The training and visit (T&V) system of agricultural extension service management was introduced in Kenya by the World Bank in 1982. Two Bank projects, the First and Second National Extension Projects (NEP I and II), supported the program until 1998, and had two main goals: institutional development of extension services and sustained increases in agricultural productivity.

The effectiveness of the approach has been the subject of much debate. A recent study by the Independent Evaluation Group (IEG) set out to determine the impact of the projects. In interpreting the study findings, it is important to distinguish between the rationale for extension services per se and the outcomes that resulted from the design and implementation of the two projects in Kenya. While there continues to be demand for extension services, the evaluation
found limited progress in institutional development and an extension approach that was neither efficacious nor financially sustainable.

The Kenyan system lacks a focus on farmer empowerment. It is based on a traditional top-down supply-driven approach that provides little or no voice to the farmer. While NEP I made some positive contributions in its early years, there is no evidence of a significant or sustained impact on agricultural productivity. A positive return to the expenditures on the extension service could not be established.

Conclusions and Lessons

The rationale for providing extension services in Kenya is still relevant, but the evidence suggests that the extension approach used by NEP I and II was not efficacious. The performance of the T&V system as applied in Kenya has been disappointing. The system as implemented has been ineffective, inefficient, and unsustainable. While the projects helped improve the system’s coverage, research-extension linkages, and the skills of extension staff, the overall outreach and the quality of interaction between extension agents and farmers have been well below expectations. The evidence does not indicate a significant impact either on farmer efficiency or on crop productivity.

While it is likely that the first project had some early beneficial impact, it appears to have been short-lived. A positive rate of return on investment expenditures on extension could not be established. The evaluation did reveal that there is unmet demand for extension services, and that farmers are willing to pay for them. The worth of the perceived benefits from the current services, as reflected in the amount that the farmers are willing to pay, however, is
significantly lower than current government spending per farm to deliver them. Overall, the findings indicate that a more rational allocation of extension resources could have been more cost-effective.

The main lessons that have emerged from the evaluation are as follows:

Targeting
Extension services need to be efficiently targeted to focus on the areas and groups where the marginal impact is likely to be the greatest. This calls for a more flexible system that can identify the gaps between best and average practice and allocate scarce resources more rationally. In addition, the farmers selected for interaction should represent local socioeconomic conditions.

Information systems
Targeting calls for appropriate flows of timely and reliable information, and hence for monitoring and evaluation. Farmers’ demands should be identified, and the extension service tailored to suit local technological and economic circumstances.

Intensity
Given farmers’ desire for less frequent visits and the lack of sufficient technological recommendations to sustain a high level of visits, a leaner and less intensive system with wider coverage would be more cost-effective. With improved quality, demand could well increase, which reinforces the need for a responsive and dynamic system and effective targeting for
maximum results.

Pluralism
The use of a uniform methodology to deliver standard messages limits the system’s effectiveness and efficiency. A strategy that exploits low-cost communication methods such as radio, demonstrations, printed media, and partnerships with civil society and
the private sector might be more effective.

Client focus
The system’s central focus should be to empower farmers by giving them a voice in the extension delivery system. This can be achieved in a number of ways, such as cost sharing, farmers’ organizations, and decentralization. Such alternatives should be an
integral part of the delivery mechanism.

Agricultural Extension: The Kenya Experience - An Impact Evaluation

Precis