural extension services still do not attach much importance to reaching women farmers or women on the farm. Policy makers and administrators typically still assume (in the face of the empirical data) that men are the farmers and women play only a supportive role as farmers wife (Samanta, 1994). Agricultural information is not effectively reaching and benefiting these key persons in the food security chain (FAO, 1996). A survey of women farmers in Burkina Faso found that 40% had some awareness about the existence of modern crop and livestock production technologies (Saito and Weidemann, 1990).

For most of the women, relatives and friends were the source of information; nearly one-third had acquired their knowledge from the extension service, and only 1% had heard of the technologies from their husbands (Saito and Weidemann, 1990). Extension efforts and technological packages usually address men farmers (Dagnachew, 2002). Extension agents are most likely to visit male farmers than female farmers. The low level of womens education and cultural barriers prevent them from the exposure to extension channels by their initiative.

27

The male-dominated extension system also often restrains from contacting and working with women due to the strong taboos and value systems in the rural areas.

However, advanced technology can sometimes be made more appropriate for designating target categories (rich, poor, women farmers) by such measures as packing in smaller quantities, improved delivery mechanisms, lower institutional barriers, better timing, and so forth (Roling, 1988).

2.1.2.4. Diffusion versus participatory approach to reach different category of farmers

Many of the technologies generated and promoted in diffusion processes are too expensive for the poor farmers who could not afford to invest in the packages of required inputs, such as introduced seed, fertilizers and pesticides. Many of these farmers have therefore been reluctant to adopt the technologies offered by conventional research and extensions (Reij and W. Bayer, 2002). The success of the TOT system could be measured in terms of adoption rates. Nonadoption of innovations was explained in terms of resistance to change or inherent conservatism of farming community. The scientific basis of innovations was supposed to guarantee the appropriateness of extension messages (Bolding et al., 2003)

It was later realized that the diffusion of innovations model had a number of shortcomings. Rling and Jiggins (1998) identified the following. a) It neglected innovations developed by farmers themselves, and focused on those innovations introduced from outside. Thus, it had in it a strong pro-change bias, and by so doing neglected farmers innovations and their knowledge. b) It is unidirectional in information flow, thus limiting the effectiveness of communication, which is a necessary condition for effective extension. c) The model has been shown to lack empirical validation to scientifically justify the categorisation of farmers into different groups based on the rate of adoption. d) The model carried with it some assumptions that resulted in undesirable consequences including, i) Intervention of the change agent is always considered as necessary.

28

ii) The innovation is assumed to be always relevant to the social system. By doing so, pro-innovation bias is introduced to the extension system. iii) The social system under study is considered homogeneous. By assuming the population as homogeneous units, the diffusion of innovations model fails to take into account possible differences in access to resources and in capacity to take risk, which might make an innovation marginally relevant or even irrelevant for certain categories of farmers. e) The model emphasised excessively on socio-psychological factors as causes of lack of change (personal blame) and did not pay sufficient attention to structural variables that operate at societal level. In other words, it narrowed the focus of extension to technical problems and omitted from consideration the environmental, distributional and other social consequences of extension work. f) It legitimised extension workers to concentrate their activities to a small category of progressive farmers, neglecting those who need assistance most but are hard to reach. Innovations are usually developed to suit the conditions of progressive farmers. By doing so, it widened the gap between early and late adopters and reinforced inequity and social differentiation. It is important to realize that the imperfections of the diffusion process are self-reinforcing. g) The model also fails to follow up on the effects of innovation adoption/rejection on the actions and behavior of the clients, i.e. no feedback and ex-post assessment. Studying non-adoption was literally absent. Consequently, there was limited feedback to research and policy.

In view of addressing some of these shortcomings, extension approaches evolved to incorporate peoples participation, though at varying levels, in the planning and implementation. In nutshell, even though much is being done to develop more effective extension approaches/strategies, there has not been a replacement model to the diffusion of innovations model, leaving a theoretical vacuum in extension (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1996). The aim of this attempt was to structure knowledge about a social process in order to gain control over it and to direct it.

29

Farmers participation is one of the most frequently used, and misused, concept in development rhetoric in the past decades. In any discussion about farmer participation, its meaning in the specific context must, therefore, be clarified; farmer participation implies an acceptance that local people can, to a large extent, identify and modify their own solutions to suit their needs (van Veldhuizen et al., 1997).

Participatory approaches evolved in response to the need for reversing the flow of initiatives and balancing the flow of information and knowledge from experts/science/supply to the users/people/demand, and to help extension to better work within the changing contexts and opportunities. It is assumed that more user/farmer participation in program planning and policy formulation improves the essential feedback system. Thus, it requires attitudinal change and role reversal concerning the relationships between farmers and extension workers to facilitate co-learning (of individuals and institutions) and equal involvement of all stakeholders. Besides, participatory extension has both strong research and extension aspects (the middle ground often called participatory technology development) and ensuring active participation remains its central element. The major steps in such approaches are social mobilization (problem appraisal, awareness creation, resource mobilization, etc.), action planning (prioritizing needs and problems, searching for solutions, mandating, etc.), experimenting through implementation, sharing experiences and self-evaluation (Rling and Jiggins, 1998).

The main focus of the PTD approach is to start with expressed farmers problems and try to solve them. The organization should have the flexibility to respond to a variety of problems and issues raised by different category of farmers. PTD needs to realize that it does not have the answer to farmers problems; it must be prepared to learn through its interaction with the farmers (Reij and Bayer, 2002).

PTD encompasses activities and methods to encourage participation of men and women farmers in developing agricultural technologies. Clearly: technology in PTD should not be understood only as crop varieties, agricultural tools, husbandry practices or farm plans. Technology also includes mental construct; it embodies certain cultural codes and forms of

30

management and cooperation. PTD encompasses all elements of the overall technology development process. It goes beyond appraisal, situation analysis and setting an agenda for action to include experimentation, evaluation, sharing and consolidations; and it provides a clear link between farmer-led research and farmer-lead extension, thus integrating research and extension at farmer level instead of linking these only at the level of formal institutions. It also focuses on-farmer-led extension, rather then demonstration and adoption of innovations. It is during experimentation that farmers own knowledge and experience are brought together with outsiders insights are compared and analyzed to arrive at a locally appropriate synthesis Chambers (1993) and van Veldhuizen et al. (1997).

However, today extension has become a discipline in search of a paradigm, yet we continue to see changes in extension ideology away from the linear model of technology transfer (e.g. from one-to-one patronizing extension to group-based co-learning activities). Extension is evolving to be a co-learning process. It has recognized that multiple sources of knowledge and innovation exist, and that farmers should have more control over the information they need and over the way it is delivered. As a result, extension is becoming demand-pull rather than science-push (Vanclay and Lawrence, 1996).

In reality, extension services need to be adapted to circumstance rather than designed on the basis of a single universal model. There is no one packaged extension model, which can work for all men in all places (Berger et al., 1984; Olawoye, 1989a).

2.1.3. Level of awareness and utilization of extension program

Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) define awareness as first knowledge of an innovation in innovation-decision process. Awareness" of the existence of innovation is the first and crucial element in the process of adoption or rejection of an idea to include or exclude into the exiting social system Roling (1988). Roling also describes that education and training of local people is at the very heart of building local capacity. But prior to, or during, initial project experience, mobilization aims at fostering development awareness, at individual and group concessions of their position in society and of their affiliation with others in a similar position. Early project

31

activity is largely viewed as vehicle for organizing, as a framework for training, as an experience to develop self-confidence, and as a focus around which self-awareness of individual and group capability can develop. Participation is not an instrument for achieving project success but a vehicle for mobilization, organization and training.

Larger farmers have more contact to DAs and are more cosmopolites and eager for various sources of information than small farmers. They are interested in extension advice. One does not waste time convincing them. Progressive farmers are often homophilous with extension workers and that it is easy for them to communicate with each other. If agricultural development in an area progresses to appoint where richer farmers outgrow their extension workers, most extension agencies are quick to upgrade the latter so that they can gain face 'the' farmers. However, majority of those small farmers have got information lately and indirectly through the process of trickle down approach. This creates economic gap between them through the processes of windfall profit and windfall loss (Roling, 1988).

According to Jha et al. (1990) utilization of technological packages involves three decisions. The first is the choice whether to use the elements of the recommended technology such as seed, fertilizer and herbicide and in which sequence of combination (seed only, fertilizer only with local seed, herbicide only or a combination three with associated improved cultural practices. The second decision is the extent of utilization, the choice of how much land to allocate to new and old technologies. The third decisions are the intensity of utilization, the choice of the level per hectare or rate of application. The combination of those three decisions compasses the technology utilization decision, and, aggregated over farms to the national area is the diffusion of the technology utilization (components, extent and intensity) decisions helps to illustrate how farmers choose a variety of technological options in an attempt to satisfy their multiple objectives.

Other effects have also been made to explain, Leathers and Smale (1991) have identified the following utilization patterns from the large body of emphatic evidences. (1) For the most part, farmers choose to utilize input sequentially, initially only one component of the package and subsequently only adding other components over time. (2) In some instances, farmers utilize a

32

component and subsequently revert to traditional practices. (3) Utilization pattern vary by agro-ecological zones, between farmers facing different markets and institutions. The principal reasons often given for sequential utilization of a package are profitability, risk, uncertainty, lumpiness of investment and institutional constraints (Byerlee and Hesse de polanco, 1986; Nagy et al., 1900); Leathers and Smale, 1991). They indicated that individual components of the package by themselves may also not have sufficient economic incentives for the level of risk involved or financial, human capital, and labour requirements. Thus farmers are sometimes also unable to start the process of stepwise technology introduction which would eventually lead to the utilization of the entire package.

Earlier adoption studies by Rogers (1983) and Rogers and Schoemaker (1971) indicated that there is a great deal of length of technology transfer period from innovation to utilization or adoption. It was found that the receivers perceptions of the attributes of innovations affect their rate of diffusion. They identified five critical characteristics of the innovations, including (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) divisibility, and (5) observe ability.

2.1.4. Constraints in access and utilization of extension program

In developing countries like Ethiopia, some new agricultural technologies have been only partially successful in improving productive efficiency. One of the reasons might be farmers` deviation in the use of the associated inputs from the developed technological packages. Farmers may not be able to operate at higher levels of inputs because of capital scarcity or lack of access to purchased inputs. More precisely, increasing production, ultimately the income level of smallholder farmers through technological advancement requires better understanding of the production system and producers behavior in the use of available resources (Mengistu, 2003).

Accesses to land, capital, input, credit and so on determine to large extent whether a particular innovation is possible. Most innovations are requiring resources, investment and credit, labour, or land, even using the same quantity and mix of recourses in a new way requires changes in

33

time allocation and energy expenditures. Farmers differ in a great deal in access to these resources or to the institutions controlling them (Rogers, 1983).

Some point at the competence of DAs, lack of adaptation trials for some site-specific technologies (e.g. lack of location specific fertilizer recommendation), and DAs physical capacity to follow up to 300 farmers as major reasons for limitations in the acceptance of technologies by some farmers. The capacity at the local level to verify suitability of technologies for local specificities remains extremely low. Habtemariam (2004) indicated that during the 1994/95 Production Year alone, over 1,700 demonstration plots were lost for various reasons. The annual performance evaluation reports of MoA pointed out that seed and fertilizer quality, unavailability of seeds in sufficient quantity, quota plans well over the capacity of staff, and inadequate followup as major problems observed in the implementation of extension package programs.

Over the last several decades, considerable effort has been made throughout the world to provide women farmers and women on the farm with efficient, effective, and appropriate technology, training, and information. The positive effects are beginning to show in agricultural production statistics and in indices of family welfare. Yet, these successes still fall far short of what is needed at a time when public sector investments in agricultural research and extension are under pressure, when ever-greater demands are being placed on rural women in the face of rapid social transformation, and, in an increasing number of areas, when evidence of environmental degradation is mounting. Women's substantial contribution continues to be systematically marginalized and undervalued in conventional agricultural and economic analyses and policies, while men's contribution remains the central, often the sole, focus of attention. Women are typically, and wrongly, still characterized as "economically inactive" in statistical surveys of agriculture, a result that tells us more about survey methodology than about reality (Janelid, 1975).

Women farmers operate under greater constraints than men, and hence need special help. They have less access to information, technology, land, inputs and credit. They also have primary responsibility for the home and childcare, with less available time and mobility. While there are many regional variations, women in rural Africa are frequently illiterate, engaged in

34

subsistence agriculture and unfamiliar with current technology, and are often perceived by male extension agents as being non-adopter. Most policy makers, managers, agents, and participants in agricultural support services are males who are not directly affected by problems and needs of women farmers, and hence are not sufficiently aware of them. A number of initiatives are needed to improve their awareness (Lisa and Jacob, 1992; Loranza, 2002).

The constraints affecting rural women's ability to improve yield, profit, and efficiency in agriculture include: (1) women's legal and cultural status, which affects the degree of control women have over productive resources, inputs such as credit, and the benefits which flow from them (Olawoye, 1989a); (2) property rights and inheritance laws, which govern access to and use of land and other natural resources (Jiggins, 1989a); (3) the relationship among ecological factors such as the seasonality of rainfall and availability of fuel wood, economic factors such as product market failures, and gender-determined responsibilities such as feeding the family, which trade off basic household self-provisioning goals and care of the family against production for the market (Horenstein, 1989; Jiggins, 1989b); and (4) the way that agricultural services are staffed, managed, and designed (Gittinger et al.,1990; Saito and Weidemann ,1990; FAO, 1993).

The insufficiency of female oriented technology generation and extension program is another serious concern of gender discrimination in Ethiopian agricultural development. The traditional methods consume much of the energy and time of rural women, for which due attention is not paid in technology generation process. Generally, sufficient extension packages are also not seen taken up for the dissemination of women friendly, labor and time saving and drudgery reducing technologies (FAO, 1996).

2.2. Empirical Studies

Knowledge of extension coverage, the level of utilization and the constraints in terms of different farm groups are undoubtedly important to draw out real pictures of the society for tacking any target based corrective measures in technology generation, development and

35

utilization, if the gap is clearly underlined. A number of literature exists that concern in identifying socio-economical, personal, technological, and institutional variables that affects utilization of technological packages; however, studies carried out so far in the country indicate wide variability in technology utilizations by farmers and the conclusions drawn are often not consistent.

Major constraints and factors that affect utilization of technological packages include: low level of education, bias in gender differentials, shortage of land size holding, and lack of working capital like cash on hand or livestock owned, lack of awareness on different technological packages, lack of farmers participation in various area of human developmental aspects like planning, training, exhibition, exposure visit, practicing on-farm trial and demonstration, insufficient extension service, lack of credit, unavailability of inputs on time, etc. and these discussed as follows:

Male-headed households are said to have better access to agricultural information than femaleheaded households, which is attributed to negative influence of cultural norms and traditions (Habtemariam, 2004). Studies conducted by Ellis (1992) and (Green and Ngongola, 1993) indicated that female-headed households had less access to improved technologies, credit, and land and extension service. The empirical study that deals with gender differentials in the farm households showed a significant role in economic performance of a given household in rural people of Africa (McSweeney, 1979; Dey, 1980).

Education is a human capital that is regarded as the best option of empowering farm operators (Habtemariam, 2004). Women heading farm households have lower levels of education than men. In Nigeria foe example, women heading households had, on average, 1.6 years of education compared to 3.0 years of men, whereas all women surveyed had 2.5 years of schooling compared to 3.6 for men; in Kenya women heading households had 3.4 years of schooling on average as compared with 3.8 for men (Saito et al., 1994). Hence having the ability to read and write an advantage in obtaining information and understand the benefit of use of technological packages. Similar results were reported by Itana (1985), Kansana et al. (1996), Nkonya et al. (1997), Ramasamy et al. (1999), Habtemariam, (2004), and Million and

36

Belay (2004) stating that farmers education had positive and significant influence on utilization of technological packages

Labour availability is a variable, which affects farmers' decisions regarding adoption of new agricultural practices or inputs Feder et al. (1985). Level of utilization of packages used increase demand of labour so that introducing new technology is more attractive to households with a large number of active labour forces. New technologies increase the seasonal demand of labour so that adoption is more attractive to households with a large number of active labour forces. In addition, much of the farm work in Ethiopia is done by family members (Croppenstedt et al., 1999).

The variable representing extension service has influence on farm households' utilization level of technological packages. Several studies showed that the extension is generally costeffective, and has a significant and positive impact on farmers knowledge and adoption of new technologies and hence on productivity. The study carried out by Feder (1985) in Nigeria showed that extension increases agricultural productivity and rural incomes by bridging the gap between technical knowledge and farmers practices. Belay (2003) showed that extension agents tend to work with those model farmers who show an interest in the extension packages. One of the criteria used to evaluate the performance of extension agents is the number of farmers adopting the technology packages in their area of work. In other words, quotas, the minimum number of farmers who should take up the technology packages are imposed on extension agents. As a result, the extension agents use whatever means available to persuade farmers to adopt the packages and thereby meet their quotas. Therefore, lack of effective extension service is one of the major constraints influencing the utilization level of extension packages. Similar findings are reported by (Chilot et al., 1996; Degnet, 1999; Tesfaye et al., 2001; Habtemariam, 2004). A survey result in Nigeria showed that many rural women were unaware of available technologies and needed encouragement to accept innovations (Saito et al., 1994)

Land size is one of the main productive assets that determine farmers potential to use combination of packages or not. Landholdings of households headed by women are much

37

smaller than of those headed by men. In Nigeria women household head had one-third the area of men household heads (Saito et al.1994). Larger farm size means more resource and greater ability to take the risk involved in the utilization of recommended technological practices. Each crop or livestock packages require specific allocation of land. Tesfai (1974) found that introducing new technology to the existing farming situation is positively influenced by size of land holding. Roling (1988) also generalized that early adopters have relatively longer holdings than late adopters. Similar results were founded by Tesfai (1975) in the Chilalo Agricultural Development Unit (CADU) area. He found that farm size is positively related to the probability of adoption of extension packages (improved verities and fertilizer). Ramasamy et al. (1999), Bezabih (2000), and Tesfaye (2003) also indicated that size of cropland exerts a positive influence on adoption of improved technologies. However, the findings of Kiresur et al. (1999) indicated that with an increase in the size of the farm there was a decrease in the probability of a farmer being adopting modern technologies.

Empirical studies carried out by Chilot et al. (1996), Bezabih (2000), Tesfaye et al. (2001), and Techane (2002), describes that livestock are important source of cash income in rural areas, which are used for purchasing different types of packages. In addition, farmers who owned a large number of livestock have the capacity to bear risks of using combination of packages. This variable is also a source of oxen, which are means to plough their field. This by it self encourages the use packages.

Credit has strong and significant influence in determining in use of combined packages. It helps in alleviating current liquidity constraints enhancing the use of technology packages correspondingly. Survey result by Saito et al. (1994) in Nigeria showed that a major reason for smallholders not using fertilizer was lack of cash, highlighting the importance of short-term credit. Several studies in Ethiopia have shown that access to credit plays a significant role in enhancing the use of improved varieties. (Legesse, 1992; Chilot et al., 1996; Teressa, 1997; Lelissa, 1998; Bezabih, 2000; Tesfaye et al., 2001), reported that access to credit, had a significant and positive influence on the adoption behavior of farmers regarding improved technologies. However, Jabbar and Alam (1993) found that access to credit was not significantly related with adoption. Asfaw et el., (1999) found that the adoption of improved

38

maize package was significantly related to provision of credit and level of education in Bako area. Mulugeta (1995) indicated that the timely availability of fertilizer for farmers access to credit influenced positively the adoption of fertilizer for wheat production in Arsi area. Credit is very important to resource poor farmers who cannot finance the use of agricultural input from their own savings especially at the early stage of adoption. Although documents indicate that about 80% of fertilizer sales in the country is on credit basis, according to Techane (2002), few farmers in the study site have reported to have no access to input credit from formal sources.

Participation in extension training will enable farmers to get more information and improve their understanding about the available packages, which may intern leads to a change in their knowledge, attitude and behavior. According to Kansana et al., (1996) and Tesfaye et al., (2001), attendance of agricultural training is positively and significantly related to the adoption of improved maize technologies.

The study condacted by Legesse (1992) in Aris Negelle area on adoption of technologies indicated that exposure to technology was significantly influencing the adoption of improved varieties and intensity of adoption of fertilizer and herbicide. For the last ten years, new technologies have been tested on farmers fields to test the suitability of new technologies under farmers conditions. Demonstrations of improved varieties of wheat, teff, barley and faba bean with their associated cultural practices have been also held to demonstrate the superiority of the improved technologies over the traditional practice (Chilot, 1994), and the participants developed a positive attitude to use varieties. According to Chilot, when farmers have a chance to participate in farmers field day, they develop voluntary behavioral change and practicing on-farm trial and demonstration enable them to know more about the fitness of the packages with their socio-economic conditions that enhanced them to take further measure.

Similarly, participation in extension planning enables farmers to identify there farming problems and to set sound solutions for further measure. Another interesting outcome Belays (2002) study indicated that farmers made a very marginal contribution in designing and formulating extension activities. He also noted that neither the farmers nor the frontline

39

extension agents were consulted in the course of policy formulation. These results suggest that the new extension system is not as participatory as its name implies.

Roling (1988) generalized that progressive farmers are more cosmopolites, eager for information; they are interested in extension advice; and have more homophiles with extension workers in that it is easy for them to communicate with each other. Farmers, who have awareness about the existence of the new technologies, continue in the search of further knowledge about the package to evaluate its importance so as to take further measures.

Furthermore, Belay (2003) points out those respondents who had not participated either in PADETES or the SG 2000 extension programme at the time of his survey had: lack or shortage of working capital for down payments, shortage of land, increasing the prices of inputs and the limited geographical coverage of the programme are the principal factors responsible for the nonparticipation. Beyene et al. (1991) in Bako area examined the level of adoption of maize recommendation package comprising variety, fertilizer and row planting, in which he found out that unavailability of seed and lack of extension advice were important factors that affect farmers participation in the program.

Feder et al. (1985) also summarized the vast amount of empirical literature that indicate constraints to adoption of a new technology arise from many sources, such as lack of credit, inadequate farm size, unstable supply of complimentary inputs, uncertainty and so on. In Nigeria women typically lack technologies to relive time-consuming agricultural tasks such as weeding, transplanting, and harvesting. In Kenya having infrastructure and institutional variables (paved roads, markets, and cooperatives) was found positively affect the decision of both male and female farmers to used improved seeds (Saito et al., 1994).

2.3. Conceptual Development of the Study

Literature review and overview of the history of extension in Ethiopia showed that extension systems had nearly top-down in approach, little agro-ecological coverage, and attention was geared towards promoting high-input-high-output type of agriculture that favors few 40

aristocrats, wealthier farmers, state farms, and cooperatives without giving due attention to the majority of tenants, poor and women. These deferential supports and rewards make extension process key mechanisms in reinforcing inequalities and social differentiation, i.e. resource-rich farmers enjoy higher windfall profits for a considerable time before the poor and women catch up. However, there is a major shift in our development thinking todays world, which is the recognition of equity and empowerment of the different target groups, rather than ignoring some parts of the social groups. Based on this review of literature on the past and current history of extension system in Ethiopia, examining coverage of extension program and identifying constraints of different categories of farmers particularly resource-poor and female HHs in access and utilization of extension packages is considered as important in this study.

Literature review on coverage and nature of extension program being provided for resourcerich, resource-poor and women farmers in the view of extension approach showed that the dominant extension approach today is the transfer of technology (diffusion of innovation) approach (Bolding et al., 2003). However, the model has a number of drawbacks: it neglect innovations developed by farmers and focused on those innovations introduced from outside, unidirectional in flow of information, thus limiting designing and generation of target oriented technologies. It emphasizes exclusively on socio-psychological factors as a cause of lack of change (personal blem) and did not pay sufficient attention to structural variables that operates at social level. It legitimized extension workers to concentrate their activities to a small category of progressive farmers, neglecting those need assistance but are hard to rich. Similarly as indicated above this category-based gap, invite the researchers to develop insight for examining coverage and utilization of extension program by different categories of farmers for the study.

Literature review on level of awareness and utilization of extension program indicated that the majority of the poor and women farmers have got information lately and indirectly through the process of trickle down approach. In addition, progressive farmers extension strategy indicated that though nearly every extension service in the world operates on a progressive farmers strategy, it does not take into account possible differences in access to recourses which might make an innovation marginally relevant or keep it out of reach altogether for certain categories

41

of farmers. This has been a serious shortcoming of the progressive farmer strategy and has led to the systematic neglect of millions of relatively poor and women farmers (Roling, 1988). This leads to develop the concept that lack of awareness may lead the farmer not to use the available technological packages. Therefore, it is reflected in the mind of the researcher to develop the objectives of the study with special reference to the literature review.

Inviting farmers participation on various areas of human resource development is a crucial tool to bring voluntary behavioural change (change in practice, knowledge, skill, and attitude). However, literature review indicated that majority of the farmers in rural area were have not participated. Belay (2002) points out that farmer make a very marginal contribution in designing and formulating extension activities. He also notes that neither the farmers nor the frontline extension agents are consulted in the course of policy formulation. Based on this and similar areas of conceptual constructs; access to information and productive resource, and identifying the level of participation of different categories of farmers in human resource and technology development areas like planning, training, field visit, exhibition, and practicing onfarm trial and demonstration were considered under this investigation.

Literature review on women participation in agricultural extension indicated that, though women shoulder carry the bulk of both productive and reproductive works of the rural household and obliged to work longer hours than men, women's substantial contribution continues to be systematically marginalized and undervalued in conventional agricultural and economic analyses and policies, while men's contribution remains the central, often the sole, focus of attention. Development Agents most likely visit male farmers and women are not sufficiently aware of different technological packages. Based on these concepts developed, the researchers have been motivated to focus on the investigation of practical conditions that deal with women participation in extension program. One of the objectives of this study is examining the coverage and nature of extension program and level of awareness and utilization of extension program by different categories of farmers particularly by women farmers.

42

Based on the literature review that deal with socio-economic and institutional variables which affect different farmers groups toward utilization of different extension packages, such as; variation in level of education, age of the household head, land size holding, livestock owned by the household, level of awareness for different technological packages, households contact with extension agent, access to and utilization of credit, and family labor availability have been assumed important and are considered in this study.

Lastly, literature review based on other interrelated constraints on access and utilization of technological packages such as; poor quality of seed and fertilizer, unavailability of seed on time, insufficient delivery, quota based plans well over the capacity of staff, and inadequate follow-up as major problems observed in the implementation of extension package programs, womens legal and cultural influence, the insufficiency of female oriented technology and extension program were conceptualized and identified by considering as they are important for descriptive analysis of the study.

2.4. Hypothesis and Definition of Variables

The extent to which identification and definition of concepts and variables were depends on many factors, but the underlying methodological framework was the most important (Sarantakos, 1980). In the course of identifying constraints influencing farmer's decision to use technological packages, the main task was to identify which constraints are the most important to different categories of farmers. Given brief literature reviews and guiding motives of the researcher, the following dependent and independent variables were identified, subsequent to which theories were hypothesized and definitions were developed for the study.

2.4.1. Dependent variables of the study

The dependent variable for this study is utilization of extension packages by the sampled households. Six alternative packages that are frequently and dominantly produced in the study area are chosen for this study (i.e. horticulture, coffee, maize, poultry, dairy, and fattening packages). It is expected that all households do not have equally utilized all the available

43

technologies simultaneously, or may not use full components of specific packages in their farm situation. Some of the household may not use at all, some of them may practice only one, others may two, three, four, five, etc. recommended components and packages out of the available technological packages in their farm area. Therefore utilization of extension packages by the sampled households becomes dependent variable to be explained

2.4.2. Independent variables of the study

The reason why a household has not utilized supplementary technological enterprise in combination for his best option, is influenced by various factors are taken as independent variables and defined and hypothesized as follows.

Age of the household head: Measured on continuous scale in terms of the respondents number of years of age at the time of data collection. Older farmers may lose their wealth specially cash outlay what they have accumulated in their early young or medium age and faced with difficulties so as to finance different types of packages, and also may feel with exhaustion in their elder stage to carry out different enterprises and may decide to stay in few selected one. Therefore, it was expected that, increasing in age level have a negative influence on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Sex of the household head: It refers to biological differentiation of human being. This is a dummy variable that takes a value 1 if the household head is male and 0 otherwise. Evidence in the literature indicates that female-headed households have less access to improved technologies, credit, land, and extension service (Green and Ngongola, 1993; Ellis, 1992). Therefore, it is expected that male-headed households might used greater combination of technological packages than female-headed households.

Education of the household head: Measured in terms of number of years of formal schooling the respondents had completed at the time of data collection. If the respondents did not pass even one a year, he/she is enumerated as illiterate. Respondents who are between 1 and 4 were considered as read and write, who attended 5-8 are said to have a primary level of education 44

and above 8 are considered as secondary level of education. Level of education was assumed to increase farmers ability to obtain, process, and use information relevant to available technological packages. Therefore, it is expected that resource-rich and male HHs, and user groups, are more educated than resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively for the available technological packages. Therefore, it was expected that, their educational levels have a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Family labour Supply: It refers to active labour force of the family who are between the age of 15 and 65 and who can support in doing agricultural production. Labour availability is a variable, which affects farmers' decisions regarding adoption of new agricultural practices or inputs (Feder et al., 1985). Combination of packages used probably increase demand of labour so that adoption is more attractive to households with a large number of active labour forces. Therefore, it was expected that resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups have more number of active family labour force than resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. Therefore, it was expected that, family labour supply has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Contact with development agents: This refers to the frequency of contact that the household made per month with the various information sources. The higher the linkage between farmers and development agents, the more the information flows and the technological (knowledge) transfer between them. Those farmers who have frequent contacts with development agents are likely resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups than resource-poor, female HHs and nonuser groups respectively. Therefore, it was expected that, contact with development agents have a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Land size: It represents the size of land holdings engaged by the households. In many empirical studies, it has been noted that adequate size of land holding is the basic requirement for utilization of different types of packages. Either each crop or livestock packages require specific allocation of land (Tesfaye, 1974). Also it was assumed that the larger the farm size

45

the farmer has, the better his risk bearing ability and the higher the probability to use of combination technological packages. Therefore, it was expected that resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups have greater land holdings than resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. Therefore, it was hypothesized that land size has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Number of livestock owned: This variable defined in terms of Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU). Livestock may serve as a proxy for the capacity to bear risks of using new technology and capture wealth effect. Livestock may also serve as a proxy for oxen ownership, which is important for farm operations. Therefore, it was expected that resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups have greater number of TLU than resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. Therefore, it was hypothesized that number of livestock owned has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Access to credit: Access to credit can relax the financial constraints of farmers. It was expected in this study that resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups have better access to credit than resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. Therefore, it was hypothesized that access to credit has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Participation in extension planning: This is a dummy variable, which takes a value 1 if the household participated in extension service and 0 otherwise. This represents the number of farmers participated in extension planning in the past five years. It is one of extension tool that enable farmers to identify there farming problems and to set sound solutions for further measure. It was expected in this study that the participation of resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups in extension planning is greater than resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. Therefore, it was hypothesized that participation in extension planning has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

46

Participation in training: This is a dummy variable, which takes a value 1 if the household participated in the training and 0 otherwise. This represents the number of farmers participated in extension training in the past five years. It was expected in this study that the participation of resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups in extension training is greater than resourcepoor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. Participants in extension training lead to have more information and understanding about the available packages, so that they most likely develop a change in their knowledge, attitude and behavior. Therefore, it was hypothesized that participation in extension training has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Practicing on-farm trial and demonstration: This is a dummy variable, which takes a value 1 if the household participated in on-farm trial and demonstration and 0 otherwise. This represents the number of farmers participated in practicing on-farm trial or demonstration in the past five years. It was expected that on-farm trial and demonstration be carried out in the farm of resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups than resource-poor, female HHs and nonuser groups respectively. Therefore, it was hypothesized that practicing on-farm trial and demonstration has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Participation on farmers field day: This is a dummy variable, which takes a value 1 if the household participated in farmers field day and demonstration and 0 otherwise. This represents the number of farmers participated in farmers field day in the past five years. It was expected in this study that participants in farmers field day are more of resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups than resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. Therefore, it was hypothesized that participation on farmers field day has a significant and positive impact on level of utilization of recommended technological packages.

Level of awareness: It is the level of awareness of the household head about the components of available technological packages in the study area. It was expected in this study that level of awareness of resource-rich, male HHs, and user groups about technological components of the available packages (maize, horticulture, coffee, poultry, dairy and fating packages) is greater

47

than level of awareness of resource-poor, female HHs and non-user groups respectively. If household head had awareness about the existence of the elements of packages, he searches further knowledge about the package to evaluate its importance and probably include it into their farming situation. Therefore, it is expected that consciousness about the existence of recommended technologies have positive influence on utilization of technological packages.

Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the study. Independent variables Personal Variables -Age -Education -Sex -Level of awareness EconomicVariables -Land size -Working capital -Livestock -Labour availability Institutional Variables -Extension contact -Farmers participation areas of: - Planning -Training -Farmers field day -Exhibition Technological Variables -Practicing on-farm trial and demonstration Dependent variable to be explained

Utilization of Extension Packages

48

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The first section of this chapter describes the study area. Data type and data source are discussed in section two. Section three explains sample and sampling method. Finally, data analysis technique is discussed in section four.

3.1. Description of the Study Area

Enemore Ener Woreda was purposively selected for the study since it is implementing several package programs for the last 15 years, having high agricultural potential with mixed farming system and extension services of MoA as well as an NGO are provided. Many of the male members of the community have off-farm activities in this woreda. Moreover, this research study was sponsored by the Department of Rural Development and Agricultural Office of the Woreda.

Enemore and Ener woreda is situated on the south-west direction of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia at a distance of 194 Km. It is one of the twelve woredas of Gurage Zone, in the Southern Nation and Nationalities People Regional State. The boundaries of the Enemore and Ener woreda are Cheha in the North and North-East, Hadiya and Endegagn in the South, Gumer in the East, and Yem in the South-West (Figure 2.).

The total population of the woreda amounts to over 226,000 of which 110,740 are female and 115,260 are male. The total number of households is 41,000 and the average family size being 5.5. The total land size is 107,584 ha. It is subdivided into 64 PAs, of which more than 20,000 ha of land in kolla agro-ecological land is identified for investment purpose.

The study woreda is largely dominated by Woina-Dega 57%, Kolla 26.25 %, and Dega 16.75%. The average annual temperature, rainfall, and altitude range of the woreda is 18.95 0c, 984 mm per year (annum) and 1000-3000 masl respectively.

49

Figure 2. Region, Zone and Woreda in which the study site is located

Study Area (Enemore and Ener woreda) Source: UNDP-EUE 1996

50

The total numbers of DAs deployed in the study area are 202. There are three DAs per PA. Farmers in this area practiced mixed farming. Crop production is dominant followed by livestock production. The average livestock number is 4 animals per household, in addition to poultry and bee keeping. Major crops grown in the area are enset, coffee, chat, maize, teff, wheat and barley. The inhabitants of the woreda are well known for their 'kocho and kitfo' culture. There are enjoyed especially 'Meskel and Arefa.' celebrations.

Local NGOs, such as Feed the Children, have been working in 25 PAs linked with rural development and agricultural office of the woreda to facilitate extension services with special focus on children and women. It has also provides task oriented training for DAs and farmers for the whole PAs of the woreda.

3.2. Data Type and Data Source

Data collected for this research were both qualitative and quantitative in nature. For this, both primary and secondary data sources were used. The primary data sources were resource-rich, poor, and women farmers, as well as DAs and subject matter specialists. Primary and secondary data had been collected to answer the research question, and objectives of the study. It includes; demographic, environmental, socio-economic, institutional, cropping pattern, credit facilities, as well as information on coverage, nature, level of awareness, and utilization of extension packages and services that had been provided to different categories of farmers and constraints that disallow them to benefit from the extension service provided in the study area, etc. It had been gathered through formal survey, interview and through discussions and observations. Secondary data sources were documents, reports, and records of DAs and rural development and agricultural office of the woreda. The sources of qualitative data were resource-rich, resource-poor, female HHs and key informants, as well as DAs and SMSs.

3.3. Sample Size and Method

The basic objective of a sampling is to draw inferences about the population from which such sample was taken. This means that sampling is a technique, which helps us in understanding

51

the parameters or characteristics of the universe or population by examining only a small part of it. Therefore it is necessary that sampling technique be reliable (Chandan, 1998). Appropriate sample size depends on various factors relating to the subject under investigation like the time, cost, degree of accuracy desired etc. (Rangaswamy, 1995). In this study to determine sample size, different factors were taken into consideration including research cost, time, human resource, accessibility, and availability of transport facilities. By considering these factors into account, 154 house heads of which 4 of them were reserve from 6 PAs of the woreda were selected. Combination of both purposive and random sampling technique were applied at various stages as indicated below: 1. List of the 64 PAs of the woreda is taken from MoA of the woreda. 2. Simple random sampling technique was used to select 6 PAs out of the total 64 PAs. 3. List of the name of all male and women house-heads who were permanent residents stayed in their farm village were taken from the documents of development agents. 4. Key-informants, DAs, and SMSs were purposively selected to make discussion and identify the most important wealth ranking measurable variables in the study area. 5. Based on identified wealth ranking measurable variables with the assistance of keyinformants, SMSs, and DAs, the total house-heads in each of 6 PAs were categorized into resource-rich, medium, poor, and poorer. 6. Additional list that described the sample HHs was developed. In which resource-rich and medium were taken as resource-rich household category and the poor and very poor were taken as resource-poor household category. 7. At the end, 91 resource-poor and 59 resource-rich HHs; of which 100 male and 50 female HHs were arranged and taken for further statistical analysis. In addition, 2 resource-rich and 2 resource-poor HHs were taken as reserve. Sampling procedure in the form of sketch table that was used to select sample house-heads is given in (Appendix figure 1) The choice of method of data collection was highly dependent on the nature of the problem, objective and scope of the study. The availability of finance, time and facilities also influenced the selection of the method to be used for data collection. Primary data collection method

52

included structured interview schedule with open-ended and closed-ended questions, observation, and discussion with sample farmers, focused-group members, Key-informants, DAs, and SMSs. Checklist with key question had been used to spark out the discussion to obtain qualitative data. Six DAs as interviewers were selected and training was given for them, pre-test of the data which were collected from non sample respondents in the first two days, and continuous monitoring and discussion through out the process with them were done. Secondary data were examined from the records, reports and documents of DAs and the Woreda and Zonal Rural Development and Agricultural Office.

3.3.1. Qualitative data collection methods Qualitative data were collected through discussion with focus group and key-informants, field visits, and observations.

3.3.2. Quantitative data collection methods Quantitative data were collected through personal interviews and reviewing secondary data documents by enumerators and researcher. The respondents were interviewed using a pretested, structured interview schedule. Restructuring has been done using sufficient number of non-sample respondent through pilot study in order to suitably modify the questionnaire and facilitate smooth administration.

3.4. Data Analysis Data were analyzed using different quantitative and qualitative statistical procedures and methods. The qualitative data were partly analyzed on spot during data collection to avoid forgetting and to be able to identify the gaps to be covered through subsequent data collection. Focus group discussion was hold on in specific topics with small groups of people (that consists 7 and 8) who have intimate knowledge about the topic under consideration. Often, researcher has chosen to ensure that the discussion does not diverge too far from the original topic and that no participant dominates the discussion.

53

The quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistical tools including mean, percentage and standard deviation, T-test and 2-test, Cramers V, Gamma, Spearman Correlation Coefficient (rho), and Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) (Sarantakos, 1980) based on the level of measurement of the variables involved, i.e. the nominal, ordinal, and interval/ratio levels. Descriptive statistical tools were employed to see difference, strength, and direction of relationships in level of awareness, extension coverage and utilization, and important constraints in access and utilization of extension programs by different target groups including resource-rich, resource-poor, and female HHs and also between user and non-user groups on the available and selected technological packages in the study area.

The chi-square test was used to examine whether the obtained data and their differences were significant, or whether the variables in question were related to each other, However, Chisquire values depend very much on the size of the sample, making it difficult for the researcher to determine whether differences in the results were due to the nature of the relationship between the variables or due to sample size. To determine the strength of the relationship as well as to see whether differences were due to sample size, two measures were commonly employed for nominal level of measurement the (read Phi) coefficient or Cramers V, and Gamma and Spearman Correlation Coefficient indicate the significance, strength, and direction of the relationship between the row and column variables of a crosstabulation, and appropriate when the variables are ordinal and categorical variables; whereas Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (r) for interval/ratio level variables (Sarantakos, 1980). The ranges of the values of Phi coefficient and Cramers V are between 0 (no association) and 1(Perfect association). In general, if the value is close to 0 the strength of the relationship is fairly weak, if it is about 0.4 to 0.7 it is moderate; and if it is above 0.8 it is strong or very strong. Where as the value of the test statistics of Gamma, Spearman Correlation Coefficient, and Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient range from 1 to 1. Phi () coefficient is used for 2 x 2 tables of nominal variables. When it relates to tables larger than 2 x 2 tables, Cramers V was used to nominal level variables.

54

4. RESULT AND DESCUSSION

This chapter discusses the findings of the study including household characteristics and socioeconomic variables; level awareness, utilization, and coverage of extension packages; attending areas of human resource development; and major physical and institutional constraints, using descriptive statistical tools such as mean, percentage, standard deviation, ttest, and 2-test to compare and contrast different characteristics of the sample households. Cramers V, Gamma, Spearman Correlation Coefficient, and Pearsons Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient were employed to measure the difference, strength, and direction and relationships between mean of compared groups that is already tested their significant difference by T-test and 2-test.

4.1. Household Characteristics

There are inequalities and differences in wealth in every community. Outsiders and community members have different perceptions of wealth, well-being and inequality. Different people in a community (men, women, merchants, laborers) may use different criteria for wealth. Wealth ranking is based on the assumption that community members have a good sense of who among them is more or less well off. The type of socioeconomic community profile may be used for categorizing households for later activity; to identify and target project participants (example, the poorest; for seed targeting, proper training design, small scale credit beneficiary etc.), and to see whether families who are project participants to improve their scores over time compared with those who do not participate in the project. Local peoples perceptions are crucial for getting a deeper insight. These differences among HH influence or determine their behaviors, copping strategies, and views.

The discussion made with key-informants, DAs, and woreda level experts in the study area were good opportunities to investigate perceptions of wealth differences and inequalities in a community, to discover local indicators and criteria of wealth and well-being, and to establish the relative position of the sample households in a community.

55

Box: 1. Group discussion The output of the discussion indicated that possession of livestock was the most important criteria used for wealth ranking in the study area. The second, third, and fourth criteria are crop coverage, land size, and type of house owned in order of importance. Farmers who have greater than or equal to 10 cows, greater than or equal to 1ha of crop coverage, land holding of greater than or equal to 2 ha, and house with corrugated iron or grass house with partition and good management were considered as better farmers. Farmers who have 5 to 9 cows, 0.5 to 1 ha of crop coverage, land holding of 1 to 2 ha, and house with corrugated iron or grass house with partition and medium management were considered as medium farmers. Farmers who have 2 to 4 cows, 0.25 to 0.49 ha of crop coverage, land holding of 0.5 to 0.99 ha, and house with corrugated iron or grass house with out partition and poor management were considered as poor farmers. However, farmers who have less than or equal to 1 cow, less than or equal to 0.24 ha of crop coverage, less than or equal to 0.49 ha of land holding and lived with grass house without partition or poor management were considered as very poor farmers (Table 1).

Table 1. Distribution of sample HHs based resource level. HHs Typology Rich Medium Poor Poorest Land holdings (ha) 2 1.99-1 0.99-0.5 0.49 Wealth indicating variables Crop coverage (ha) 1 1-0.5 0.49-0.25 0.24 Livestock owned (number) 10 9-5 4-2 1

Source: Computed from own survey data

According to Ayalew (2003), in Lalomama woreda, oxen or draft animals are the single most important determinant of households wealth, while in the study area milking cow owned is the most important and preferable wealth indicating criteria. This may be because of the people in the study area were mostly depending on the product of enset plant for their food requirements and eating enset product (kocho and amicho) by nature needs milk and the products of milk.

56

Based on this general information, household categorization into resource-rich and resourcepoor was done. The selected key informants from each sampled peasant associations have categorized the sample HHs into resource-rich, medium, resource-poor and very poor. Scoring technique was applied by assigning 1 for rich, 0.75 for medium, 0.5 for poor, and 0.25 for very poor. The mean of the sum of the result of the three key informants were developed. The HHs who have got mean score value between the range of 1 to 0.9 is taken as rich HHs, who have got mean score value between the range of 0.85 to 0.68 is taken as medium HHs, who have got mean score value between the range of 0.67 to 0.45 is taken as poor HHs, and who have got score value between the range of 0.33 to 0.25 is taken as very poor HHs (Appenduix Tabel 5).

When one informant gave low score and another gave a much higher score were treated with care to investigate further to understand why they gave such different scores. From total sample HHs (150), 16 (10.7%) were rich HHs, 43 (28.7%) were medium HHs, 38 (25.3%) were poor HHs, and 53 (35.3%) were poorest HHs (Figure 3). Rich and medium HHs were taken in one category which was considered as resource-rich HHs, and the poor and very poor were taken in another category as resource-poor HHs for the purpose of this study. Figure 3. Distribution of sample household heades based on resource level.

M ale
40 35 30 25
20.7 14.6 10.7 8 2.7 8 10.7 12 28.7 25.3 23.3

Fem ale
35.3

T otal

P ercent 20
15 10 5 0 R ich M edium

Poor

Poorest

R esource level

Source: Computed from own survey data 57

With regard to age group, out of resource-rich (59) and poor HHs (91), 55% and 67% exist between the age of 31 and 50 years respectively (Table 2). The average family size in resourcerich and resource-poor, male and female house heads were 5.78, 5.34, 5.54, and 5.46 members respectively. These figures are slightly greater than the national average, which are 5.3 members per HH (CSA, 1997). The average family size of the sample farm HH was estimated at 5.5. There is non-significant mean difference in age and family size among all categories of the households, which are evaluated using independent sample t-test at 10% level of significance. Resource-rich farmers who fall between the ages of 30 to 50 (93.2%) were greater than that of the poor (73.6%). The probable reason is that farmers in this age group were working hard to accumulate wealth, but the number of resource-rich farmers whose age were above 50 years of old (1.7%) and below or equal to 30 years old (5.1%) were less than that of the poor (14.3%) and (12.1%) respectively. This shows hyperbolic relationship between age and wealth creation. This implies that before 31years old, farmers are in the way in accumulating wealth where as after 50 years old, farmers have a chance to lose what they have accumulated during their medium age level and reaches to dependency syndrome.

When dealing with age impact in utilization of technological packages, there is non-significant difference between user and non-user at 10 % level of significance, however it was negatively correlated (t=0.981, Spearmans C. = -0.083) (Appendix Table 2). This result tells us that as farmers age increases or gets elder, the use of technological packages decreases. That is, young farmers use more packages than elder ones. The probable reason for this phenomenon is that elder farmers in the study area may decide to remain with producing few specific enterprises that they have experienced for a long period of time with out the demand of additional labour. The negative correlation of age and utilization of technologies is also reported by (Degnet, 1999; Habtemariam, 2004).

58

Table 2. Distribution of sample HHs based on their age HH Category Rich S.N. 1. Age group 2. 3. N Mean Standard Division t-Value 31-50 >50 55 (93.2) 67 (73.6) 1 (1.7) 13 (14.3) 78 (78.0) 13 (13.0) 44 (88.0) 1 (2.0) 122 (81.3) 14 (9.3) 150 (100) 41.79 8.223 Category 18-30 N (%) 3 (5.1) Poor N (%) 11 (12.1) Male N (%) 9 (9.0) Female N (%) 5 (10.0)

Descriptions

Total sample N (%) 14 (9.3)

59 (100) 91(100) 41.24 42.14 6.067 9.376 d 0.718

100 (100) 50 (100) 42.48 40.40 7.203 7.203 d 1.466

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: N=Number of respondents (%) = Percent d= non significant at 10% level of significance HH= Household head

The average family size of the total sample households was 5.50. There is non-significant mean difference between resource-rich and poor HHs and also between male and female HHs at 10% probability level. Economically active family labour force (known as man equivalent) was calculated for the sample households based on the assumptions used by CSA (1996). Accordingly, economically active age group lies between 15 to 65 years. The average number of active labour force (Man Equivalent) for the whole sampled was 3.63. On the average, resourcerich HHs have more numbers of economically active labour force (4.08) than other groups of the sampled HHs with mean significant difference (t=3.417) at 1% probability level (Table 3).

59

Table 3. Family size and active labour force classification of the sample households HH Category Rich (N=59) Poor (N=91) Male (100) N (%) 4 (6.8) 37 (62.7) 14 (23.7) 4 (6.8) 5.78 1.975 1.160d 4.08 1.290 3.417a 3.33 1.342 3.62 1.413 0.084d N (%) 25 (27.5) 39 (42.9) 18 (19.8) 9 (9.9) 5.34 2.432 N (%) 19(19.0) 51 (51.0) 20 (20.0) 10 (10.0) 5.54 2.405 0.203d 3.64 1.290 3.63 1.369 Female (50) N (%) 10 (20.0) 25 (50.0) 12 (24.0) 3 (6.0) 5.46 1.982

Descriptions S.N. Category Family size category (Number) 1. 2. 3. 4. 1-3 4-6 7-9 >9

Total HHs (N=150) N (%) 29 (19.3) 76 (50.7) 32 (21.3) 13 (8.7) 5.50 2.267

Mean Standard Deviation t=value

Economically active labour (Man Equivalent)

Mean Std. Deviation t=value

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: N=Number of respondents (%) = Percent HH=Household head a= significant at less than 1% level of significance and d= non significant at 10% level of significance.

With regard to educational level (Table 4), 35.6% and 68.1% of the sample household heads were illiterate, 44.1% and 24.2% were able to read and write, 13.6% and 6.6% were elementary school education, and 6.8% and 1.1% had attended high school education in resource-rich and resourcepoor house headed category respectively. With regard to male and female household heads, illiterate 48.0% and 70.0% read and write 38.0% and 20%, elementary 20% and 8%, high school 4% and 2% respectively. There is significant mean difference at educational status between literate and illiterate groups at 1% significance level between resource-rich and poor household heads (2=16.6) and at 10% significance level between male and female household heads (2=6.83). Saito et al. (1994) in Nigeria found similar results. From the total sample household heads in general, more than 50%, were illiterate. This indicates that an educational status of the HHs is highly affected by resource level than gender differentials.

60

The probable reasons for significant mean difference in educational level between resource-rich and resource-poor HHs might be that may better educational level of resource-reach HHs heads lead them to accumulate greater wealth through better farm operation or poor groups may not had equal chance to attend education as the rich did in their past. Resource-rich can spare children from labour and engage hired labour, and this may also facilitate the education in childhood. They can afford to meet expenses for childrens education also. According to (Habtemariam, 2004) education is a human capital that is regarded as the best option of empowering farm operators. It is therefore, farmers with ability to read and write may have an advantage in obtaining information and understand the benefit of use of technological packages. Table 4. Educational level of the sample household heads HH Category S. Descriptions N. 1 2. 3. 4. Illiterate Read and write Elementary High school 2-value Rich (N=59) Poor (N=91) Male (N=100) N 21 26 8 4 (%) 35.6 44.1 N 62 22 (%) 68.1 24.2 6.6 1.1 N 48 38 10 4 (%) 48.0 38.0 Female (50) N 35 10 (%) 70.0 20.0 8.0 2.0 Total sample (N=150) N (%) 83 48 14 5 55.3 32.0 9.3 3.3

13.6 6 6.8 1 a 16.60

10.0 4 4.0 1 c 6.83

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where=a and c are significant at less than 1% and 10% significance level respectively N=Number of respondents (%) = percent HH=Household head

61

4.2. Land Holding and its Characterstics

As it can be seen in Figure 4 and Appendix Table 3, larger proportion of the households (62.7%) had land holding less than 1 ha. Out of the total resource-rich HHs, 67.9% had land holdings greater than 1.5 ha, whereas 94.5% of resource-poor farmers had less than 1.01ha. Out of the total sample HHs, 58% of male HHs and 72% of female HHs had land holding less than 1 ha. This indicates that land holding of households headed by women are much smaller than those headed by men. Figure 4. Size of land holdings of the sample HHs

100 90 80 70 60
Percent

50 40 30 20 10 0
0-0.5 0.51-1 1.01-1.5 1.51-2 2.01-2.5 2.51-3 >3

Land size category (ha) Resource-rich Male Total Percentage

Source: Computed from own survey data

Resource-poor Female Comulative percentage

62

The average land holding for the total sampled HHs was estimated at 1.14 ha, of which 28.4% was covered by annual crops (teff, maize, wheat, and barley), 38.1% was covered perennial crops (enset, coffee, and chat), 18.2% was occupied by grazing area, and 13.5% was covered by eucalyptus tree. However, the average land holding for resource-rich, poor, male, and female sampled HHs were 1.98ha, 0.59ha, 1.28ha, and 1.05ha respectively. In terms of average land holding and crop coverage, there is highly significant deference between resource-rich and poor HHs (t=10.81), between male and female HHs (t=3.23) at 1% significance level (Table 5) as well as between user and non-user group (t= 5.163, Sp=0.395) of the technologies (Appendix Table 2). The probable reasons for significant mean difference is that large land size of land holdings of resource-rich households may enhance them to practice the available technologies in the area. Roling (1988) also generalized that progressive farmers have relatively larger holdings and are early adopters. Whereas, the probable reason for significance differences in terms of land size holdings and crop coverage between male and female HH is that cultural taboo associated with land ownership right might have influenced female HHs to have small land holdings and consequently they may be restricted to produce in small amount. Generally, this shows that land size is one of the main productive assets that determine farmers potential for utilization of technological packages. Similar results were reported by Tesfai (1975), Bezabih (2000), and Tesfaye (2003).

Enset, chat, and coffee are the most important cash crops in the area; they covered 20.46%, 9.83%, and 7.77% of the total land holdings of the sample HHs respectively. Enset is the most common and staple food for almost all people. In economic terms, chat and eucalyptus earn enviable revenue to the national level in general and to this woreda in particular. Discussion with respondents indicated that though enset was a highest value crop and their life highly depend on it, extension had not give due attention as that of cereals. There is a significant mean difference between resource-rich and poor HHs at 1% level of significance in terms of producing crop including enset, coffee, chat, wheat, maize, and teff. The probable reason for this happening is that resource-rich HHs might have large land size; active or haired labour force, and cash; that gave them opportunity to produce more than the poor. There is a significant mean difference between male and female HHs in terms of producing perennial crops than cereal crops.

63

Table 5. Land use and cropping pattern of the sample households HH Category Rich (N=59)
0.414 0.135 0.212 0.141 0.088 0.156 0.226 0.328 0.242 0.038 1.983 0.9494 0.591 0.3443 10.81a 1.281 0.0956 0.010 0.0368 2.11b 0.025 0.1644 0.096 0.0741 6.40a 0.165 0.1549 0.0781 1.055 0.2739 0.127 0.1157 5.34
a

Land use and Poor (N=91)

0.115 0.058 0.047 0.034 0.019 0.041 0.042 0.218 0.2359 0.183 0.132 0.014 0.853 0.0984 4.70
a

Total HH (N=150) St. D.

0.159 0.066 0.068 0.052 0.022 0.056 0.099 .0933 0.1676 0.1724 0.0917 0.0382 0.5702 0.0553 0.1088 1.18 1.97c 1.70
c

S.N. St. D.
0.269 0.100 0.133 0.087 0.058 0.101 0.122 0.2370 0.2269 0.1698 0.1946 0.1565 0.0703 3.50a 0.1268 0.0751 2.09a 0.088 0.112 0.076 0.046 0.086 0.61 0.92 1.63 1.19 3.23a 0.115 0.206 0.154 0.021 1.139 0.2788 0.1055 0.50a 0.232

cropping St. D.
0.1011 0.1059 0.0831 0.0576 0.0391 0.0967 3.15
a

Male (N=100) Female (N=50) t

7.87a 4.30a 8.00a 3.22a 2.41b

pattern
0.2798 0.1089 0.1441 0.2513 0.2174 0.2713 0.2899

St. D.

St. D.

1.

Enset

0.2409 20.46 0.1132 7.77 0.1372 9.83 0.1713 6.65 0.1431 4.07 0.1937 7.57 0.2161 10.1 0.2168 18.16 0.1377 13.51 0.0675 1.85 0.9424 100

2.

Coffee

3.

Chat

4.

Wheat

5.

Barley

6.

Maize

7.

Teff

8.

Grazing

9.

Eucalyptus

10.

Others

Total

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: a, b, and c are significant at less than 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance, HH=Household, t=t-value, and =sample mean

64

4.3. Livestock Ownership The types of livestock kept on-farm are cattle, sheep, mule, horse, donkey, and chicken (Table 6). Farm animals serve for several purposes in the study area. They are sources of food, cash income, draft power, and animal dung (as an organic fertilizer and fuel). In addition, farm animal serves as a measure of wealth and prestige. Based on Storck et.al. (1991) (Appendix Table 3), the livestock population number was converted into Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU), so as to facilitate comparison among the farm groups.

On an average a household had 1.3 TLU with standard deviation (0.91). On the average resource-rich, resource-poor, male, and female HHs owned 7.9, 1.3, 4.6, and 2.4 TLU respectively, i.e. the number of TLU owned by resource-rich HHs were about three times greater than that of resource-poor HHs where as the number of TLU owned by male HHs was about two times greater than that female HHs (Table 6). There was a significant mean deference (t=11.835) at 1% level of significance between resource-rich and poor HHs and between male and female HHs (t=3.797), and also between users and non-users groups (t=4.706) (Appendix Table 2). Modern beehive owned by resource-rich HHs was about 3.5 greater than that of the resource-poor HHs. All livestock units owned shows significance difference between rich-rich and poor HHs. Male and female HHs significantly differed at 5% probability level in livestock ownership, except sheep, goat, and poultry. The probable reasons that small ruminants and poultry are in women domain and absence of male HHs, possibility of other livestock like oxen, dairying cow, modern beehives etc. is less. In the study area number of livestock owned by the household is one of the major indicators of wealth.

In general, these great variations of resource level between resource-rich and poor HHs, favours the rich HHs to had more access to financial capital by selling their livestock to purchase extension packages from suppliers. In addition, farmers who owned a large number of livestock have the capacity to bear risks of using the available extension packages. This variable is also a source of oxen, which are sources to plough their field. This by itself encourages the use of technological packages. Similar result was reported by Bezabih (2000) and Techane (2002).

65

Table 6. Livestock ownership of the sample households HH category Total HH Male (N=100) t- value 3.797 a
3.214 a 2.750 a 2.008b 3.224 a 1.922c 0.303 0.517 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.411 0.715 0.02 0.12 0.29 0.000 0.000 1.131 0.141 0.328 1.755d 3.129 a 0.00 3.000 a 3.903 a 1.818c 2.842 a 1.994b

S. t- value St. D. 4.712

2.758 1.502 1.036 0.46 0.90 0.10 0.24 0.647 0.762 1.214 0.891 0.947 0.288 0.333 0.512 2.170 0.56 0.812 1.47 1.338

Rich (N=59) St. D. 4.187

2.719 1.525 1.128 1.114 1.119 1.118 0.363 0.422 0.617 2.536 0.503 0.877 0.09 0.285 3.132 a 0.02 0.147 3.200 a 0.15 0.64 1.049 3.867 a 1.33 0.03 0.180 3.091 a 0.20 0.00 0.000 3.089 a 0.10 0.00 0.000 3.231 a 0.09 0.18 0.485 3.366
a

Poor (N=91) St. D. 0.911

0.662 0.518 0.401 0.658 0.268 0.45 2.566
a

Female (50) St. D. 2.342 3.89

2.18 0.91 0.66 1.23 0.23 0.38 0.06 0.07 0.13 1.17 0.11 0.23

(N=150) St. D. 2.200

2.429 1.333 0.961 1.082 0.752 0.833 0.238 0.276 0.428 1.898 0.350 0.618

N. Type 1.30
0.85 0.23 0.20 0.70 0.08 0.29 8.287
a

11.84a 4.60
2.54 1.08 0.76 1.39

*
9.394a 8.350a 7.694 a

TLU

7.88

2.41

Cow

4.24

Heifer

1.95

Oxen

1.37

Calves

2.03

Sheep

0.46

Goat

0.69

Mule

0.15

Horse

0.17

Donkey

0.29

10 Chicken

1.98

11 Modern 0.24 bee hives 12 Traditional 0.46 bee hives

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: a, b, and c are significant at less than 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance respectively HH=Household head =mean St. D. =Standard deviation

66

Out of the total 150 sample HHs, 63.3 % and 19.3% of them lived with grass house without partition and with partition respectively (Table 7). Out of the resource-rich HHs (59), 45.8%, 10.2% and 22%, 22% of them lived in grass house with partition, grass house without partition, and corrugated iron, whereas, 22% lived in both corrugated iron and grass house. Out of resource-poor farmers (91), 97.8% and 2.2% lived with grass house without partition and grass house with partition respectively, whereas, 59% and 72% of male and female HHs lived in grass house without partition. This shows that majority of the poor, male, and female HHs are lived in grass house without partition. Type of house in the study area is one of the indicators of wealth. Farmers who have lived in corrugated iron or grass house with partition and good management were considered as better farmers and hence this observation is obvious.

Table 7. Type of houses owned by the sample households HH category Rich (N=59) Poor (N=91) Male (N=100) N (%) N (%) N (%) 13 (22.0) 0 (0.0) 13 (13.0) 13(22.0) 27 (45.8) 6 (10.2) 0 (0.0) 2 (2.2) 89 (97.8) 4 (4.0) 24 (24.0) 59 (59.0) Total (N=150) Female (50) N (%) N (%) 0 (0.0) 13 (8.7) 9 (18.0) 5 (10.0) 36 (72.0) 13 (8.7) 29 (19.3) 95 (63.3)

S.N. Descriptions 1. Corrugated iron and grass house 2. Corrugated iron 4. Grass house with partition 3. Grass house without partition

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: N=number of respondents

HH=Household head

67

4.4. Coverage of Extension Package by Resource-Rich, Poor, and Women Farmers

Package is a set of items offered or agreed to as whole as an inseparable unit to provide optimal output through the interactions of those recommended entities in appropriate manner. A review of survey results in the country indicates that improved packages have substantially increased yield. Investment in technology is critical in raising income and to reduce poverty. However, the level to which the poor or women benefits from the packages are below expected. To attack the root cause of poverty, it is important to look rural people especially the poor and women. The possible alternative way of addressing and improving the level of living of those groups are by increasing agricultural production and productivity through applying effective improved extension packages.

In this research to examine the level of awareness, coverage and utilization of extension program and associated constraints of resource-rich, poor and women farmers both qualitative and quantities techniques were applied, analyzed, and presented as follows.

In qualitative research technique, the researcher raised provoking questions and responses were provided through focused group discussion. Two focused group discussions were carried out. The first group discussion was carried out by 5 resource-poor male and 2 resource-poor female household heads, and the second group discussion was done by 8 women household heads (Box 2 and 3).

68

Box: 2. Resource poor farmers rationale about utilization of extension packages Researcher: What are the extension packages provides in your area? Farmers: Coffee, beehives, poultry, horticulture, fruits, fertilizer and seed of maize, teff, and potato. Researcher: Have you used those packages frequently? Farmers: Rarely. Researcher: Which of those packages have you used? Their response indicated that out of the 7 participants in focused group discussion, three of them have never been participated in any of extension packages available in the area. Out of the four who practiced in the packages: responses of one farmer was poultry, the response of the two were horticulture, and the remaining one farmers response was both maize and fruit. Researcher: In my view, the extension packages provided based on your preferences, but you have rarely used. Why? Farmers: We have a number of reasons. Researcher: Please, point out and discuss those constraints in access and utilization of available packages in your area. Farmers: Our major constraints are lack of cash and land. DAs most of the time dont invite us, they mostly work with the richer ones and more homophilous to the one who shares coffee and chat. We have a great interest in some of the packages like poultry, but they are not available sufficiently. Some of them like beehives are costly and we are unable to pay the down payment, also we have a fear of risk to pay loan. Most of the time improved seed and fertilizer are not available on time, it reaches after the planting or sowing time is over on and sometimes DAs return the down-payment back when those inputs are not in place. Though we have higher interest to utilize poultry packages, we have seen and heard that improved varieties of poultry are attacked by wild animals because they are unable to run fast to escape from their enemy, they also damages the leaves of horticulture, they injure the steams of enset plant in search of water, they disturb the soil structure to scavenge Continued

69

One of the constraints in use of horticulture package is weed. We have heard that bee colony wont stay for a long period of time in modern beehives as compared to the traditional ones. The honey collected from modern beehives is not the same as what we have been told by DAs. DAs told us the possibility of collecting 10 to 15 Kg of honey at one harvesting period. But in reality most of the users told us that they are unable to get more than 2 to 3kg of honey, comparatively, which is equal to the honey collected from the traditional beehives. With respect to coffee package, we have seen that improved coffee variety planted comparatively dried out in shorter period of the time and it is less productive compared to the local ones whose name is saja.

We have a great interest in use of avocado fruit. The problem is that we are forced to take other fruits like papaya, zeytune, and mango when we ask for avocado, also we have fears using avocado. Some of the trees do not beer fruits for longer time. Regarding use of fertilizer and improved cereal seed, sometimes we want to take fertilizer only for using local seed, but it is not allowed unless we take associated improved seed. Sometimes we are also forced to take Urea fertilizer (they coaled white fertilizer) in association with DAP fertilizer without our interest. With respect to potato, they claim that it has been simply attacked by disease and not testy compared to local ones and also shattered by wild animals at night. Researcher: What do you think about fattening and dairy packages? You have said that you never used those packages. Why? Farmers: yes, we have not used till now. We are incapable to pay down-payment; however, sometimes we think of trying it out, but it is given only to resource-rich farmers, probably is because may development workers select them considering that resource-rich farmers are able to repay the loan at a time when it is desired. Researcher: Can you add other points that you think as constraints? Farmers: Yes, inputs are costly so the government should minimize cost of fertilizer and improved seeds.

70

Box: 3. Women farmers rational about utilization of extension packages Researchers: What are the technologies that you are aware of in your area? Farmers: Poultry, horticulture, fruits, fertilizer, improved maize seed, teff, and potato. Researchers: Have you ever used any of these packages? Farmers: Yes Researchers: Which one of them have you utilized more? Farmers: Horticulture and in the second case poultry also. Researcher: In my view, the extension packages provided in your area are based on your preferences. But you have been using rarely and some of you have not utilized them at all. Why? Farmers: Yes, the main constraint in the use of those packages is shortage of land and also we are unable to pay down payment. In addition, we have responsibilities in taking care of family and we have lack of time to practice some of the technologies available to us. Researchers: What are your major responsibilities? Farmers: It is difficult to say this and that our responsibilities are just so many. Researchers: Please indicate the major areas in which you are responsible for? Farmers: Enset processing takes most of our time. It is a routine task. Separating the edible parts from the fiber, pulverizing (chopping the corm into pieces), adjusting and covering to ferment, squeezing the fermented mixture, chopping to minimize the fibers part of the plant, shifting the mixed enset product using home made sieve, burying into cylinder shape hole for further fermentation, squeezing and chopping for baking to kocho.

Continued

71

The second major task is household chore including preparing food, child care, cleaning the house, grain milling, managing and milking cows, collecting firewood, cultivating, planting, weeding, harvesting and selling the product of cultivated crops. The third tedious task that takes our time is marketing. Always we are forced to go to the market at least to bring salt and kerosine, for that we have forced to work with simple petty trading in the local market. Researchers: How can you relate this workload with utilization of extension packages? provided in your area. Farmers: Yes, we can relate. Because of time shortage we are unable to attend the programs. It is more suited to male farmers and with farmers who have more family labour. However, some packages are more interesting and not time taking, such as saving and credit, training on food preparation technique, and production of horticulture on the homestead. We need them more. Researchers: Have you any problem to contact extension workers? Farmers: It is not as such serious, but sometimes we are afraid of to speaking with them and to go to the farm with male DAs in the absence of a third person. We have observed also that females who lived with their husbands are more beneficiaries than us. Researchers: Can you add any point that should not be missed? Farmers: Yes. Extension should provide enset processing machine that solve our serious problem is labour shortage. Now a day we pay more than what we get for hired labour in enset processing.

Focus group discussion (Box: 2 and 3) indicates that the level of extension package coverage toward resource-poor and women farmers were low and insignificant, farmers pointed out different reasons for not utilizing the available technological packages. And also they have their own preferences, priorities, and needs to utilize those packages. However, better access to new varieties, chemicals inputs, credit, appropriately designed and effective implementation of the program, continuous and unbiased extension support are expected to encourage the poor and women farmers to utilize available extension packages in the area. Majority of resource poor and women farmers in the study area were disadvantaged in utilization of technological

72

packages not because of small size of holdings alone but they were marginalized in accessing some of the important resources particularly cash to afford the purchased inputs. Additionally, the discussion that was done with DAs indicates that, extension workers tend to work with those resource-rich farmers who shown an interest in the extension packages. In other words, quotas or the minimum number of packages assigned to each DAs are forcing them to focus on few potential farmers so as to achieve planned targets. From this finding, it can be conclude that looking into the technology whether it is appropriate or not, it is important to understand characteristics of the target groups and what technologies developed.

4.4. Coverage and Utilization of Technological Packages

To complement the findings of the qualitative entity, it was tried to assess through survey result about coverage and level of utilization of different types of packages (horticulture, coffee, maize, poultry, dairy, and fattening packages), and also within components of maize package (HYMV, fertilizer type, planting manner, row or broadcasting, and use of chemicals) and poultry package (improved varieties, housing, feeding, and vaccine) among those groups of the farm societies.

There are number of constraints to answer why a household has been restricted to practice only one, two or more packages. Comparative advantage, specialization or some other reasonable rationales might have lead farmer to be selective in choice of technologies. However, some socio-economic and other factors also influence farmers ability to use or not the combination of packages and elements of specific package together. Accordingly substantial variability exists in package allocation decisions among smallholder farmers. This variability is due to differences in level of resources such as land and labour, goals and needs. Moreover, the level of the farmers wealth is among the important determinants of adoption of new technologies or combination of packages.

The principal and dominantly produced extension packages available in the study area were horticulture, coffee, maize, poultry, dairy, and fattening packages. Contingency tables for these six combinations of packages (Table 8), describes that out of the total HHs, 38.7% have

73

not participated in using any of the available extension packages in the study area; however, 33.3%, 14%, 8%, 5.3%, and 0.7%, have utilized 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 combinations of the available extension packages respectively. There was no HH that utilize all the six combination of packages together. There is non-significance difference between resource-rich male and resource-rich female HHs (2=6.085) and also between resource-poor male and resource-poor female HHs (2=4.709). Carmens V also describes the existence of weak relationship between these groups towards using combination of packages. However, there is a mean significant difference between the poor and rich HHs (2=45.654) and also between male and female HH (2=28.983) HH at 1% and 5% level of significance respectively. Cramers V (CV=0.552) indicates as the existence of moderate relationship towards using the combination of packages between resource-rich and poor. This research finding implies that utilization of combination of packages were highly influenced by differences in resource level (2=45.654) than gender differentials (2=28.983). The probable reason for the significant difference is utilization of different types of packages simultaneously needs specific allocation of land, cash outlay, labour, etc. and hence it is more handled by resource-rich HH than the poor and women.

74

Table 8. Distribution of sample HHs based on utilization level of combination of packages

S.N. Male 34.0 31.0 17.0 9.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 34

d

Descriptions Female 48.0 38.0 8.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91 (4.709 , 0.222) (45.654a, 0 .552) 100 0.0 50 (8.983 , 0.245)
b

Total (%) 38.7 33.3 14.0 8.0 5.3 0.7 0.0 150

1. Utilize one out of six 27.9 23.3 20.9 16.3 2.3 0.0 43 (6.085 , 0.321)
d

Non users 50.0 18.8 12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 59 57 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 11.9 1.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 18.6 0.0 2.9 1.1 22.0 12.3 2.9 8.8 33.9 33.3 32.4 33.0

Rich Male Female 9.3 18.8

HH category (%) Poor Total Male Female Total 11.9 52.6 61.8 56.0

2. Utilize two out of six Utilize three out of six Utilize four out of six Utilize five out of six Utilize six out of six

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

N
2

( , CV)

( , CV) between R and P

Source: Computed from own survey data) Where: * Alternative packages are: - horticulture, coffee, maize, poultry, dairy, and fattening packages a and b are significant at less than 1% and 5% level of significance respectively d= non significant at 10% level of significance N= number of respondents HH=Household head 2=Chi-test CV= Cramers V R= Rich P= Poor

75

Table 9. Distribution of sample HHs participation in different types extension packages

HH category (2, CV) Male (100) 24.0 19.3 80.7 76.0 (16.49 , 0.33) 70.0 30.0 (7.09a, 0.22) 31.0 69.0 (9.42 , 0.25)
a a a

S.N. Type of Packages Total (%) Response Yes Female (50) 10.0 90.0
b

1. No ( , CV) Yes 60.5 39.5 (0.52d, 0.094) 44.2 55.8 (3.226 , 0.23) (1.42 , 0.16) 5.3 94.7 (0.02 , 0.01) 23.3 76.7 (1.20 , 0.14) 1.8 98.2
d d d c d 2

Maize 58.1 (2.72 , 0.22) 50.0 50.0 (0.06d, 0.03) 41.9 58.1 75.0 25.0 (0.00d, 0.00) 10.0 90.0 (8.06 , 0.23) 16.0 84.0 (13.9 , 0.31)
a d c

Rich (59) M (43) F (16) 41.9 18.8 81.3 (0.57 , 0.08) 77.2 22.8 20.6 30.0 79.4 70.0
d

Poor (91) M (57) F (34) 10.5 5.9 89.5 (4.19 , 0.17) 70.0 30.0 94.1

2. No (2, CV) Yes 18.7 81.3 No ( CV) Yes No ( CV) Yes 34.9 65.1 (4.84 , 0.29) 23.3 76.7 (0.83 , 0.12)
d b 2, 2,

Horticulture

3.

Coffee

24.0 76.0

4. 69.8 (0.77 , 0.38) 6.3 93.8 62.5 (15.99 , 0.33)

a d

Poultry 81.3 94.1

30.2

18.8

5.9

10.0 90.0 (0.00 , 0.08) 17.0 83.0

c

14.0 76.0

5. 37.5 No ( -CV) Yes No ( , CV)

2 2

Dairy

6.0 94.0 (3.49 , 0.15) 11.0 6.0

13.3 86.7

6. 87.5

Fattening

12.5

2.9 97.1 (13.92 , 0.31)

a

9.33 89.0
c

94.0 (0.99 , 0.08)

90.7

(0.14 , 0.04)

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: a, b, and c are significant at less than 1%, 5%, 10% level of significance, and d=non significant at 10% level of significance, N= number of respondents, HH=Household head

76

Out of the total sampled households (150), 70%, 24%, 19.33%, 14% 13.33%, and 9.33% are participated in producing of horticulture, coffee, maize, poultry, dairy, and fattening packages (Table 9). The details are discussed as follows.

4.4.1. Maize package

Today the huge human and financial resources have been committed to the extension package program at national level as a major component of the Agricultural Development Led Industrialization (ADLI) development strategy of the government in Ethiopia to attain food self-sufficiency at national level by increasing productivity of smallholders. Maize is one of the priority crops included in the program at the national level (Tesfaye and Fekadu, 2000). It is also one of the major cereal crops produced in the study area since 1994.

Out of the total sample (150) HHs only 19.3% of the respondents participated in producing maize package. With regard to resource-rich male (43) and resource-rich female (16) households, 41.9% and 18.8% have used maize package respectively (Table 9). Although there is a significant mean difference between resources-rich male and female HHs at 10% significance level; Cramers V (CV=0.22) suggests that the strength of relationship between gender differential (resource-rich male and female HHs) toward producing maize package was fairly weak. Out of the resource-poor male (57) and resource-poor female (34) HHs, 10.5% and 5.9% have produced maize package respectively. There is nonsignificant mean difference between resource-poor male and female HHs in using maize package and (Cramers V =0.08) suggests that the strength of relationship between gender differential; i.e. resource-poor male and female HHs in producing maize package is very weak compared to resource-rich male and female HHs. There is a significant mean difference at 1% level of significance between resource-rich and poor HHs (2=16.49, CV=0.33), while the relationship is still fairly weak toward using maize package.

77

In describing gender differentials, out of the total male (100) and female HHs (50), 24% and 10% have utilized maize package respectively. However, the strength of relationship (2=4.19, CV=0.17) between male and female households toward producing maize package is also fairly weak. In general by comparing the mean differences of the four categories, differences in resource level between HHs have a great influence on producing maize package than gender differentials. The likely reason for the significance difference is that either resource-poor or female HHs have faced with shortage of working capitals such as land, cash, labour etc. to produce maize packages.

4.4.2. Horticulture package

Horticulture package is one of the major extension packages, which is largely used by majority of the sampled HHs (70%) in the study area (Table 9). Participation of the sample HHs in producing horticulture package were as follow:

Out of the resource-rich male (43) and resource-rich female (16) HHs, 60.5% and 50% have participated in producing horticulture package respectively. Although, there is non-significant mean difference between resources-rich male and female households (2 =0.52) in producing maize package, Cramers V (CV=0.094) describes that the strength of association between resource-rich households (either rich male or female) and production of horticulture package is very weak. Secondly, out of the resource-poor male (57) and resource-poor female (34) HHs, 77.2% and 79.4% have produced horticulture package respectively. There is non significant mean difference between resource-poor male and female households (2 = 0.061) in using horticulture package, this is similar to that of resource rich-households and Cramers V (CV=0.03) suggests that the strength of associations between resource-poor male and female households toward using horticulture package was fairly weak. However, there is a significant difference at 1% significance level (2=7.09) with weak associations (CV=0.22) between resource-rich and poor HH.

In describing gender differentials, out of the total male (100) and female HHs (50), 70% and 70% respectively have used the same package. There is non-significant difference (2 =0.00) associated with very weak relationship Cramers V (CV=0.00) between male and female HHs.

78

By comparing the four categories, differences in resource level between HHs did not show any influence toward producing horticulture package. Rather, this research evidence shows that both resource-poor male and female HHs have used more of horticulture package than the resource-rich HHs. This implies that the poor and the female HHS in the study area probably prefer producing horticulture packages with small area allocation within the homestead farm without requirement of much production cost.

4.4.3. Coffee package

In the study area coffee is mostly grown as garden (cottage or smallholder) crop, intercropped with enset (Enset ventricosum) or under the evergreen shade tree and most of the farms are relatively better managed. Coffee is one of the major extension packages, which is produced for local consumption, and source of economic revenue in the study area.

Coffee package is the second to horticulture, which is produced by the sample HHs (Table 9). Out of the resource-rich male (43) and resource-rich female (16) HHs, 42.2% and 18.8% have participated in planting coffee package respectively in their farm (Table 8). There is a significant mean difference between resources-rich male and female HHs (2=3.226) in producing coffee package at 10% probability level and also Cramers V (CV= 0.23) describes that the strength of relationship between resource-rich households (either rich male or female) and production of coffee package is very weak. Out of the resource-poor male (57) and resource-poor female (34) HHs, 41.9% and 25% have participated in planting coffee package respectively. There is non significant mean difference (2 =1.42) between resource-poor male and female HH at 10% significance level in using coffee package, and (CV=0.16) suggests that the strength of relationship between resource-poor male and female HHs toward producing coffee package is also very weak. There is a significant mean difference (2=9.42) at 1% significance level associated with (CV=0.25) weak relationship between resource-rich and poor HHs towards using coffee packages.

In describing gender differentials, out of the total male households (100) and female households (50), 31% and 10% have been using coffee package respectively. There is a significant mean difference (2=8.06) at 1% significance level associated with weak relationship of (CV=0.23) between male and female HHs toward producing coffee package.

79

The likely reason for the significance difference is that coffee package needs additional land allocation, cash and labour that is difficult for resource-poor or female HHs to handle it with their existing situations.

4.4.4. Poultry package

Today, expanding improved poultry package toward rural poor and women to improve food requirement and as a source of cash income is one of the extension domain that have been strongly done by Ministry of Agriculture in general and in the study area in particular. Out of the total HH 14% have participated in producing poultry package; this figure is less than that of participants in horticulture (70%) and maize (19.3%) package utilizers (Table 9). Insufficient delivery is one of the major constraints to satisfy the aspiration of the sample HHs as indicated by them during group discussion.

Out of the resource-rich male (43) and resource-rich female (16) HH, 30.2% and 18.8% have participated in producing poultry package respectively. Although, there is non-significant mean difference between resources-rich male and female HHs (2 =0.77) in production of it, Cramers V (CV=0.38) describes that the strength of relationship between resource-rich HHs (either rich male or female) and production of poultry package was fairly weak. Secondly, out of the resource-poor male (57) and resource-poor female (34) HHs, only 5.3% and 5.9% have used poultry package respectively in the same production year. There is non-significant mean difference between resource-poor male and female HHs (2 = 0.02) toward adopting poultry package, this is similar to that of resource-rich HHs, and Cramers V (CV=0.01) suggests that the strength of relationship between resource-poor male and female HHs toward utilizing poultry package is very weak. There is a significance difference at 1% significant level (2=13.9) with fairly weak relationship (CV=0.31) between resource-rich and poor HHs.

In describing gender differentials, out of the total male households (100) and female HHs (50), 16% and 10% have used the same package respectively. There is non-significant difference (2 =1.00) associated with very weak relationship (CV=0.08) between male and female HHs toward using poultry package.

80

In general by comparing the four categories, differences in resource level between HHs have strong influence toward using poultry package than gender differentials (between male and female HHs). Even though resource-poor or women farmers had great interest to participate in using poultry packages as they pointed out in group discussion, the finding of the survey result describes the low participation of them. The probable reason may be that either resource-rich HHs have probably got an immediate response to pay 100% cash or had more access to extension contact to get scarce input of improved poultry varieties than the poor and women.

4.4.5. Fattening and dairy packages

Fattening and dairy packages are major components of livestock package that have been utilized in the study area. The result of this study describes that there is non-significant difference between resource-rich male and female HHs (2 = 83, CV=0. 12) at 10% probability level in producing both fatting packages, and 2-value (2 =4.84) and Cramers V (CV=0.29) for dairy package shows a significant difference at 10% probability level with weak relations between them. In both fattening and dairy packages there were non-significant difference with very weak relationship between resource-poor male and female households (2 =0.14, CV=0.04) and (2=1.20, CV =0.14) respectively. There is a significant mean difference at 1% significance level and fairly weak relationship between resource-rich and poor HHs in using dairy package and fattening package with associated value of (2=13.92, CV=0.31) and for (2 =15.99, CV=0.33) respectively.

In describing gender differentials, out of the total sample male HHs (100) and female HHs (50), 11.0% and 6.0% of the HHs have utilized fattening package, whereas 17.0% and 6.0% of them have utilized dairy package respectively. There is significant difference at 10% level of significance associated with weak relationship between male and female HHs toward using fattening packages. Out of the total HHs (150), only 9.33% and 13.33% have used fatting and dairy packages respectively. The coverage of both dairy and fatting package in terms of number of participants were less than participants of maize, horticulture, coffee, and poultry packages.

81

In general by comparing the four categories, differences in resource level have great influence than gender differentials among the sample HHs. Resource-rich HHs have been participated in all packages with little difference among the packages; where as, resource-poor HHs have been more participated in horticulture package than others. This implies that resource-poor HHs might be abele to produced the horticulture package with few input cost than other packages. There was high significant difference in use of dairy and fattening package among those two group of HHs, the probable reason for this might be that resource-rich HHs have got more extension support, able to pay either down payment or cash to utilize those packages than what poor HHs. Several researchers in the past as well indicating gender differentials and resource statues difference in using modern technology recommendations (Chilot et al, 1996, Bezabih, 2000; Tesfaye et al., 2001, Techane, 2002).

4.5. Human Resource Development towards Effective Utilization of Packages

Facilitating farmers participation in various areas of extension: planning, training, exposure visit or field visit, on-farm trial and demonstration, exhibition etc. are some of the main extension strategies or tools to bring behavioral change among the clients (i.e. the change in knowledge, skill and attitude). However, the beneficiaries of these services are mainly wealthier farmers than the poor and women. Out of the total HHs, 52.7%, 40%, 22.7%, 18.7%, and 4% participated on practicing on-farm trial and demonstration, in extension planning process, in extension training, in farmers filed day, and in exhibition program respectively in the past five years period of time in descending order (Table 10).

82

Table 10. HHs participation in areas of human resource development HH Category (%)
Response

S.N. Descriptions Rich 2 6.072a 10.643a 8.629a 81.3 18.7 98.3 1.7 75.9 24.1 58 92 96.0 4.0 47.3 52.7 45.7 54.3 150 1.276d 13.272a 35.6 64.4 55.9 44.1 62.7 37.3 89.8 10.2 28.8 71.2 59 91 100 50 75.8 24.2 32.337a 51.0 49.0 70.0 30.0 4.919b 100.0 0.0 9.640a 94.0 6.0 100.0 0.0 94.6 5.4 3.125c 93.4 6.6 22.212a 74.0 26.0 96.0 4.0 73.9 26.1 93.1 6.9 10.626a 91.2 8.8 25.411a 68.0 32.0 96.0 4.0 68.5 31.5 91.4 8.6 14.909a 77.3 22.7 75.8 22.4 24.139a 50.0 50.0 80.0 20.0 55.2 47.8 72.4 27.6 60.0 40.0 12.500a Poor 2 Male Female User Total 2 Nonuser

Gamma 0.413 0.660 0.653 0.532 0.578

1. Participation in extension planning No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes

No Yes

2. Participation in extension training

3. Participation in farmers filed day

4. Participation in exhibition

5. Practicing on-farm trial and Demonstration. N

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: a,b,and c are significant at less than 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance respectively N= number of respondents HH=Household head 2=Chi-test value

83

4.5.1. Participation in extension planning

Participation in extension planning enables farmers to identify their farm problems and to set sound solutions for further measure. Out of the resource-rich (59) and resource-poor HHs (91), 64.4% and 24.2% participated on planning program respectively. There is a significant mean difference (2 =24.139) between resources-rich and poor HHs at 1% significance level. Also 50% of male and 20% of female HH participated in the planning process in the past five years. There is also a significant mean difference (2 =12.500) between male and female HH at 1% significance level. However, by comparing the mean differences of the two categories, differences in resource level between HHs have a great influence toward participating or not on extension planning process than gender differentials. The a mean significant difference between users and non-users (2=6.072) in terms of their participation in planning at 1% level of significance and it is strongly and positively influences (Gamma=0.413) the use of technological packages. The likely reason for this finding is that either resource poor or female HHs are not invited to participate in planning process as it is done to resource-rich or male HHs. However, the total HHs have rarely participated in the planning process. Similar outcomes were reported by Belay (2003).

4.5.2. Participation in extension training

Out of the resource-rich HHs (59) and resource-poor HHs (91), 44.1% and 8.8% respectively participated in short term task oriented extension training. There is a significant mean difference (2 =25.411) between resources-rich and poor HHs at 1% significance level. Out of the total HHs, 32.0% male and 4.0% female participated in various area of extension training. There is also a significant mean difference (2 =14.909) between male and female HHs at 1% significance level. However, by comparing the mean differences of the two categories, differences in resource level between HH have more influence toward participating on extension training than the influence of gender differentials. The a mean significant difference between users and non-users (2=10.643) in terms of their participation in training at 1% level of significance and it is positively and strongly influences (Gamma=0.660) use of technological packages. The likely reason for this finding is that extension staff or 84

Development Agents may focus in inviting resource-rich and male HHs for the training program in thinking of that resource-rich farmers are in a good position to practice the technology which available to them in the immediate situation after the training is carried out, so that it is easier to reach their professionals quota plan. In addition, female HHs participation in the training program may be constrained by their associated workload in the family, their productive work, and cultural taboo.

4.5.3. Participation in farmers field day

Out of the resource-rich (59) and resource-poor HH (91) 37.3% and 6.6% respectively participated in farmers filed day. There is a significant mean difference (2 =22.212) between resources-rich and poor HHs at 1% significance level. While, 32.0% of male and 4.0% of female HHs had been participated in farmers filed. This shows also there is a significant mean difference (2 =10.626) between male and female HH at 1% significance level. However, by comparing the mean differences of the two categories, differences in resource level between HHs have a great influence toward participating on farmers field day than the influence of gender differentials. There is a mean significant difference between users and non-users (2=8.629) in terms of their participation in farmers field day at 1% level of significance and it is strongly and positively influences (Gamma=0.653) use of technological packages.

The probable reason for this finding is that extension staff or Development Agents may select the farmer who has more homophilous with them and at the same time the one who have a capability to practice on his farm at the immediately condition after the visit what they have observed in the field. Low participation of female HHs may because of shy of speaking and fear of walking with male HHs in the field, or they are not invited by DAs, or they are constrained by their associated workload in the family, their productive work, and cultural taboo etc. to participate in the program. However, participation on farmers field day has great influence toward utilization of extension packages. Similar results were identified by Legesse (1992) in Aris Negelle area on adoption of technologies indicated that close exposure to technology was significantly and positively influenced the probability of use technologies (varieties, fertilizer, and herbicide). General the participants of farmers in the exhibition is

85

extremely low. This is may be that the exhibition program not runs effectively by the extension program.

4.5.4. Participation in exhibition

Out of the resource-rich (59) and resource-poor HHs (91) only 10.2% and 0.0% respectively participated in exhibition respectively. There is a significant mean difference (2 =9.640) between resources rich and poor HHs at 1% significance level. While, 6.0% of male and no female HHs participated in farmers filed day. This shows also there is a significant mean difference (2 =3.125) between male and female HHs at 10% significance level. This implies that resource-poor and female HHs were not invited to attend exhibition program as it was done for resource-rich and male farmers respectively. The probable reason for this finding is that extension staff or Development Agents may select the farmer who has more homophilous with them and at the same time the one who have a capability to practice on his farm at the immediately condition after exhibition visit.

4.5.5. Participation in on-farm trial and demonstration

Out of the resource-rich (59) and resource-poor HHs (91) only 71.2% and 24.2% respectively had been participated in on-farm trial or demonstration. There is a significant mean difference (2 =32.337) between resources-rich and poor HHs at 1% significance level. While, 49.0% of male and 30.0% of female HHs participated in farmers filed day in the past similar period of time. This shows also there is a significant mean difference (2 =4.919) between male and female HHs at 5% significance level. This implies that, differences in resource level have superior impact on practicing on-farm trial or demonstration than gender differentials. There is a mean significant difference between users and non-users (2 = 13.272) in terms of their participation in on-farm trial or demonstration at 1% level of significance and it is positively and strongly influences (Gamma=0.578) use of technological packages.

In these findings, farmers who hosted on-farm trials and extension demonstration were more of resource-rich farmers and are users of packages. The probable reason for this significant 86

deference is that DAs may select farmers who have more homophilous with them or select the one who have a capability to assign additional land for the trial or demonstration purpose. When farmers have a chance to participate in practicing on-farm trial and demonstration they may develop know-how more about the fitness of the packages with their socio-economic conditions, enhances them to take further measures, either to use or not the technological packages. Similar results were identified by Legesse (1992) in Arisi Negelle those farmers who hosted on-farm trials, extension demonstration were significantly and positively influenced the probability of adoption of improved varieties and intensity of adoption of fertilizer and herbicide.

To conclude, attending training, farmers field day, on-farm trial and demonstration, exhibition, and planning in descending order have strong positive contribution in utilization of technological packages by the sample HHs (Table 10)

4.6. Extension Service Rendered by Development Agents

Development Agents carry out many different activities and feel overloaded with expectations and tasks. However, most of their service provision varies with the situations and type of farmers what whom have been contacted.

Out of the total 59 resource-rich HHs. 39%, 28.8%, 23.7%, and 13.6% have got technical support, experience share, input, and theoretical information from DAs respectively in descending order; while 49.5%, 21.9%, 18.7% and 1.1% of resource-poor households have got theoretical information, technical support, input and experience share with other farmers respectively. Out of the total 100 male HHs, 42.0%, 27.0%, 15.0%, and 8.0% have got theoretical information, technical support, input, and experience share with others farmers respectively. While, 32.0%, 22.0%, 14.0%, and 6.0% female HHs have got technical support, theoretical information, input, and experience share with other farmers respectively (Table 11).

The main service what resource-rich HHs and female HHs have got from DAs were technical support, whereas theoretical information was for resource-poor HHs and male HHs. In

87

general, major areas of service that the total HHs got from DAs were theoretical information (35.3%) and technical support (28.7%). The likely reason for this finding is that resource-rich HHs are in a good position in practicing the technologies and DAs may also have a desire to support technically the farmers who utilize the available technological packages. In another aspect DAs may faced with shortage of basket of choices of inputs to satisfy the desire of their clients, so that they may focused to help farmer with supply of theatrical information than technical support or input supply. Table 11. Extension service rendered by Development Agents to sample HHs.
HH category Descriptions Rich (N=59) N (%) None Theoretical information Technical support Experience sharing Input supply Others, specify 3 (5.1) 8 (13.6) 23 (39.0) 17 (28.8) 14 (23.7) 1 (1.7) Poor (N=91) N (%) 17 (18.7) 45 (49.5) 20 (21.9) 1 (1.1) 8 (8.8) 0 (0.0) Male (N=100) N (%) 7 (7.0) 42 (42.0) 27 (27.0) 8 (8.0) 15 (15.0) 1 (1.0) Female (N=50) N (%) 13 (26.0) 11 (22.0) 16 (32.0) 3 (6.0) 7 (14.0) 0 (0.0) Total (N=150) N (%) 20 (13.3) 53 (35.3) 43 (28.7) 11 (7.3) 22 (14.7) 1(0.7)

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: HH=Household head N=Number of respondents

Farmers number of contact with DAs may depend on a number of physical, institutional and psychological factors. In this research it is tried to see the gap between different categories of HHs with respect to number of contact with DAs (Table 12). Out of the resource-rich HHs (59), 5.1%, 50.8%, 39.0%, and 5.1% had got >5, 3-4, 1-2, and 0 contact per month respectively with their representative DAs. Out of the resource-poor households (59), 0%, 1.1%, 80.3%, and 18.7% had got >5, 3-4, 1-2, and 0 contact per month respectively with their assigned DAs. The average number of contact for resource-rich HHs was 2.68 days per month, while 1.23 days for resource-poor HHs. There is a significant mean difference (2=7.976) between resources-rich and poor HHs at 1% significance level. This finding shows that number of contact for resource-rich HHs were twice greater than that of the poor. Also an

88

unexpected finding from this research is seen, i.e. 26.0% of female HHs and 18.7% of resource-poor HHs did not get any contact with DAs.

With regard to gender deferential, out of the total male HH (59), 3.0%, 28.0%, 62.0%, and 7.0% had got >5, 3-4, 1-2, and 0 contact per month respectively with their assigned DAs. Out of the total female HHs (59), 0%, 6.0%, 68.0%, and 26.0% had got >5, 3-4, 1-2, and 0 contact per month respectively with their assigned DAs. The average number of contact for male HHs was 2.13 days per month, while 1.14 days for female HHs. There is a significant mean difference (2=5.108) between male and female HHs at 1% significance level. The number of contact for male HHs was nearly twice greater than the female HHs. The probable rezones for this significant difference might be the cultural factor, smaller holding size of female HHs and quota based extension work. However, significant difference observed between resource-rich and resource-poor HHs (2=7.976) which is greater than that was observed between the male and female HHs (2=5.108). Out of the total sample, 64% had got one to two (1-2) days contact per month, while, 13.3% had not got any contact. From this research finding it is observed that, even though, there was great variation between male and female HHs in number of contacts with DAs, it is greatly influenced by resource level than gender differentials. The probable reason for less contact with women and resource-poor HHs is that DAs may be afraid of speaking with female HHs in the absence of third person, or they tend to work with model, progressive and wealthier male farmers than the poor and women to fulfill their quota planned.

Similar explanations were given in the study conducted by Belay (2003), showed that extension agents tend to work with model farmers who show an interest in the extension packages. One of the criteria used to evaluate the performance of extension agents is the number of farmers adopting the technological packages in their area of work. In other words, quotas the minimum number of farmers who should take up the technology packages are imposed on extension agents. As a result, the extension agents use whatever means available to persuade farmers to adopt the packages and there by meet their quotas. Another Similar results were pointed out by Aklilu (1975) in Backo areas and Jima and Aregay (1980) in CADU area indicated that extension contact was the main factor influencing the level of

89

fertilizer use. He also reported that larger farmers adopted fertilizer than small farmers and tenants. The last two groups had limited resources and were further constrained by information availability since they had the lowest level of extension contact. Table 12. Distribution of HHs by number of contact with Development Agent HH category (N=150) Poor Male N (%)
17 (18.7) 73 (80.3) 1 (1.1) 0 (0.0) 91(100) 1.23 0.761
a

Descriptions
0

Rich N (%)
3 (5.1) 23 (39.0) 30 (50.8) 3 (5.1) 59 (100) 2.68 1.252

Female N (%)
13 (26.0) 34 (68.0) 3 (6.0) 0 (0.0) 50 (100) 1.14 0.881
a

Total N (%)
20 (13.3) 96 (64.0) 31 (20.7) 3 (2.0) 150 (100) 0.91 0.292

N (%)
7 (7.0) 62 (62.0) 28 (28.0) 3 (3.0) 100 (100) 2.13 1.220 5.108

Number of contact with development agent per month

Total Mean Standard Deviation

1-2 3-4 >5

t-Value 7.976 Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: N=number of respondents, %= percent, a=significant at 1% level of difference HH=Household head

4.7. Level of Awareness Regarding the Elements of Maize Package

"Awareness" of the existence of innovation is the first and crucial element in the process of adoption or rejection of an idea to include or exclude into the exiting social system. Roling (1988) describes, that larger farmers have more contact to DAs and are more cosmopolites to various sources of information than small farmers. Majority of those small farmers have got information lately and indirectly thorough the process of trickle drawn approach. This creates economic gap between them through the processes of windfall profit and windfall lose. In this study it is attempted to assess the level of awareness of different categories of HHs on the elements of the maize and poultry packages as follow.

Out of the total sample of 150 HHs, 99.3%, 62.0%, 56.7%, 32.7%, and 27.3% had an awareness about availability of credit, existence of DAP fertilizer, existence of HYMV, 90

existence of row planting, and existence of Urea fertilizer respectively in descending order. (Table 13a).

Out of the total resource-rich male (49) and female (16) HHs, 81.4% and 68.8% had aware of the existence of HYMV respectively. There is non-significance difference (2 =1.10) associated with weak relation of strengthens (CV=0.14) between them. While, out of the total resourcepoor male (57) and resource-poor female (34) HHs, 54.4% and 23.5% had aware of the existence of HYMV with a significance mean difference (2= 8.28) associated with weak relation (CV=0.30). With regard to the total resource poor-male (57) and resource-poor female (34) HHs, 54.4%, 23.5% had aware of the existence of HYMV respectively. There is a significant mean difference (2 =8.3) between resource-poor male and female HHs at 1% level of significance and (CV= 0.30) suggests that the strength of relationship between resource-poor male and female HHs in awareness level of maize extension package is fairly weak. There is also a significant mean difference (2 = 18.8) at 1% level of significance between resource-rich and resource-poor HHs, and (CV=0.4) describes that the strength of relationship is moderate. In describing gender differentials, out of the total 100 male HHs and 50 female HHs, 66% and 38% have informed the existance of HYMV respectively. There is a significant mean difference (2 =10.6) between resource-poor male and female HHs at 1% level of significance and (CV= 0.27) suggests the existence of fairly weak relationship between them. The probable reason for a significant difference between resource-rich and poor HHs is that, resource-rich HH may be more progressive and cosmopolteness in search of new ideas and practices in order to take further measure i.e. to practice or not in their farming situation through supporting on the driving force of their wealth. Whereas, significant difference between male and female HHs is that, female HHs may have less number of contact with DAs as a source of information.

There were also awareness differences on the rest of components of maize package (existence of dap and urea fertilizer, row planting, and availability of credit) among different categories of HHs. There is non-significant mean difference at 1% level of significance in all components of the maize package between resource-rich male and female HHs. 91

Table 13a. HHs awareness level regarding elements of recommended maize package

Components of Maize Packages Awareness Level Male Not aware Aware (1.1 , 0.14) Not aware Aware (18.3 , 0.35)
a d

Rich Female 31.2 68.8 (8.28 , 0 .30) 36.8 63.2 23.5 a (13.4 , 0.38) 77.2 82.4 22.8 17.6 (0.34d, 0.06) (4.9d, 0.18) 78.9 21.1 11.8 (1.3d, 0.12) 0.0 0.0 100 100 (2.5d, 0.16) 57 34 88.2 (23.9a, 0.40) 76.5 28.0
a

Poor Male 45.6 54.4 (18.8 , 0.40)

a

HH Category (%) (2, CV) between Rich and Poor Female Total (%) Male 34.0 66.0 (10.6 , 0. 27) 58.0 38.0 62.0 72.7 27.3 61.0 80.0 39.0 20.0 (5.5b, 0.19) 67.3 32.7 0.7 99.3 (1.6d, 0.10) 100 50 150 1.0 0.0 99.0 100 (0.5d, 0.06)
a

Female 62.0 38.0 43.3 56.7

HYMV seed 81.4 16.3 83.7 81.2 a (0.05 , 0.03) 60.5 68.8 39.5 31.2 (0.3d, 0.08) 37.2 62.8 37.5 (3.1d, 0.23) 2.3 0.0 97.7 100 (0.4d, 0.08) 43 16 62.5 18.8 23.5

18.6

76.5

( , CV)

Dap fertilizer

( , CV) Not aware Aware Not aware Aware Not aware Aware

72.0 42.0 a (12.7 , 0.29) 70.0 78.0 30.0 22.0 (1.1d, 0.09)

Urea fertilizer

(2, CV)

Row planting

(2, CV)

Credit Availability

(2, CV)

Source: Computed from own survey data,

Where: N=Number of respondents, HH=Household, a, and b= significant at less than 1% and 5%, level of significance respectively, d=Non-significant, CV= Cramers V

92

This finding showed as that, resource-poor HH had less awareness on row planting and availability of urea fertilizer than other components of maize package. Justification to this finding is similar to that of the explanation given by Roling (1988) describes, that larger farmers have more contact to DAs and more cosmopolites to various sources of information of technological packages than small farmers, this impose them to aware more about the existence of technological packages.

In dealing with awareness level of the sample HHs about full package of maize, 39.5% of resource-rich male HHs, 31.3% of resource-rich female HHs, 21.1% of resource-poor male HHs, and 11.8% of resource-poor female HHs were fully aware existence of total components of maze package. There was no such mean difference between meal and female HHs in awareness level about existence of maize package as that of observed between poor and rich HHs (Table 13b).

Table 13b. HHs awareness level of full package of maize

Awareness Level S. N. HH Category (%) Rich Male 2.3 58.2 39.5 43 Female 0.0 68.7 31.3 16 Male 0.0 78.9 21.1 57 Poor Female 0.0 88.2 11.8 34 Male 1.0 70.0 29.0 100 Female 0.0 82.0 18.0 50

Total (%)
0.7 74.0 25.3 150

Maize Package
Not aware Partially aware Fully aware

1. 2. 3. N

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: N=Number of respondents, HH=Household

4.8. Utilization Level of Elements of Recommended Packages

Extension package is a system or an activity and its components, inseparable entities, practices or/and ideas are given as unit to provide optimal out put through the interactions of those recommended entities in appropriate manner. The components of a specific agricultural package are so many; however, few of them that are more consistent with maize and poultry package were discussed as follows.

93

4.8.1. Utilization level of elements of maize package

Contingency tables for the various combinations of technological components of maize package were calculated (Table 14). These are useful for propensity of farmers to utilize the full package of technologies of maize package (constituting HYMV, Dap fertilizer, Urea fertilizer, Insecticides, and Row planting) or to utilize only ascertain components selectively. CrossTabulation of five distinct technologies that is treated simultaneity indicated 6.9% of the sample farmers used the five selected technologies in combination, 10.3% of them used variety, DAP fertilizer, Insecticides and practice of row planting, 65.5% of them used variety, DAP fertilizer, Urea fertilizer, and practice of row planting, 17.3% of them used variety, DAP fertilizer, and practice of row planting. About 14.3% of resource rich farmers (59) have used the five selected technologies in combination, while neither resource-poor nor female households used full components of maize package. The probable reason for this finding is that each additional use the components of maize package may require extra cost thereby may be difficult for resource-poor and female HHs to afford it.

Table 14. HHS distribution based on utilization level of elements of maize package
HH Category (%) Descript ions MDUIR MDIR MDUR MDR Total Male N (%) 2(11.8) 3(17.6) 11(64.7) 1(5.9) 17(100) Rich Female N (%) 1(25.0) 0(0.0) 2(50.0) 1(25.0) 4(100) Total N (%) 3(14.3) 3(14.3) 13(61.5) 2(9.5) 21(100) Male N (%) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 3(50.0) 3(50.0) 6(100) Poor Female N (%) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 1(50.0) 1(50.0) 2(100) Total N (%) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 4(50.0) 4(50.0) 8(100) Male N (%) 2(8.7) 3(13.4) 14(60.9) 4(17.4) 23(100) Female N (%) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 5(83.3) 1(16.7) 6(100)

Total (%) N (%) 2(6.9) 3(10.3) 19(65.5) 5(17.3) 29(100)

Source: Computed from own survey Where: N= number of respondents M= Improved variety of maize U=Urea fertilizer %=Percent D=Dap fertilizer I=Insecticides HH=Household head R=row planting

94

4.8.2. Utilization level of elements of recommended poultry package

Table 15 indicates Cross-Tabulation of four distinct technologies treated simultaneity. About 14.3% of the sample HHs used the four selected technologies in combination, 42.9% of them used improved bread of chicken, housing, and vaccine 38.1% of them used improved bread of chicken, concentrated feeding and vaccine, 4.8% of them used improved bread of chicken only. About 17.6% of resource-rich households (59) have used the four selected technologies in combination, while resource-poor HHs totally have not used the full components of the package. The mean differences of this research finding shows that utilization of full components of poultry package was highly influenced by resource level of the HHs.

Table 15. Distribution of HHs based on utilization level of components of poultry package HH Category Descrip tions Male N (%) Rich % Female N (%)
1 (25.0) 1 (25.0) 2 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 4(100)

Total Poor % Female N (%)

0 (0.0)

Total N (%)
3 (17.6) 7 (41.2) 7 (41.2) 0 (0.0) 17(100)

Male N (%)
0 (0.0)

Total N (%)
0 (0.0)

Male N (%)
2 (13.3) 7 (46.6) 5 (33.3) 1 (6.7) 15(100)

Female N (%)
1(16.7) 2 (33.3) 3 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 6(100)

% N (%)
3 ((14.3) 9 (42.9) 8 (38.1) 1 (4.8) 21(100)

1. PFHV 2 (15.4) 2. PVH 3. PFH 4. P Total 6 (46.2) 5 (38.5) 0 (0.0) 13 (100)

1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 2(100) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 2(100) 1 (25) 1 (25) 4(100)

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: N= number of respondents P=Improved variety of poultry H=Housing

HH=Household head F=improved Feeding V=Vaccine

95

4.9. Status of Credit Use

Credit helps in alleviating current liquidity constraints enhancing the use of technology packages correspondingly. One of the local measurements of extension effectiveness is by analysis of the total self-sufficient (graduate) farmers out of the total users of extension packages. One of indicators for this measurement is the manner of credit in take. Selfsufficient (graduate) farmers are expected to pay 100% cash or near to 100% for input purchase. However, in the study area there were reluctance of self-sufficient farmers to cover their own working capital, i.e., they had a tendency to obtain credit for many years. Majority of the HH were not utilizing the credit and the rest were forced to take by credit and unable to pay 100% cash. This shows that their saving was weak (Table 16). The research finding shows that, 62.7%, 28.8%, 3.4%, and 3.4% of the resource-rich HHs were; use no credit, 70% by credit, 30% by credit, 50% by credit, and 100% by cash respectively in 2005 production year, whereas, 91.2% of resource-poor HHs were not use credit and the remaining 8.8% were use 70% by credit respectively. There is a significant mean difference (2=18.167) between the resource- rich and poor at 1% significance level in the manner of credit in take.

With regard to gender difference, out of the total sample respondents, 75.0% male HHs and 90.0% female HHs were use no credit whereas and 20% of male HHs and 10% of female HHs have used 70% credit respectively. In general, 80% of the total HHs were not useing credit and 16.7% were using 70% credit in take. This shows that credit intake was highly determined by level of resource ownership of the households than gender differentials. The number of graduate (self-sufficient) farmers used agricultural inputs without credit (100% cash) were very few (1.3%). Nevertheless, there is mean significant difference (2=19.47) at 1% significance level and very strong association (Gamma=0.927) between users of credit and utilization technological packages (Appendix Table 2).

The probable reason for the significant difference between resource-rich and resource-poor, and between male and female toward using credit service is that the poor or female HHs may either not able to pay dawn payment, or used local seed with out fertilizer, or may have faced with lack collateral to take credit. However, for all package users, credit is an effective policy

96

option to encourage utilization of intensive agricultural technologies. Therefore, it would be suggested that credit has strong significant role in use of technological packages. A lot of scholars reported similar result (Croppenstedt et.al., 1999; Bezabih, 2000; Techane, 2002). Table 16. Status of credit use by sample HHs for improved seed and fertilizer. HH category S.N. Descriptions
Rich N (%) Poor N (%)

Male
N (%)

Female N (%)

Total N (%)

(2, CV)

1. Non users 2. 70% credit users 3. 50% credit users 4 30% credit users 5. 100% cash users Total

37 (62.7) 17 (28.8) 2 (3.4) 1 (1.7) 2 (3.4) 59 (100)

83 (91.2) 8 (8.8) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 91(100)

75 (75.0) 45 (90.0) 120 (80) (19.741a, 0.363) 20(20.0) 2 (2.0) 1 (1.0) 2 (2.0) 100(100) 5 (10.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 50(100) 25 (16.7) 2 (1.3) 1(0.7) 2 (1.3) 150(100)

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: N=number of respondents HH=Household head a=significant at less than 1% level of significance, CV = Carmens V, 2 =Chi test value

4.10. Major Institutional and Physical Constraints

Most adoption studies, tried to see the major institutional and physical constraints of the farmers in utilization of agricultural technologies with out separating them into access or utilization constraint. For instance, Feder et al., (1985) have summarized the vast amount of empirical, literature on adoption and indicated that the constraints to adoption of a new technology may arise from many sources, such as lack of credit, inadequate farm size, unstable supply of complimentary inputs, uncertainty and so on. However, in this study, an attempt was made to investigate, descriptively the conditions that influence farmers reception of package of technologies, in two versions separately; in the first case, it is identified the major constraints on access of extension packages; and secondly also identified the major utilization constraints

97

of the sampled HH in practicing deferent extension packages and services in their farming situation.

4.10.1. Access constraints of improved seed and fertilizer

Access constraints of extension packages are mainly problems, which arise from the source of components of the extension packages (i.e. it is more of associated with externals) that affects the motive and potential of farmers toward using the technologies. Out of the total respondents, 39.3%, 22%, 12.7%, 10%, 9% are indicated as they have no constraints, non availability of input on time, insufficient delivery of input, less extension support, and poor quality of input respectively in descending order. However, the major constraints of each category of HH differ accordingly (Table 17). Out of the resource-rich HHs, 31.6%, 15.8%, and 8.5% pointed out that unavailability of input on time; insufficient delivery, and poor quality of inputs were their major constraints respectively in access to improved seed and fertilizer in descending order. However, 27.5%, 13.2% and 12.1% of resource-poor HHs indicated that unavailability of input on time, insufficient delivery, and less extension support (advice) were their major constraints respectively in descending order. The second common constraint for the resource-rich and poor HHs was insufficient delivery of input. In another aspect, the primary and secondary constraints for both male and female HHs were similar; which were unavailable of input at the right time and insufficient delivery of inputs with associated percentage value of 20.0% and 12.0% respectively. Unavailability of input on time was the major and common constraint for all sampled household. This finding is similar to the findings of Beyene et al., (1991) in Backo area examined the level of adoption of maize recommendation package comprising variety, fertilizer and row planting and found that unavailability of seed on time was the major constraints of his sampled farmers.

98

Table 17. Constraints on access to package inputs (improved seed and fertilizer)

HH Category Rich Male N (%)

24(55.8) 4 (9.3) 4 (9.3) 5(11.6) 2 (4.7) 2 (4.7) 2 (4.7) 49 (100) 16(100) 59(100) 57(100) 0 (0.0) 2 (3.4) 2 (3.5) 2(12.5) 4(6.8) 6 (10.5) 5 (14.7) 1 (2.9) 34(100) 1 (6.3) 3 (5.1) 3 (5.3) 4 (11.8) 3(18.8) 8 (13.6) 18 (31.6) 7 (20.6) 3(18.8) 7 (11.9) 9 (15.8) 3 (8.8) 12 (13.2) 25 (27.5) 7 (7.7) 11 (12.1) 3 (3.3) 91(100) 1 (6.3) 5 (8.5) 3 (5.3) 1 (2.9) 4 (4.4) 6(37.5) 30(50.8) 16(28.1) 13(28.2) 29(31.9)

S.N. Descriptions Female N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

40(40.0) 7 (7.0) 13 (13.0) 23 (23.0) 5 (5.0) 8 (8.0) 4 (4.0) 50(100)

Poor Total Male Female Total Male Female N (%)

19(38.0) 2 (4.0) 6(12.0) 10 (20.0) 5 (10.0) 7 (14.00 1 (2.0) 100(100)

Total % N (%)
59(39.3) 9 (6.0) 19 (12.7) 33 (22) 10 (6.7) 15 (10.0) 5 (3.3) 150(100)

1. No constraints

2.

Poor quality

3. Insufficient delivery

4. Unavailable on time

5. Source from far distance

6. Less extension support

7. Others

Source: Computed from own survey data N= number of respondents

Where: HH=Household head

99

4.10.2. Utilization constraints regarding improved seed and fertilizer

Utilization constraints of extension packages are problems or obstacles on the way of doing or practicing the package. Access constraints are mainly attached with externals whereas utilization constraints are mainly problems that are associated with the households themselves. Out of the total respondents, 8.7%, 7.3%, 6.7%, 6.7% pointed out as they had land shortage, labour shortage, and deterioration of the package and less extension advice in descending order respectively (Table 18).

The major constraints for resource-rich male HHs in the process of extension package utilization were deterioration of the package and high input cost; while land shortage, high in put cost and less extension follow-up were the constraints of resource rich female HHs in descending order. Lack of down payment and less extension follow-up were the primary and secondary major constraints of resource-poor male HHs, while land shortage unable to pay the privies loan, and labour shortage were the constraints of resource-poor female HHs. High input cost and deterioration of the package were the major problems for resource-rich HHs whereas land shortage, unable to pay the privies loan and less extension follow-up were major constraints of resource-poor HHs. Deterioration of the package, was the major constraints for male HHs, whereas land shortage was the major constraints for female HHs. Finally, the primary major constraint for all respondents was land scarcity. This is because most parts of the respondents farmland had been occupied by perennial crops namely enset, chat and coffee and then they have been faced with problems of producing cereal extension packages extensively.

Major constraints that are identified by the past studies, for instance Belay (203) also point out those respondents who had not participated either in PADETES or the SG 2000 extension programme at the time of his survey were: lack or shortage of working capital for down payments, shortage of land, increasing the prices of inputs and the limited geographical coverage of the programme are the principal factors responsible for the nonparticipation. Also Feder et al. (1985) have summarized the vast amount of empirical, literature on adoption an indicated that the constraints to adoption of a new technology may arise from many sources, such as lack of credit, inadequate farm size, unstable supply of complimentary inputs, and uncertainty.

100

Table 18. Utilization constraints of improved seed and fertilizer

S.N. Descriptions Total N (%) N (%)

63 (63.0) 3(3.0) 4(4.0) 7(7.0) 6(6.0) 7(7.7) 7(7.7) 1(2.9) 0 (0.0) 57(100) 34(100) 1 (1.1) (1.1) 91(100) 6(6.0) 5(5.0) 4(4.0) 2(2.0) 100(100) 21 (42.0) 4(8.8) 2(2.0) 3(6.0) 7(14.0) 5(10.0) 5(10.0) 3(6.0) 0(0.0) 50(100)

Rich Male Female N (%) N (%) Total N (%) N (%)

51(56.0) 7(7.7) 5(5.5) 4(4.4) 8(8.8)

HH Category Poor Male Female N (%) N (%) Male Female Total N (%)
84 (56.0) 7(5.3) 6(3.3) 10(6.7) 13(8.7) 11(7.3) 10(6.7) 7(4.7) 2(1.3) 150(100) 37(64.9) 3(5.3) 4(7.0) 2(3.5) 3(5.3) 3(5.3) 4(7.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.8) 4(11.8) 3(8.8) 5(14.7) 2(5.9) 1(2.9) 4(11.8) 14(41.2)

1. No constraints
26 (60.5) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 5(11.6) 3(7.0) 3(7.0) 1(2.3) 4(9.3) 1(2.3) 43 (100) 16(100) 59(100) 0 (0.0) 1(1.7) 2(12.5) 6(10.2) 2(12.5) 3(5.1) 1(6.3) 4(6.8) 2(12.5) 5(8.5) 1(6.3) 6(10.2) 1(6.3) 1 (1.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 7 (43.8) 33 (55.9)

2. Unable to pay the previous loan 3. Lack of down payment

4. Deterioration of the package 5. Land shortage

6. Labour shortage

7. Less extension follow-up 8. High input cost

9. Others

Source=Computed from own survey data

Where: HH=Household head N= number of respondent

%= percent

101

4.10.3. Constraints on access and utilization of credit

Access to credit can relax the financial constraints of farmers, and in some cases, access to credit is tied to a particular technological package. As most of the farming households are being financially self-insufficient to purchase inputs, credit would have taken from formal and informal institutions. A sound credit policy helps to alleviate this financial constraint either by providing inputs when credit is given in kind or allowing them to buy these inputs when cash credit is considered without constraining their consumption plans. In general, credit is a possible driving force and equally important inputs such as marketing and technology supply for effective implementation of components of the extension packages. However, there are also some major constraints that influence farmers attempt toward the effective use of credit (Table 19).

This research findings show that, 15.25%, 12.0%, and 6.8% of the sampled resource-rich HHs constrained with unavailability of credit on time, scarcity, and high interest rate respectively in utilization of credit in descending order; whereas 28.6%, 9.9%, and 7.7% of the resource-poor HHs revealed that unable to pay down payment, lack of collateral and unavailable on time were their major constraints respectively in descending order. In another aspect, 16.0% and 10.0% of male HHs; and 22.0% and 12.0% of female HHs indicated that unable to pay down payment, and unavailable on time respectively were their primary and secondary major constraints in utilization of the credit services provided in the study area. For the total sample HHs, 17.3% and 13.3% informed as they have unable to pay down payment and unavailability of credit on time were as their primary and secondary constraints respectively. Informal discussions with the sampled HHs also reported that credit repayment time coincided with other cash obligations like tax and other payments, which should be settled immediately after harvest, when output prices, were very low. They considered it as one of the non-encouraging force in utilization of technological packages for the preceding production season. Similar findings were presented by Feder et al. (1985); Legesse (1992); and Belay (2003), as that cash shortage for down payment and late delivery were the constraints of farmers in using extension packages in credit base.

102

Table 19. Access and utilization constraints on credit

S. N. Descriptions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. No constraints Unavailable on time Scarcity of credit Unable to pay down payment Lack of credit Lack of collateral High interest rate Others N

Rich 69.5 15.25 6.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 6.8 0.0 59

HH category (%) Male Poor 38.5 7.7 2.2 28.6 5.5 9.9 5.5 2.2 91 57.00 10.0 4.0 16.0 3.00 4.0 4.0 2.0 100

Female 38.0 12.0 4.0 22.0 4.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 50

Total % 50.7 11.3 4.0 17.3 3.3 6.0 6.0 1.3 150

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: N=number of respondent HH=Household head

4.10.4. Constraints on participation of farmer organization (cooperative)

Cooperative is one of farmers organizations that play an important role in the farming intrprise. By participating in a cooperative purchasing and marketing system, farmers benefit from sharing the investments necessary to receive and store their crops and from the strength large volume purchases and sales can generate. Farmers may deliver their crops to cooperative for storage, milling, transportation, and marketing. They may also purchase fertilizer, seed, and fuel from a cooperative. In study area cooperatives play a major role in market stabilization in the process of purchasing farmers product at production season and selling it at off-season with reasonable cost. However, majority of the sampled households were not actively participating, specialty in many instances women participation are marginalized in integrated organizations.

Out of the total resource-rich households, 23.73%, 13.56% and 8.47% constrained with lack of credibility, corruption and poor capital progress of the membership. While, 16.48%, 14.28% and 9.9% of resource-poor farmers constrained with lack of credibility, lack of money, and 103

poor capital progress of the membership. Major constraints for male households in participation of farmers cooperatives were lack of credibility (22%) and poor capital progress (14%), whereas female households constrained with lack of credibility (14%), and lack of money (12%). In general this research findings shows that major constraints for all households were lack of credibility (19.3%), corruption (10.7%), and lack of money (10%) in descending order (Table 20). The probable reason for failure of many co-operatives in the study area was because of the members lack managerial and accounting skills that lead to corruption by the leaders of the cooperatives.

Table 20. Contraints on participation of farmer organization (cooperative) HH category (%) S.N. Descriptions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. No constraints Lack of credibility Lack of money Lack of interest Corruption Poor capital progress Others N
Where: HH=Household head

Rich
40.67 23.73 3.39 8.5 13.56 8.47 1.7 59

Poor
42.9 16.48 14.28 6.59 8.8 9.9 1.09 91

Total (%) 42.0 19.3 10.0 7.3 10.7 9.33 1.3 150

Male
37.0 22.0 9.0 8.0 12.0 14.0 0.0 100

Female
52.0 14.0 12.0 6.0 8.0 4.0 4.0 50

Total (%) 42.0 19.3 10.0 7.3 10.7 9.3 1.3 150

Source: Computed from own survey data N= number of respondents

4.10.5. Constraints on access to market

Improving agricultural package productivity without efficient marketing system will not be sustainable. Hence, improving the available marketing system and related facilities in order to reduce supply demand gap is equally important. Crop production in the study area is not only for home consumption but also for meeting cash requirements of the farmers. In the process of marketing, there are problems of infrastructure and support system. This research findings shows that, out of the total sampled HHs (Table 21); 23.7% and 6.6% of resource-rich and

104

resource-poor HHs respectively indicated that unable to get alternative market was as their primary constraints whereas high market tax was their secondary major constraint.

Similarly, 16.0% and 8.0% male and female HHs respectively pointed out that unable to get alternative market was their primary constraints while 7.0% and 6.0% of male and female HH indicated that market tax and far distance of market place respectively underline their secondary problems in the process of marketing. In general, the primary and secondary common and major constraints for all households were unable to get alternative market (13.3%) and high market tax (6.7%). In the study area farmers exchange their product in local main marketing places Gunchire, Kosse, Egeze and Gazanche, however, they are far away each other and lack of infrastructure facilities like road and vehicle transportation that connect one another. Table 21. Constraints on access and utilization of market HH Category S.N. Descriptions Rich 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. No constraints Unable to get market Far distant Unable to get alternative market Lack of transportation High market tax Others N
Source: Computed from own survey data Where: N=number of respondents HH=Household head

Total % Poor 80.2 2.2 4.4 6.6 2.2 3.3 1.1 91 Male 64.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 4.0 7.0 0.0 100 Female 74.0 0.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 50 67.3 2.7 5.3 13.3 3.3 6.7 1.3 150 47.5 3.4 6.8 23.7 5.1 11.9 1.7 59

105

4.10.6. Constraints on utilization of Development Agent

Out of the total sample resource-rich HHs (59), 18.64%, 3.4%, 3.4% of them were faced with constraints of lack of credibility; poor technical know haw, and farmer selection bias of DAs, while 13.2% and 10.2% of resource rich HHs responds as they had lack of credibility on DAs, and constrained with farmer selection bias of DAs (Table 22).

Major constraints for male and female HHs in utilization of DAs were lack of credibility (13 %) and (4%), and farmer selection bias (20%) and (16%) respectively. In general, for all households lack of credibility and farmer selection bias were the first and second major constraints in utilization of DAs. The probable reasons for lack of credibility on DAs may arise from that DAs unable to make available the necessary inputs at the right time and place to satisfy their clients need and they may justify falsified reasons for the sake of skipping from the question of their clients. Sometimes few DAs also be corrupted with money what they have collected from their clients for input supply. Farmer selection bias may be attributed with the sake of attaining maximum achievement to fulfill the assigned quota plan, and also they may focus to select and work with few farmers whom they are homophilous with them and resource-rich farmers than poor and women. Table 22. Constraints on utilization of Development Agents HH category (%) S.N. Descriptions 1. No constraints 2. Lack of credibility 3. Poor technical know-haw of DAs 4. Poor interest to sport farmer 5. Farmer selection bias 6. Others N
Source: Computed from own survey data

Total Female 58.0 20.0 0.0 4.0 16.0 2.0 50 (%) 71.3 15.3 1.3 2.0 8.0 2.0 150

Rich 69.5 18.64 3.4 1.7 3.4 3.4 59

Poor 72.5 13.2 0.0 2.2 10.2 1.1 91

Male 78.00 13.0 2.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 100

Where: N=number of respondents

HH=household head 106

Box: 4. Group discussion with Development Worker On the process of this research, horizontally the discussion was made with extension staff and DAs to identify major constraints in their working environment. They had pointed out that inadequate follow-up and technical support due to greater number of demonstration plots per extension agent, limited availability of logistics and other supports, inadequate incentives and less promotion, overload of extension agents with different assignments include distribution of input, credit, collection of the previous loan repayment, carrying out other sectors activities like health, education and administrative sectors. Low communication skill of DAs, lack of task oriented training, lack of farmers participation during extension program planning process, the reluctance of graduating farmers to overcome their own working capital, i.e. the tendency to obtain credit for many years, quota based extension project execution etc. were mentioned as the major constraints for the implementation of extension program.

107

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

The critical challenge confronting most developing countries including Ethiopia is improving the life situation of rural community at least in securing them with basic needs such as food, shelter and cloth. Nowadays the prevalence of poverty and its severity made millions of people out of the basic needs of survival in Ethiopia. One of the reasons for the rural households to live in the vicious circle of poverty for long period is lack of improvement in agricultural production and productivity. It is aggravated by poor utilization of the technological packages constrained by lack of target specific technologies. It is strengthened by with the influence of socio-economical factors and weak service provisions.

The study area Enemore and Ener Woreda is situated on the southwest of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia at a distance of 194 Km. Principal crops grown in the area are enset, coffee, chat, maize, teff, wheat, and barley. Major technology packages introduced are cereal (maize, wheat, and barley), high value crop (coffee), horticulture, dairy, fattening, poultry and bee keeping. The main technological components of crop package include improved variety, fertilizer, and chemicals and improved cultural practices, whereas livestock packages include improved variety, housing, feeding, and vaccine and improved management.

The level of awareness, utilization, and coverage of extension program and associated constraints toward different categories of farmers have not been perversely investigated in Enemore and Ener woreda. Therefore, this study is aimed assessing the level of awareness, utilization, coverage, and associated constraints of the ongoing extension program by resource-rich, resource-poor, women, user, and non-user groups of the farm community in the study area.

A two stage random sampling technique was employed to identify first PAs, and then respondents. The respondents were categorized into resource-rich and resource-poor categories in reference to their level of wealth and also male and female based on biological sex. A total 108

of 150 farmers were interviewed using pre-tested and structured interview schedule. Observation and focus group discussions were done with respondents, key-informants, DAs, senior experts, and concerned bodies in the area. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistical tools such as mean, percentage and standard deviation, T-test, 2-test, Cramers V, Gamma, and Spearman Correlation Coefficient based on the level of measurement of the variables involved.

The average age, land holding, TLU owned, family size, and active labour force of the family were found to be 41.79 year, 1.14 ha, 1.30unit, 5.5, and 3.63 respectively. In terms of land holding and TLU owned, there is a significant mean difference at less than 1% probability level between resource-rich and resource-poor, between male and female, and also between users and non-users groups of the HH, whereas non significant difference at less than 10% probability level were observed in total family size and age of those categories of farmers.

Out of the total sample HHs (150), 38.7% have not utilized any of the available technological packages (coffee, maize, horticulture, poultry, dairy, and fattening). It is observed that the level of utilization of combination of packages was significantly influenced by variation in resource-level than gender differentials. Out of the total 150 sample HHs, 99.3%, 62.0%, 56.7%, 32.7%, and 27.3% farmers were not aware about the components of maize package including availability of credit, existence of DAP fertilizer, existence of HYMV, existence of row planting, and existence of Urea fertilizer respectively. Out of the total 29 users of maize package, 6.9% had fully utilized the components of maize package (improved variety, DAP fertilizer, Urea fertilizer, insecticides, and row planting) and the rest have partially utilized. Out of the 21users of poultry packages, 14.3% have used fully the components of maize package (improved variety of poultry, housing, feeding and vaccine) and the rest have partially used. Those full utilizers of components of maize and poultry packages were only resourcerich HHs. Generally it is observed that the level of utilization of combination of packages as well as recommended components of the specific package was greatly influenced by variation in resource-level than gender differentials.

109

Participation of farmers in various areas of human resource development (including education, training, planning, field day, exhibition, on farm-trial and demonstration) was at the very heart of building local capacity and significantly and positively influenced the level of utilization of technological packages in the study area.

Major institutional and physical constraints among the different categories of farmers were varied, however, most important constraints in access and utilization of technologies (improved seed and fertilizer) were identified as unavailability of input on time, insufficient delivery of input, less extension support, and poor quality of input with associated percentage value of 22%, 12.7%, 10%, 9% respectively in descending order. Constraints of technology use were land scarcity, labour shortage, deterioration of the package, and less extension advice with associated percentage value of 8.7%, 7.3%, 6.7%, 6.7% respectively in descending order. Also constraints in access and utilization of credit were inability to pay down payment, unavailability on time, lack of collateral, high interest rate, scarcity of credit and lack of credit in descending order are identified. Additionally constraints associated with organizational participation, access to market, and utilization of DAs are also identified.

5.2. Conclusions and Recommendations

On the basis of this study, the following conclusions and recommendations are suggested for practical action and in future studies concerning the Woreda and Zone.

1.Technology should be target specific

Agricultural scientists on research stations are successful in developing innovations, which dramatically increase yields per unit area. However, from this findings it is observed that 38.7% of the total sample households had never utilized any of the available extension packages (coffee, maize, horticulture, poultry, dairy and fattening), of which; resource-rich, resource-poor, male, and female HHs accounts 11.9%, 56%, 34%, and 48 % respectively. The primary reason was associated with constraints including shortage of land; lack of cash in hand, insufficient active family labour, lack of awareness, etc. that limited the wider utilization 110

of the package by all categories of farmers. The secondary reason given was that recommended technological packages did not meet farmers needs. In reality, with a properly targeted and remunerative package, forgotten farmers can be effectively reached. Therefore, first it is recommended to minimize socio-economic constraints associated with access to land and agricultural credit. Institutional barriers have to be removed by strengthen supportive organizations like credit, marketing, cooperatives, and infrastructure services. Secondly technology packages shall be made appropriate for the various target categories by tacking such measures in packing in smaller quantities, and incorporating new technologies that save womens time and effort and make their labor more productive.

2. Avoid bias among categories of farmers

It is reviewed that the extension system in the past and today in Ethiopia has given higher attention to resource-rich than poor and to male than female farmers. The study found that particularly extension workers tend to work with resource-rich farmers who shown an interest in the extension packages. In other words, quotas or the minimum number of packages assigned to each DAs impose an extension agents to focus on few potential farmers so as to achieve planned targets. Cultural barriers also restrict male DAs to support female HHs farmers in the absence of third person. Therefore, it is recommended that DAs, professional experts, administrative bodies, planners, and related organizations first, should understand the impact of biased approach in a social affair. Secondly they should understand farmers situation and design appropriate technologies to fit the needs and conditions of different categories of farmers. Modifying the quota-based extension by DAs also may be reconsidered.

3. Strengthening extension service within its domain.

In this research, lack of effective extension service is one of the major constraints in wider utilization of extension packages. Therefore, it is recommended that extension should make available basket of choices than the provision of blanket recommendations. It also should improve the working environment of DAs including availability of logistics, incentives in kind and promotion, minimize overload of extension agents from non-extension tasks such as

111

distribution of input, credit and collection of repayment. The need for upgrading their communication skill and competence through subsequent task oriented training, shall also receive consideration. To avoid corruption related problems that lead to lack of credibility by the farmers; it is better to make DAs freeform collecting taxes, down payments, and loan repayment.

4. Enhance participation of farmers in various areas of human resource development

Findings of this study indicate that participation of farmers in various areas of development including planning, training, exhibition, field day; formal visit to outreach activates and practicing on-farm trial and demonstration etc. significantly and positively affect the level of utilization of technological packages available in the area. However, the participants were few in number, even the beneficiaries were relatively resource-rich and male HHs. Enhance participation of farmers in various areas of human resource development is the best option for empowering farm operators for better utilization of technological packages. Therefore, it is recommended that extension should provide task oriented training, initiate them to practice onfarm trial and demonstration, invite them to participate in planning, exhibition, and farmers field day; to set sound solutions for the problems faced, to have more information about the existence of the available packages, to search further knowledge concerning about the packages and to evaluate its importance, and probably to practice or include it into their farming system.

5. Strengthen input delivery and other support systems

In this research it is identified that farmers are faced with diverse constraints such as unavailability of credit on time, lack of alternative markets, lack of access to credit which is associated with inability to pay down payment, lack of trust to participate in local organizations like cooperatives, and weak infrastructure facilities such as roads and transportation networks. Therefore, it is recommended that strengthening the delivery; extension by creating strong linkage upward with research institutes, seed producing agencies, and distributing companies and downward with DAs, farmer representative, and councils of

112

PAs for inputs delivery at right time and place. Extension also should try to assess timely market information and inform farmers about what is going on, and initiate and guide them to present their product in neighbouring local markets and at national markets like Addis Ababa. Access to credit can be improved by strengthening local micro-finance institutions, lowering down payments to enhance participation of the poor, and minimizing associated taxes. Farmers trust in the participation of local organizations like cooperatives can be enhanced, by improving members accounting and managerial skills, and frequent auditing of the stock of the cooperative to understand its progress and to avoid mischief. Weak infrastructure facilities such as roads and transportation networks can be improved by strengthening role of the government and non-government agencies and mobilizing the community members become crucial. In general, strengthening input delivery and other support systems should be part of the rural development policies and strategy of the government calling for immediate intervention and actions.

113

6. REFERENCES
Adugna Haile, Workneh Negatu, and Bisrat Retu, 1991. Technology transfer for wheat production in Ethiopia. In Wheat Research in Ethiopia: A Historical Perspective (Haile Gebre Nariam, D.G. Tanner and Mengistu Hulluka, eds.). IAR/CIMMYT, Addis Ababa.

Aklilu Bisirat, 1977. Technological Change in Subsistence Agriculture: The Adoption and Diffusion of Fertilizer in Ethiopians Minimum package Area. 1:72- 73

Almaz Eshete, 2000. Why is gender a development issue, in the proceedings of National Workshop on institutionalizing gender planning in agricultural technology generation and transfer process, EARO Addis Ababa.

Aregay Waktola, 1980. Assessment of Diffusion and Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Chilallo. Ethiop. J. A. Sci. 12(2): 51-68.

Asfaw Negassa, K. Gunjal, W. Mwangi, and Beyene Seboka, 1999. Factors affecting the adoption of maize production technologies in Bako Area, Ethiopia. J. Agricultural Eco. Vo.1, No. 2. Ethiopia.

Assefa Admassie, 1995. Analysis of production efficiency and the use of modern technology in crop production: a study of smallholders in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Ph.D. dissertation.

Aynalem Gezahegn, 2003. Agricultural Extension Policy and Strategies in the Amhara National Regional State. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Resourses Degradation and Environmental concerns in the Amhara National Regional state: Impact on Food Security, Bahir Dar.

Belay Kassa, 2002. Constraints to Agricultural Extension Work in Ethiopia: The Insiders View, Alemaya University, and Department of Agricultural Economics.

Belay Kassa, 2003. Agricultural Extension in Ethiopia. The Case of Participatory Demonstrations and Training Extension System. Journal of Social Development in Africa. January 2003, Vol 18(1): 49-83.

114

Berger, M., DeLancey, V., and Mellencamp, A., 1984. Bridging the gender gap in agricultural extension. Washington, DC: ICRW.

Betru, G., 1975. Integrated Development in Rural Ethiopia: An Evaluative Study of the Chillalo Agricultural Development Unit, Bloomington International Development Research Center, Indiana University, Indiana.

Beyene Seboka, Asfaw Negassa, Mengesha Bekel, and Tefera Ajeema, 1991. Adoption of maize Production Technologies In the Backo Area, Western Shewa and Welega Regions of Ethiopia Research report No.16.

Bezabih Emana, 2000. The role of new crop varieties and chemical fertilizer under risk: the case of smallholders in Eastern Oromia, Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Hannover, Germany.

Bolding A., Jeff M., and van der Zag., 2003. Interventions in Stallholder Agriculture: Implications for Extension in Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare.

Brhane Gebrekidan, Seme Debela, and Ibrahim Mohammed, 2004. Development and Application of Agricultural Technology in Ethiopia: A discussion paper Under the theme Transferring Ethiopian Agriculture on the occasion of Celebrating The 50th anniversary of the Establishment of the Alemaya University, October 23 and 24, 2004.

Byerlee, D., and E. Hesse P., 1986. Farmers Stepwise Adoption of Technological Packages: Evidence from the Mexican Alitiplano. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68: 519527.

Chambers, R., 1983. Rural development. Putting the last first, Alfred place, London. PP104105.

Chambers, R., 1993. Challenging the profession: frontier for rural development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Chandan, J.S., 1998. Statistics for Business and Economics. Vikas Publishing House Put Ltd, New Delhi.

115

Chilot Yirga, 1994. Factors Influencing Adoption of Wheat Technologies. In the Wolemera and Addis Alem Areas of Ethiopia. An MSc. Thesis Presented School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Chilot Yirga, Shapiro, B.I., and Mulat Demeke, 1996. Factors influencing the adoption of new wheat technologies in Wolmera and Addis Alem Areas of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Addis Ababa. 1(1).

Chimdessa Bure, 1998. The Package Extension Approach and Small Holders, Farmers arm Productivity in High Potential Areas of Ethiopia: The Case of Shashemene Area, Unpublished M.Sc. thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Cohen N. and Isaksson, Nils-Ivr., 1980. Machinery selection modeling: Incorporation of weather variability. American Jornal of Agricultural Economics, 62:700-708.

Croppenstedt, A., Mulat Demeke and Meshi, M., 1999. "An Empirical Analysis of Demand for Fertilizer in Ethiopia," Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics 3: 1-27.

CSA( Central Statistics Authority), 1996. Agricultural Sample Survey 1995/1996. Report on area and Production for Major Crops. Statistical Bulletin Vol 1(171).

Dagnachew Tesfaye, 2002. Factors hampering women farmers involvement in current extension packages: case studies of Sulta and Mulu districts of Ethiopia, Senior Research Report, Alemaya University.

Dey, J., 1980. Gambian Women: Unequal partners in Price Development Projects. Journal of Development Studies. 17(3): 109-122.

Degenet Abebaw, 1999. Determinants of adoption of high yielding varieties of maize in Jimma zone. The case of Mana and Kesa woreda woredas. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University.

EARO, 2000. Institutionalizing Gender Planning in Agricultural Technology. Generation and Transfer Processes, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ellis, F., 1992. Peasant Economics, Farm Households and Agrarian Development. Cambridge University Press, New York,U.S.A 116

Elias, Z., and Agajie, T., 2001. The History, Present Challenges and Future Approaches to Agricultural Technology Transfer in Ethiopia. In: Berhanu, M. and Vogel, E. (eds.) International Conference on Public Management, Policy and Development. Proceedings Governance and Sustainable Development: Promoting Collaborative Partnership, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, June 3-6, 2001. pp 344- 349.

FAO, 1986. Rural Women and Food security: Current Situation and Perspectives. Food and Agricultural Organization the United Nations Rome, Italy.

FAO, 1993. Agricultural Extension and Farm Women in the 1980s. Food and Agricultural Organization the United Nations Rome, Italy.

FAO, 1996. Improving Extension work with Rural Women. Food and Agricultural Organization the United Nations Rome, Italy.

Feder, L., R.E. Just, and D. Zilberman, 1985. Adoption of Agricultural Innovation in Developing Countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 32(2): 255298.

Franzel, Steven, and Helen van Houten, 1992. Research with Farmers. Lesson from Ethiopia C.A.B. International, Oxon; Uk.

Gittinger, J. P., Chernick, S., Horenstein, N. R., and Saito, K., 1990. Household food security and the role of women. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Green, D.A.G., and D. H., Ngongola, 1993. Factors affecting fertilizer adoption in less developed Countries: An application of multivariate logistic analysis in Mali. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 44, No.1, 103-113.

Habtemariam Abate, 1997. Targeting Extension Service and the Extension Approach in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, 32p.

117

Habtemariam Abate, 2004. The comparative influence of intervening variables in the adoption behavior of maize and dairy farmers in Shashemene and Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 294p.

Habtemariam Kassa, 1996. Agricultural Education, Research and Extension in Ethiopia: Problems and Linkages. In: Mulat, D., Aregay W., Tesfaye Z, Solomon B., Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the Second Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia, held in Addis Ababa3-October 1996. Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, pp 161-181.

Habtemariam Kassa, 2004. Agricultural Extension with Particular Emphasis on Ethiopia. Ethiopian Economic Policy Research Institute, Addis Ababa, pp 80.

Horenstein, N. R., 1989. Women and food security in Kenya. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Itana Ayana, 1985. An analysis of factors affecting the adoption and diffusion pattern of packages of agricultural technologies in subsistence agriculture: A case study in two extension districts of Ethiopia. An M.Sc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University.

Jabbar, M. A., and M. Shahe Alam, 1993. Adoption of modern rice varieties in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, XVI, 2 (1993): 77-95.

Janelid, I., 1975. The Role of Women in Nigerian Agriculture. Food and Agricultural Organization the United Nations Rome, Italy.

Jha, D., B. Hojjati and S. Vosti, 1990. The use of improved agricultural technology in Eastern Province. In adopting improved agricultural technology: A study of smallholder farmers in Eastern Province, Zambia, Washington D.C: University of Zambia, Government of the Republic of Zambia and IFRPI.

Jiggins, J., 1989a. Agricultural technology: Impact, issues and action (chapter 1, part I). In R. S. Gallin, M. Aronoff, & A. Ferguson (Eds.), The women and international development annual: Vol. I. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Jiggins, J., 1989b. How poor women earn income in sub-Saharan Africa and what works against them. World Development, 17 (7) 953-963.

118

Jiggins, J., 1989. Farmer Participatory Research and Technology Development. Occasional Paper in Rural Extension No 5. University of Guelph, Canada.

Kansana, H. S., R.P. Sharma and S.K Sharma, 1996. Knowledge and adoption of wheat technology among contact and non-contact farmer. Agricultural Science, Digest Karnal. 16:154 156.

Kiresur, V. R., R. K. Pandey and Mruthyunjaya, 1999. Determinants of adoption of modern sorghum production technology: The experience of Karnataka State. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54 (2).

Legesse Dadi, 1992. Analysis of Factors Influencing Adoption and The Impact of Wheat and Maize Technologies in Arsi Negele. Ethiopia. Unpublished M. thesis, Alemaya University of Agriculture.

Lisa, S. and K. Jakob, 1992. Agricultural Extension in East Africa, World Bank technical papers. The World Bank Washington D.C.

Long, 1985. Interface between official and local knowledge systems. Paper for seminar Wetenschappelijke Aspekten van Landbouwkennissystemen ter gelegenheid van het vierde Iustrum van de Vakgroep voorluchtingskunde wageningen: Landbouwuniversiteit.

Loranza, C., 2002. Gender and Low, Woman Rights in Agriculture, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome.

Leathers, H.D., and M. Smale, 1991. A baysian approach to explaining Sequential adoption of components of technological Package. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(3): 734-742.

Leggesse Dadi, 2001. Adoption and Intensity of Fertilizer and Herbicide use in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia, Agricon,Vol 4 Number 3, September, South Africa.

Lelissa Chalchissa Argeta, 1998. The Determinants of Adption, Intensity and Profitability of Fertilizer Use, The case of Ejere District, West Shewa. An M.Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.

119

McSweeney, B.G., 1979. Collection and Analysis of Data on Rural Womens Time Use. Studies in Family Planning. 10(11/12): 379-383.

Mengistu Tessema, 2003. Impacts of technology on Wheat production in Bale Highland. The case of small holders farmers M.Sc. Thesis in Agricultural Economics p5-6.

Mettrick, H., 1993. Development Oriented Research in Agriculture. ICRA, Wageningen.

Million Tadesse and Belay Kassa, 2004. Determinants of fertilizer use in Gununo Area, Ethiopia. In agricultural technology evaluation, adoption and marketing: proceedings of the workshop held to discuss the socio-economic results of 1998 2002 from August 6 8, 2002. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, Addis Ababa.

Mills B.F. 1997. Ex-ante Agricultural Research Evaluation with site specific Technology Generation. The case of sorghum in Kenya. Agricultural Economics, Vol.16, pp.125-138.

MoA, 1993. Principles of Organization and Implementation of Agricultural Extension Services. MoA Addis Ababa (Amharic Text).

MoA. 1984. Agriculture in Ethiopia. The Establishment and Development of MoA. Committee for Compiling the History of MoA. July 1984. MoA. Addis Ababa. (Amharic Text).

Mulugeta Mekuria, 1992. Farming systems Research in Ethiopia: evolution, development and organization.

Mulugeta Mekuria, 1995. Technology Development and Transfer in Ethiopian Agriculture: An Empirical Evidence. Proceedings of the Inaugural and First Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society of Ethiopia.

Nagy, Josef G., and John H. Sanders, 1997. Agricultural technology development and dissemination within a farming system perspective. Agricultural Systems 32 (305-320).

Nair, K.N.N.S., 1984. Economic Analysis of Land Use. Assistance to Land Use Planning/ Ethiopia. Technical Report 8. FAO. Rome.

120

Negatu W., and A. Parikh, 1999. The Impact of Perception and Other Factors on the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in the Moret and Jiru Woreda of Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics 21 (1999) 205-216.

Nkonya, E.T. Schroeder, T. and Norman D., 1997. Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Maize seed and fertilizer in Northern Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Economics. 4: 1-11.

Norman, D.W., J.D. Siebert, E. Modiakgotla, and F.D. Worman, 1994. Farming Systems Research Approach: A Prime for Eastern and Southern Africa. FAO/SIDA, Botswana. Olawoye, J. E., 1989a. Difficulties for rural women in securing resources for agricultural production: Two case studies from Oyo State, Nigeria. Rural Development in Nigeria.

Ramasamy, C., Cynthia S. Bantilan, S. Elangovan, and M. Asokan, 1999. Perceptions and Adoption decisions of farmers in cultivation of improved pearl millet cultivars: A study in Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54 (2).

Rangaswamy, R., 1995. A textbook of Agricultural Statistics. Weley Eastern Lmited, New Delhi.

Reij, Chris and Ann W. Bayer, 2002. Farmer Innovation in Africa: A Source of Inspiration for Agricultural Development. Earths can publications Ltd, London.

Rling, N.G., 1988. Extension Science, Information Systems in Agricultural Development Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. pp 37-187.

Rling, N.G., and Jiggins, J., 1998. The Ecological Knowledge System. In: Rling, N. G., and Wagemakers, M.A.E. (eds.). Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Participatory Learning and Adaptive Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press. New York. pp 283-331.

Rogers, E.M., 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, McMillan Publishing Co. New York.

Rogers, E. M., and F.F. shoemaker, 1971. Communication of Innovation. A Cross-cultural Approach, Second Edition. The free press, New York.

121

Saito, K., and Weidemann, C. J., 1990. Agricultural extension for women farmers in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Saito, K., Hailu Mekonen, and Spurling, D. 1994. Raising the Productivity of Women in SubSaharan Africa. The International Bank for Construction and Development of the World Bank, Washington D.C, USA. 110pp.

Samanta, R. K., 1994. They reap less than they sow. The Hindu (April), No. 7. Madras: India. Sarantakos, R., 1988. Social Research, Second Edition. Macmillan Press Londen.pp350.

Schultz, T.W., 1975. The Value of the Ability to deal with Disequilibria. Journal of Economic Literature, 13: 827-846.

Seme Debella, 1988. Agricultural research and food production in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural sciences 10:25-37.

Stommes, E. and Sisaye, S., 1979. The administration of agriculture development programes. A look at the Ethiopian approach; Part one Agricultural Administration.

Strck, H., Bezabeh Emana, Brhanu Adenew, and Shimels W/ Hawariate, 1991. Farming system and Farm Management Practices smallholders in Harerge Highlands. In farming Systems and Resource Economics in the Tropics: Vol. 11, Wisse schaftsuerlage, Vauk,kicl,F.R. Germany.

Techane Adugna, 2002. Determinants of fertilizer adoption in Ethiopia; The case of Major cereal Producing Areas, M.Sc. Thesis Agricultural Universities Alemaya University.

Teressa Adugna, 1997. " Factors Influencing the Adoption and Intensity of Use of Fertilizer: The Case of Lume District, Central Ethiopia, Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 36: 173-187.

Tesfai Tecle, 1975. Application of Multivariate Probit Analysis to Adoption of new Agricultural Practices. Ethiopian Journal of Development Research 2(1): 43-54.

122

Tesfaye Lemma and Fekadu Beyene, 2000. Assessment of Effectiveness of Extension Program In Haraghe Highlands: the case of maize extension package A Research Project ,Department of Agricultural Extension.

Tesfaye Lemma, 2003. Livelihood strategies in the context of population pressure: A case study in the Hararghe highland, eastern Ethiopia. Ph. D. Thesis. University of Pretoria.

Tesfaye Tekle, 1974. An Economic Evaluation of Package Programs in Ethiopia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornel University. Tesfaye Zegeye, Bedassa Tadesse, and Shiferaw Tesfaye, 2001. Determinants of high yielding maize technology adoption. Empirical evidence from Southwestern Oromia. Research Report No. 38. Ethiopia Agricultural Research Organization (EARO), 2001. 39p.

United Nations, 1994. Discrimination against women: The convention and the committee facts.

Vanclay, F. and Lawrence, G., 1996. Farmer Rationality and the Adoption of Environmentally Sound Practices: A Critique of the Assumptions of Traditional Extension. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension Vol. 1. No. 1. (On-line journal).

van den Ban, A. W., 1996. Agricultural Extension. Formaly of department of Extension Education Agricultural University. Wagieningen ,The Netherlands. Second Edition.

Van Veldhuizen D., Laurens V., Ann W., and Henk, D. Z., 1997. Developing Technology with Farmers: A Trainers Guide for Participatory Learning. Zed Books Ltd, London.

Wolday Amaha, 1999. "Improved Seed Marketing and Adoption in Ethiopia. "Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 3:41-81.

World Bank, 1995. Toward Gender Equality: The Role of Public Policy. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

123

7. APPENDICES

124

Appendix Table 1. Distribution of sample households based on resource level and gender Wealth indicating Variables HHs Typology Rich Medium Poor Poorest N
Source: Computed from own survey data

HHs category based on gender Male N (%) 12(8.0) 31(20.7) 16 (10.7) 18(12) 100 Female N (%) 4 (2.7) 12(8.0) 22(14.6) 35(23.3) 50 Total N (%) 16 (10.7) 43 (28.7) 38 (25.3) 53 (35.3) 150

Land holdings (ha) 2 1.99-1 0.99-0.5 0.49

Crop coverage (ha) 1 0.5 - 1 0.25 - 0.49 0.24

Livestock Owned (N.) 10 9-5 4 2 1

Where: N=Number

(%) = percent

125

Appendix Table 2. Association and correlation tests of explanatory variables between user and non-user..*.
N= 150

S. N
1. 2.

Descriptions
Participation in planning Participation in training Participation in field day Practicing on-farm trial and demonstration Participation in exhibition Credit use Educational level

Level of measure ment

Nominal

Response
NO Yes NO Yes NO Yes NO Yes NO Yes NO Yes Illiterate Literate
_

Nonuser %
72.4 27.6 91.4 8.6 93.1 6.9 75.9 24.1 98.3 1.7 38.7 61.3 65.5 34.5 Mean 42.33 3.431 0.676 1.969 1.310 Ratio 0.0645

User %
52.2 47.8 68.5 31.5 73.9 26.1 45.7 54.3 94.6 5.4 1.1 98.9 48.9 51.1 Mean 40.930 3.750 1.430 5.069 2.11 Ratio 0.093

2
6.072 b 10.643 a 8.629 a 13.272 a 1.276 d 19.769 4.204 d

Gamma
0.413 0.660 0.653 0.578 0.532 0.927a 0.276

P(sig.)
0.014 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.259 0.001 0.24

3.

4.

5. 6. 7

t=value -0.981 d 1.389 d 5.163 a 4.706 4.145

a a

8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Age Active labour force Land size TLU DAs contact

Ordinal

_ _ _ _ _

Spearma n CC -0.083 0.117 0.395 0.417 0.322 Pearsons 0.209

P(sig.) 0.329 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 P(Sig) 0.014

t=value

13.

Awareness level

Ratio (interval)

2.601 b

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: Where: a, b, and c are significant at less than 1%, 5% and 10% level of significance
2=Chi-test value
*

P= Significant value

N=Number of respondents

= Utilization of selected technological packages (maize, horticulture, coffee, poultry, dairy, and fattening packages).

126

Appendix Table 3. Size of land holdings of the sample households

Land size Resource-rich (ha) (%) 0-0.5 0.0 0.51-1 1.01-1.5 1.51-2 2.01-2.5 2.51-3 >3 N 59 13.6 18.6 44.1 10.2 3.4 10.2

Resource-poor (%) 53.8 40.7 2.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 91

Male (%) 30.0 28.0 8.0 20.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 100

Female (%) 38.0 34.0 10.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50

Total (%) 32.7 30 8.7 19.3 4.0 1.3 4.0 150

Cumulative percentage 32.7 62.7 71.4 90.7 94.7 96.0 100

Source: Computed from own survey data

Appendix Table 4. Coefficients of Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) Livestock type Calf Weaned Calf Heifer Cows/oxen Horse/Mule Donkey Donkey (Young) Sheep/Goat Sheep/Goat (Young) Camel Chicken Source: Storck et al. (1991) TLU (Tropical Livestock Unit) 0.20 0.34 0.75 1.00 1.10 0.70 0.35 0.13 0.06 1.25 0.013

127

Appendix Table 5. A partial procedure of developing wealth ranking score for the sample HHs using key-informants Key informants Response Key-informant 1. Key-informant 2. Key-informant 3.
Descrip tions Score Descrip tions Score Descrip tions Score

S.N 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. etc..

HHs Represe ntation A B C D E F G H I J

Average
Score Assigned Typology

Rich Poor Poor Rich Poorer Poor Rich Medium Rich Rich

1.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00

Rich Medium Poorer Medium Poorer Poor Rich Poor Rich Medium

1.00 0.75 0.25 0.75 0.25 0.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.75

Rich Medium Poor Rich Poor Poor Medium Medium Rich Rich

1.00 0.75 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.75 1.00 1.00

1.00 0.67 0.41 0.92 0.33 0.50 0.92 0.67 1.00 0.92

Rich Medium Poor Rich Poorer Poor Rich Medium Rich Rich

Source: Computed from own survey data

Whereas: Average score from 1 to 0.9 is taken as rich HHs Average score from 0.85 to 0.68 is taken as medium HHs Average score from 0.67 to 0.45 is taken as poor HHs Average score from 0.33 to 0.25 is taken as very poor HHs * The table shows wealth rankings of 10 representatives of the sample HHs, whereas the process was continued until to reach the total HHs of the sampling frame.

128

Appendix Figure 1. Sampling procedure in the form of sketch table to select sample household-heads Target Population 64 PAs
Simple random sampling

Three key-informants from each PAs selected for wealth ranking

Sampling Frame 6 PAs

Wealth ranking

Rich HHs

Medium HHs

Poor HHs

Poorest HHs

Resource-rich HHs (N=59)

Resource-poor HHs (N=91)

Male HHs (N=43)

Female HHs (N=16)

Male HHs (N=57)

Female HHs (N=34)

Sampling Unit Total Sampled HHs (N=150) Remark: 1. Rich and medium HHs are taken as resource-rich HHs ; and the poor and poorest HHs arte taken as resource-poor HHs for analytical purpose of the study. 2. Lastely, 59 resource-rich HHs and 91 resource-poor HHs, , of which male and female HHs were 100 and 50 respectively.

129

Appendix Figure 2. Distribution of sample household heades based on resource level.

70

60

50

40

Percent
30

Male Femal Total

20

10

Resource-rich Households category

Resource-poor

Source: Computed from own survey data

130

Appendix Figure 3. Distribution of sample HHs based on level of utilization of selected six packages (coffee, maize, horticulture, poultry fattening, and dairy).

Utilization Level of Technological packeges 120 100 Percent 80 60 40 20 0

Utilize six out of six Utilize five out of six Utilize four out of six Utilize three out of six Utilize two out of six Utilize one out of six Non users

R es ou rc eric R h es ou rc epo or

m al e Fe

al e

Level of Utilization

Source: Computed from own survey data

131

To ta l

Appendix Figure 4. Distribution of sample HHs based on level of utilization of maize packeges

90 80 70 60 Percent 50 40 30 20 10 0 MDUIR MDIR MDUR MDR Combination of compents of maize packeges Rich Poor Male Female Total

Source: Computed from own survey data Where: M= Improved variety of maize U=Urea fertilizer D=Dap fertilizer I=Insecticides R=Row planting

132

Appendix Figure 5. Distribution of sample HHs based on level of utilization of elements of poultry
package

120 100 80 Percent P 60 40 20 0 R e so u rc e-ric h R e so u rc e -p o o r M ale F e m a le H o u se h o ld ca teg o ry PFH PV H PH FV

Source: Computed from own survey data

Where: P=Improved variety of poultry F=improved feeding H=Housing V=Vaccine

133

Appendix Questionnaire III. Interview schedule used for farmer respondents Part one: Identification 1.1. Name of the respondent ___________________________________ 1.2. Peasant association_______________________________________ 1.3. Village_________________________________________________ 1.4. Date of interview_________________________________________ 1.5. Name of enumerator______________________________________ Part two: Household Characteristics 2.1. Head of household: 1. Sex_________ 1. Male 2. Age_________ 3. Martial status: ________

2. Female

a. Single________ a. Married_______ c. Divorce_______ d. Window_______ e. Widower_______ 2.2. Total number of household members__________________ Table 1. Household composition / Labour endowment S. N Name Age Sex Educational Level Active labour force

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2.4. Number of household members permanently working on-farm___________ 2.5. Number of household members working off -farm activities ____________ Part three: Household resource endowment 3.1.What is your total farm land______________(ha). 3.2. Land use and cropping pattern. 134

a. Enset _________ b. Coffee__________ c. Chat___________ d. Wheat__________ e. Barely_________ f. teff g. Maize__________ h. Grazing_________ i. Eucalyptus tree___________ j. Others__________________ __________________ __________________ 3.3. Number of livestock owned by the household 1. Cattle____________ a. Milking cows_________ b. Heifers______________ c. Oxen________________ d. Caves________________ 2. Sheep________ 3. Goat_________ 4. Mule_________ 5. Horse________ 6. Donkey______ 7. Chicken______ 8. Been hives, Modern ____________Traditional ____________ 3.4. Do you have your own house? 1. Yes ______________ 2. No___________ 3.5. If yes, indicate the number of house owned by the house hold___________ 3.5.1. Type of house: 1. Corrugated iron___________ 2. Grass house with out partition__________ 3. Grass house with partition___________ 4. 1and 2 or 3___________ Part Four: Coverage and Nature of Extension Program 4.1.1. Have you ever utilized any extension packages? ______ 1, Yes 2, No

135

4.2.2. If yes, indicate the package that you have used below in the table. S. Extension Practiced N. program and packages services provided 1. 2. 3. 4 5. 6. Cereal package (maize) Coffee package Horticulture Dairy package Fattening Poultry Reason for not utilized

Alternative reason for not utilizing 1. Unavailability of input on time 2. Lack of money (cash) 3. Lack of dawn payment 4. Unable to repay the previous loan. 5. Lack of labour 6. Lack of interest to participate 7. High input cost 8. Lack of credit 9. Extension package is tedious 10. It is not profitable 11. Shortage of land 12. If other specify ______________

136

Part Five: Level of Awareness and utilization about extension packages Fully Aware Not Aware

S. N 1

Type of the Program (Package) Existence of maize package: Improved seed DAP fertilizer Urea fertilizer Row planting Herbicide/Insecticide Credit Existence of dairy package: Improved species Improved feeding Housing Medicine /Vaccination Credit allowed Existence of fatting Package: Improved species Improved feeding Housing Vaccination Fatting period (twice) Credit Existence of sheep and goat package: Improved species Improved feeding Housing Vaccination Credit Existence of poultry package: Improved Variety Improved feeding Vaccination Housing Credit

Utilized components

137

Part Six: Constraints on extension program coverage and utilization 6.1.Have you ever faced with constraints on access and utilization of credit? _____ 1, Yes 2, No 6.1.2. If yes, what is the main constraint? _________________________ 1. Unavailable on time 2. Scarcity 3. Unable to pay down payment 4. Lack of credit 5. Lack of collateral 6. High interest rate 7. If other specify___________________________________ 6.2. Have you ever faced with constraints on access to package inputs (improve seed and fertilizer)? ______ 1, Yes 2, No 6.2.1. If yes, what is the main constraint? ______________ 1. Poor quality of improved seed 2. Insufficient delivery 3. Unavailable on time 4. Source from far distance 5. Less Extension support 6. If other specify___________________________________ 6.3. Have you ever faced with constraints on utilization of improved seed? _________ 1, Yes 2, No 6.3.1. If yes, what is the main continents?_______________ 1. Unable to pay the privies loan 2. Lack of down payment 3. Deterioration of the package 4. Land shortage 5. Labour shortage 6. Less extension follow-up 7. High in put Cost 8. Others 6.4. Have you ever faced with constraints on utilization of development agent?_______ 1, Yes 2, No 6.4.1. If yes, what is the main constraint? ______________ 1. Lack of credibility 2. Poor technical know how of DAs 3. Lack of interest to support farmers 4. Farmer selection biases 5. If other specify _________ 6.5. Have you ever faced with constraints on participation of farmer organization 138

(cooperatives)? ____________1, Yes 6.5.1. If yes, what is the main constraint? ___________ 1. Lack of credibility in the past organization 2. Lack of many 3. Lack of in interest 4. Corruption 5. Poor capital progress 6. If other, specify_____________________

2,No

6.6. Have you ever faced what constraints on access and utilization of market? _______ 1, Yes 2, No 6.6.1. If yes, what is the main constraint? ___________ 1. Unable to get market in formation 2. Far distant of market place 3. Unable to get alternative market 4. Lack of transportation 5. High market tax 6. If other, specify_____________________ Part Seven: Participation in various areas of extension 7.1. Have you ever participated in extension planning in the past five year production period 1. Yes ___________ 2. No___________ 7.1.1. If no, why? 1. No invited to participate___________ 2. No interest in the program___________ 3. Others specify__________________________, __________________________ 7.1.2. If yes, in what area of planning you have participated? 1. Evaluation of the past year achievement_________ 2. Current Situation analysis___________ 3. Problem identification______________ 4. Setting alternative solution___________ 5. Setting plan___________ 6. Others specify, ______________, ________________ 7.2. what was your contribution? 1. Information supply __________ 2. Need specified_________ 3. Listener________ 4. Others specify_________, ___________ 7.3. Have you ever participated in extension training the past five year production period?____ 1. Yes________ 2. No___________ 7.3.1. If no, why? 1. No invited to participate____________ 2. No interest in the program___________ 3. Others specify __________, ______________ 139

7.3.2. If yes, in what area of extension training you have participated? Crop production Livestock production General_______ Feeding_____ Management_____ Housing________ Health care____ Soil and water conservation General________ Survey______ Physical structure___ Biological measure____ If other ________ ________ ________ ________

General___ Sowing and planting___ Weeding________ Crop protection____ Harvesting and storing_______ 7.3.3. If no, why? 1. No invited to participate____________ 2. No interest in the program___________ 3. Others specify __________, ______________ 7.4. Have you ever attended any farmers field day? 1. Yes________ 2. No___________

7.4.1. If no, why? 1. No invited to participate___________ 2. No interest in the program___________ 3. Others specify____________, _____________ 7.5. Have you ever hosted, extension demonstration, or on farm experiments on your field the past five-year production period? 1. Yes______________ 2. No____________ 7.5.1. If not, why? 1. No invited to do___________ 2. No interest in the program___________ 3. Others specify______________________________________ 7.6. Have you ever participated in extension exhibition in the past five-year production period? 1. Yes______________ 2. No____________ 7.6.1.. If not, why? 1. No invited to do___________ 2. No interest in the program___________ 3. Others specify______________________________________ 7.7. Have you ever participated in farmers field day in the past five-year production period? 1. Yes______________ 2. No____________ 7.7.1. If not, why? 1. No invited to do___________ 2. No interest in the program___________ 3. Others specify______________________________________ 7.8. Have you any contact with development agent?__________ 140

1,Yes _____________ 2, No ___________ 7.8.1. If yes, How many times you have contact in a month? _______ and 7.9. What types of service most of the time you are getting from DAs 1. Technical support_________ 2. Theoretical information________ 3. Input Supply___________ 4. Experience share_________ 5. Others specify________________, _____________. 7.9.1. If no, Why? _____________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ 7.10. Have you used fertilizer in the previous year?___________ 1. Yes _________2. No___________ 7.11.1. If yes, Haw did you get fertilizer? 1. By 100% credit_______ 2. By 70% credit___________ 3. By 50% credit___________ 4. By 30% credit___________ 5. By 100% cash ____________ 7.11.2. If yes, indicate the amount of fertilizer that you have used_________ 7.11. Do you believe that extension package bring any change in your asset formation? 7.11.1. If yes, indicate type and Value of it/them. 1. Type____________ value ____________ 2. Type _____________value ___________ 7.11.2. Indicate the amount of cash that you saved in 2004 production year. __________

141