:-
AL. A .1...
a.

an... an
a ,

.,...x....
:3. 3.»..1
.2 “r g
URN-v .41»!
_. a
.

b .

”:3..qu , . \‘ €26...

1‘! .. ii u
. . n

«a M
v.9...
kl
nun.
..u....s..;......w.£...u, saw? 2%..9.
.. : aﬁiﬁ. 4mm... 1.3.5..“

9.??? .
x 1
w.“ "IN-1:36-
ﬁaahu...i.hcn

.0." 'JI‘
.3! as}? ..

xiii; t .1?
LI“.

dsuwﬁgtﬁi

s ‘1‘: . DIA
hat-3....“ :1“ t;ﬁ.zurtlpn
ao‘i.ton«z‘v¢|ox.‘!
‘6‘. «3 .26)

3;)... III.

‘ 1.; l'uhl

v}

1. :Ils

Ikn

‘ .,:.1!...-3v$:l. c...
.. tifi.€¥:.6!ll!t!n ‘7
.7111: 3:53:14: '0!!!
35.5332. 3....
3 .uﬁﬁic..3....:?
1 ui‘lﬁa
ill .37

 

$1113.11: 504.!!‘\ 1
lC.‘i:§:. A:¢¢(!1}un.l.{
.12. ‘\I?i%l.‘ 0.1,!
.. 1193...)... 1.1.! .
. Sufxuﬂ p 5i:,¢Vn.
{in}?! 9:!" . :
‘ .. §t|

 

; . , , . _ giggw, __ Egﬂégﬁwﬁﬁ

..)..I‘;. ... A. .1. 1.. .3. :1 . .
, 3. gm ,m..ﬂv.8~u¢.\ n w..- w.%ﬂAWJ.m-k.l. .. ‘ V ‘ 4 . : . “‘11.”: . ‘1‘..nt....u!. .s . .ulx.ub....

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
SERVICES IN MEXICO: CASE STUDY IN NAYARIT
STATE

presented by

ELIZABETH LANDA FRANCO

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Agricultural and
Extension Education

/‘ 1, (Lump; Ml;

Major professor

DR . MURARI SUVED I

M ' S ' degree in

 

 

 

Date APRIL 2. 2002

0-7 639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

DEC 2 6 2003

 

ﬁhiiﬁ

r937

 

AUG 2 1 2001

‘

 

082207

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c-JCIRC/DateDuo.p65-p.15

 

PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
SERVICES IN MEXICO: CASE STUDY IN NAYARIT
STATE

By

Elizabeth Landa Franco

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of ANR Education and Communication Systems

2002

ABSTRACT

PERFORMANCE OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES IN MEXICO:
CASE STUDY IN NAYARIT STATE
. By
Elizabeth Landa Franco

In 2001 the presence of a new Federal Government in Mexico resulted in
several changes in the rural policy. One of the programs that suffered more
changes was the extension services. This study assesses the new strategy
implemented that seeks through the implementations of income-generation
projects promote the rural development. This is an exploratory study intended to
draw conclusions that serve to assist stakeholders and decision makers to
improve the program.

This study was conducted during Dec 2001-Feb 2002 in Nayarit State in
Mexico. Data were collected from extension advisers, farmers’ organizations and
key administrators of the program. Findings showed that the new strategy
adopted in 2001 compared with the 1996-200 extension model, brought about
improvements in aspects such as the extension advisers’ training and in the
activities implemented by the extension advisers.

However, there are still some deﬁciencies related to the operation and
monitoring of the program that limit the program outcomes. Thus, in order to
improve the quality of the services delivered it should be promoted the participation
of the beneﬁciaries in the program as well as the implementation of some changes

in the institutional structure in charge of the operation of the program.

To my mother:

for her guidance, support and love

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank to Dr. Murari Suvedi who served as my academic
advisor at Michigan State University for his guidance, supervision, suggestions
and invaluable support during all the stages of the study process.

A special gratitude and appreciation is to Dr. Horacio Santoyo Cortes for
his professional advice, personal encouragement and support all the time. The
thanks are extended to the CIESTAAM at University of Chapingo for the support
during the preparation and implementation of this study.

The author also wants to thank Dr. Kirk Heinze, Chairperson of the
Department of Agricultural and Extension Education for providing departmental
support and Dr. Frank Brewer member of the Committee for his suggestions to
improve this study.

I appreciate the support given by the Center for Latin American and
Caribbean Studies at Michigan State University for granting me the Tinker Field
Research Grant.

Finally, I want to thank to all Nayarit extension staff as well as all other

people who took time out to participate in this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. VII
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. IX
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
Background ....................................................................................................... 2
Purpose of the study ................................................. . ........................................ 9
Research questions ........................................................................................ 1O
Scope of the study .......................................................................................... 1 0
Limitations of the study .................................................................... 11
Deﬁnition of terms ............... 12
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................................... 14
Program planning and extension systems ...................................................... 14
Historical overview of extension services in Mexico ....................................... 15
Rural Policy in Mexico: The Alliance for the Countryside ................................ 18
The institutional arrangements to operate the new strategy ........................... 22
Program evaluation deﬁned ............................................................................ 25
Comprehensive evaluation approach ............................................................. 27
Training Evaluation ......................................................................................... 29
What is training evaluation? ..................................................................... 30

Doing training evaluation .......................................................................... 30
Indicators in evaluation ......................................................................... g 33
What are indicators? ................................................................................ 33
Function and use of indicators .................................................................. 34
Criteria for choosing indicators ................................................................. 35
Concern with the use of indicators ........................................................... 36
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 38
Design of the study ......................................................................................... 38
Population and sample ................................................................................... 39
Data Collection ............................................................................................... 40
Data analysis .................................................................................................. 43
Criteria and indicators used ............................................................................ 44

CHAPTER IV RESULTS ..................................................................................... 48

Question 1. What is the proﬁle of extension advisers and what is their

perception about the training program? .......................................................... 48
Extension advisers’ proﬁle ........................................................................ 48
Quality of the training program ................................................................. 50
Assessment of the projects and use of the training to develop the projects’
proposals .................................................................................................. 53

Question 2. What kinds of income-generation projects did the extension

advisers identify? ............................................................................................ 58
Activities involved in the projects .............................................................. 58
Projects’ current situation ......................................................................... 60
Number of projects submitted by advisers ................................................ 62
Projects funded and implemented ............................................................ 63
Beneﬁciaries proﬁle .................................................................................. 64
Respondents’proﬁle ................................................................................. 67

Question 3. What is the level of involvement of the beneﬁciaries or members
of farmers’ organizations in the projects development and implementation?..70

Question 4. What is the current mechanism to advise and monitor the

extension advisers’ work? ............................................................................... 75
Question 5. What is the extension advisers’ perception about the new
strategy? ......................................................................................................... 78
CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........ 80
Conclusions and recommendations ................................................................ 80
About the extension advisers’ training program ........................................ 80
About the income-generation projects and their beneﬁciaries .................. 81
About the new strategy ............................................................................. 84
Final comment ................................................................................................ 87
APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE ANS SURVEYS MATERIALS ....................... 88
APENDIX B FIELDWORK NOTES ..................................................................... 98
LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................ 102

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Training quality (N=42) ........................................................................... 51
Table 2 Trainers’ quality (N=42) .......................................................................... 51
Table 3 Percent of respondents rating the instructional design (N=42) ............... 52
Table 4 Results of ﬁrst of round rating of proposals (N=82) ................................ 54
Table 5 Completeness of projects’ proposal (N=82) ........................................... 55
Table 6 Extension advisers” rating of training issues quality (N=42) ................... 56
Table 7 Relevancy of projects (N=82) ................................................................. 57
Table 8 Congruency of proposals (N=82) ........................................................... 58
Table 9 Accuracy of project information (N=82) .................................................. 58
Table 10 Type of farm operation involved in the projects (N=82) ........................ 59
Table 11 Type of agriculture activity involved in the projects(N=82) ................... 59
Table 12 Total resources needed to fund projects (N=82) .................................. 61
Table 13 Characteristics of agricultural projects funded and implemented ......... 64
Table 14 Year of establishment of farmers' organizations (N=30) ...................... 65
Table 15 Kind of services offered by the farrners’ organizations (N=30) ............. 65
Table 16 Farmers’ organizations’ assets in Nayarit State (N=30) ....................... 66
Table 17 Farmers’ organizations’ number of members (N=30) ........................... 66
Table 18 Respondents’ age (N=45) .................................................................... 68
Table 19 Respondents’ education level (N=45) .................................................. 68
Table 20 Respondents’ main farm operation (N=45) .......................................... 69
Table 21 Respondents’ attendance at meetings (N=45) ..................................... 71

vii

Table 22 Comparison of farmers’ participation in the project (N-45) ................... 72

Table 23 Extension advisers’ perception about farmers’ participation (N=42) ..... 73

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Institutional arrangements of extension model 1996-2000 ...................... 5
Figure 2 Location of Nayarit State ....................................................................... 11
Figure 3 Institutional arrangements to the new strategy (2001) .......................... 23
Figure 4 Extension advisers’ gender ................................................................... 48
Figure 5 Age of Extension advisers ..................................................................... 49
Figure 6 Extension advisers” residence .............................................................. 50
Figure 7 Projects’ ﬁnal global score (N=82) ........................................................ 54
Figure 8 Projects’ current situation (N=30) .......................................................... 60
Figure 9 Number of projects submitted by advisers (N=82) ................................ 62
Figure 1D Farmers’ experience in the activity involved in the project (N=45) ...... 70
Figure 11 Satisfaction with the professional advisers work (N=45) .................... 77

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The history of economic development shows that few countries have
achieved sustained economic growth without ﬁrst or simultaneously, developing
their agricultural sector. In most developing countries, agriculture is the most
important economic activity providing income, employment, and foreign
exchange. Without an efﬁcient agricultural sector, a country is severely
constrained in its ability to feed itself or import foreign products for domestic
consumption and development (Evenson and Feder, 1991 ).

In a world undergoing structural adjustment and market liberalization, the
dominant public organizations serving agriculture (research, extension, credit)
are being challenged to look for less costly and more pluralistic systems than can
be privatized or served by nongovernmental organizations. In light of this rapidly
changing global economic environment, one of the most important policy
initiatives that is needed in extension is to shift the primary focus of power and
responsibility for extension to the clients, this is ‘put the farmers ﬁrst’. There is
abundant evidence that the ‘normal’ incentive system facing government
employees, even under the most enlightened circumstances, puts a premium on
not making a mistake and on length of service but not necessarily on service to
clients, particularly small farmers. However, some studies have found that the
most important determinant of extension success is the strength of farmer

organization (Antholt, 1998).

The opposite side of the accountability coin is to expect the beneﬁciaries
of extension to be responsible for some of the support, even if it is only a
proportion of the total cost. This is important for three reasons. First, it gives the
beneﬁciaries ownership and drawing rights on the services. Second, it takes
some of the ﬁnancial pressure off the central government and, therefore, gets at
the issue of ﬁnancial sustainability. Lastly, if ownership and responsibility rest
with clients, the basis for more demand-driven, responsive service is established.

The exact nature of the accountability and responsibility relationships have
varied among different countries such as Zimbabwe, China, Chile, among others,
that have tried different arrangements to achieve it (Antholt, 1998). Mexico has
now the opportunity to make changes to its agricultural services in order to
assure that agricultural services are available, adequate, relevant and responsive

to the farmers’ needs.
Background

Agricultural services in Mexico have a recent history, beginning in the
1940s. During this time three different stages can be identiﬁed:

1. Before the 19803. By 1960, the importance of technological change in
agriculture was beginning to be recognized. The establishment of the
lntemational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico (CIMMYT) led
to the development of high-yielding varieties that were responsible for the
increases of production between 1960 and 1970. The success of the Green
Revolution was attributed to the short, fertilizer-responsive maize and wheat

varieties, to irrigation and to improvement in national institutions and an

increase in the number of trained agriculturalists (Mellor, 1998). The high-yield
varieties were made available along with technical assistance and support for
basic agricultural institutions. Thus, during this time there were nearly 20,000
extension workers hired by the federal government working in the ﬁeld
(Altamirano, 1999).

2. Between 1980-1995. The debt crisis in 1982 triggered a wave of policy reforms
under the umbrella of a structural adjustment program. This program has two
phases (Staatz and Eicher, 1998). The stabilization phase attempted to
reestablish macroeconomic balance by reducing government budget deﬁcits
(by cutting governments spending and increasing revenues) and lowering
balance-of-payments deﬁcit (typically via currency devaluation and export
promotion). It was the ﬁrst phase of this program —cut in the government
budget- that resulted in a reduction of the governmental structure in such away
that the extension services nearly disappeared between 1988-1995.

3. After 1996. As a result of storage of national grain supply due to the high
international prices of food commodities, the decrease of the production in the
winter 1995-1996 by 19 million of tons, among some other factors the federal
government decided to implement extension services anew. Thus, in 1996 an

extension program was implemented. Its objectives were:

- Promote the technological change and to increase the agricultural
production through technical assistance,

- Spread technologies validated by research institutions,
- Encourage farrners’ organization and
- Increase farmer’s income.

The main characteristic of most of all programs implemented in Mexico,
both those implemented before the 1980s as the last one, is that they were
designed with an innovation-centered approach since their primary function was
in terms of technology transfer from ‘outside’ to the farm. The speciﬁc objective
was to widespread technologies and to increase the productivity. The inherent
problem that undermines this approach is its insufﬁcient appreciation of the
farmers’ circumstances. Rather than starting from the farmers’ conditions, and
daily-faced constraints, it starts from ready-made and outside packaged
innovations, to be grafted onto the socio-economic context of a farm which may

not be capable of absorbing them (Rivera, 1997).

The main processes of the 1996-2000 extension program were:

a) Each year a written agreement was signed between the Federal Government
(FD) and each of thirty-two State Governments ($6). In this agreement
program’s goals were speciﬁed. The Federal Government contributed 70% of
the operational cost of the program and the State Government provided a 30%
match.

b) Extension workers and coordinators were hired for six to twelve months and
trained by the National Institute of Agricultural Training (INCA Rural in
Spanish).

c) Extension workers received economic support to establish demonstrative
plots, to carry out ﬁeld tours of technological exchange and to encourage

farmers’ organization.

d) The target population was groups of 80 to 120 farmers whose total production
area was 500 to 600 hectares.

e) Speciﬁc institutional arrangements were established for the program
operation, these are shown in the Figure 1.

4

Figure 1 Institutional arrangements of extension model 1996-2000

 

 

 

> [ Agricultural State Council J<
> Trusteeship of 1
I the Alliance forthe ‘ 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ministry of Countryside

Agriculture State

A riculture
——9 RuralDevelopment e I Sgecretary

Committee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Executive Extension <
Committee

I?

Technical District Committee <

\l/

I Coordinator I

\I/

L Extension agents I

 

 

V

 

 

 

 

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

The responsibilities of each of these institutions are described in detail in
Chapter 2.

One of the main characteristics of the last program was the evaluation
process included in its design and implementation. Thus, 30 states and one
national Revaluation were carried out each year. Different research institutions and
universities conducted these evaluations.

After ﬁve years of operation of this program, the evaluation studies
showed that the results attained were important but scattered and
heterogeneous. Extension activities had little inﬂuence on the evolution of
patterns of awareness and adoption of recommendations and, therefore, limited
potential for impact. In terms of the impact on agricultural production and

efﬁciency, the results indicated a small but positive impact of extension services

on technical efﬁciency but had not effect on overall economic efﬁciency (Muﬁoz,
1999; Munoz, 2000; Santoyo 2001).

The main program weaknesses identiﬁed by the evaluations were:

a) Extension agents’ training was focused only in technical aspects.
The fact of including only technical aspects in the training program contributed to
keeping the focus of the extension service on simple and basic agronomic
messages (Munoz, 1999).

b) Unclear definition of extension agents’ activities. The extension
workers centered their work on farm visits to deliver technical messages.
However, it had not established a standard about the quality and quantity of
these visits, which resulted in an infrequent and ineffective provision of visits.
Likewise, due to the lack of economic support, the demonstration plots and ﬁeld
tours of technology, included among their activities, were rarely carried out
(Munoz, 2000).

0) Extension agents’ worked only 6-8 months. Extension agents were
contracted to deliver extension services for a speciﬁc period of time, usually six
to eight months. After this, they had to look for a different work for the rest four
months in the years, limiting with this the permanence of the extension agent in
the community (Munoz, 2000).

d) Lack of mechanisms to advise, monitor and measure the
extension agents’ performance. Even though the extension agents delivered

weekly and fortnightly different reports specially designed to monitor their work,

an information system was nonexistent and it was impossible to monitor their
work through these reports.

Likewise, with the information available about the extensionists’ activities,
it was impossible to establish the impact of the supply of extension services on
productivity at the farm level, and measure the extension agents’ performance
(Munoz, 2000)

e) lnefﬁciencies in the work carried out by the organizational
structure established for the operation of the program. Management of the
program was weak. The institutional arrangements limited the timely ﬂows of
appropriate and reliable information to provide regular feedback from
beneﬁciaries on service content.

The Executive Extension Committee in charge of monitoring the program
limited its work to the follow up of the weekly and fortnightly reports delivered by
the extensionists, even though these reports did not reﬂect the real work
conducted by the extension agents in the ﬁeld (Munoz, 2000),

In 2001, a new team of agricultural policy makers analyzed the outputs of
the last extension program and concluded that the important constraints faced by
the farmers, such as a deﬁcient integration to the market, lack of knowledge to
adequately manage the farm, and lack of an agricultural project made it difﬁcult
to reach the competitiveness on base of the technological efﬁciency through the
classical model of extension, this is, transferring knowledge from the research

institutions to farmers (Santoyo, 2001).

Thus, in April 2001 a new strategy to deliver agricultural services was
proposed. Its main objective was to promote the rural development encouraging
farmers’ organization and empowering rural people to make decisions to develop
and implement income-generation projects. This means that the extension
agents had not only the responsibility of transferring technological knowledge to
growers to improve their productivity, but they should also have the capacity to
integrate all aspects of the economic chain (production, transformation and
commercialization) and identify a income-generation project through which add
value to agricultural production.

Since the extension personnel have tasks beyond to the conventional
extension concept, under this new strategy, the extension agents are called
Extension advisers (EA).

The new strategy works with the same institutional structure of the 1996-2000
program. However, there were implemented some changes in the processes
intended to correct the deﬁciencies of the former program. These were:

a) The core of the training program for the Extension advisers is the identiﬁcation
and evaluation of income-generation projects. The INCA-Rural had the

responsibility to certify the quality of the training, which would be facilitated by
institutions with experience in the subject.

b) The Extension advisers and coordinators should present before September
30th 2001, an individual income-generation project for their farmers' group or
community which will be implemented within the next two years.

c) Establishment of an information system at a national level. Through this
information system, it would be possible to access a database of each one of
the Extension advisers. This system would be developed at two levels. The

ﬁrst level would include general information about advisers including their
annual record of activities. The second level will include information about
farmers’ needs assessment, working plan, reports of activities and the income-
generation project.

d) The institutional arrangement for the program’s operation is the same as
shown in Figure 1, which will be described with more detail in Chapter 2. The
main change is that the Executive Extension Committee has now the
responsibility of establishing standards for measuring the quality of the
services delivered to the farmers.

The long run objective of this strategy is to make the services more
demand-driven and responsive to farmers’ needs. The program is designed in
such a way that the position of Extension advisers in the program will be
conditioned to the delivering of speciﬁc ‘products’. These products are: the
farmers’ group or community needs assessment, the income-generation project,

implementation and consolidation of the project.
Purpose of the study

Recognizing the importance of the implementation of this new agricultural
strategy, which was the result from the analysis of the 1996-2000 extension
program outputs, the purpose of this study is to assess the new strategy
proposed by the Federal Government in Mexico in 2001.

Since this is the ﬁrst year of operation, it will be carried out as a base line
study for Nayarit State that will seek to describe the initial situation of the farmers’
economic organizations (FEO) beneﬁciaries of the program in terms of their

social and economic characteristics. This base line evaluation will allow

assessing the impact of the program after two or three years once the projects
identiﬁed are working.

This study is intended to provide information for the federal government,
program administrators and different stakeholders who are interested in being
provided with feedback about the program implementation. This study will also

provide information intended to improve the program.
Research questions

Question 1. What is the proﬁle of extension advisers and What is their perception
about the training program?

Question 2. What kinds of income-generation projects did the Extension
advisers identify?

Question 3. What is the level of involvement of the beneﬁciaries or members of
farmers’ organizations in the projects development and
implementation?

Question 4. What is the current mechanism to advise and monitor the extension
advisers’ work?

Question 5. What is the extension advisers’ perception about the new strategy?

Scope of the study

Because of the difﬁculty implied to realize a study undertaken on a
national level, the study was carried out only in one state of the country, in
Nayarit state. Nayarit is an agricultural state, 19% of the total area is dedicated to
agricultural production and it ranks number six at the national level in production
of beans and sorghum. The agriculture activity contributes neady 20% of the

10

gross state product (INEGI, 2001). Although it is a small state (1.4% of the
national area), it presents some conditions that allow conducting a good case
study, such as willingness of the program administrator in the state to support
and participate in the data collection as well as interest in the results of this
study.

Nayarit is located between the 20° 37‘30" and 23° 0030" north latitude
and 103° 58‘04"and 105° 45%" west longitude (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Location of Nayarit State

     
 

United States

N ayarit

Pacific Ocean

Limitations of the study

One of the main characteristics of the case study is that the results and
information obtained are valid only for the area under study. Thus, although the
program is being implemented in 32 states of the country, and in some of them
the conditions and situation could be similar to those present in Nayarit state, the

results of this study absolutely could not be generalized to the rest of the country.

11

Some of the results of this study are intended to serve different
stakeholders, mainly the people in charge of the program, who could make the
changes needed to improve the program, though always taking into account the
speciﬁc conditions under which the program was implemented in Nayarit state.

In the same way, because the characteristics of the farmers’ organizations
are so different throughout the country, the base line evaluation just could be
used for future impact evaluations in Nayarit state, and not like a reference of the

current conditions of the farmers’ organizations at national level.
Deﬁnition of terms

Base line study: A description of a situation prior to implementation of an activity.
Base line studies are used to measure results and accomplishments and to serve
as reference points for ex-post evaluation (Horton, 1993).

Beneﬁciaries: People, households, organizations, communities, or other units
that are affected positively by (or beneﬁted from) a research program or activity.
Evaluation. The periodic assessment of a projects’ relevance, performance,
efﬁciency, and impact (both expected and unexpected) in relation to stated
objectives.

Professional adviser. Practitioner with wide socio—economic, technological and
ecological knowledge who assists the active participation of growers, institutions
and NGO’s with the purpose of improve the production, productivity and quality of

life of the rural population.

12

Stakeholders. People who are affected by any program or activity. The

stakeholders of an extension program include farmers, extension agents,

administrators, and government, among others.

Income-generation project: Set of actions or activities addressed to need

satisfaction or to the solution of a speciﬁc problem faced by a group of people.
Abbreviations

SG. State Government

FD. Federal Government

VEE. Executive Extension Committee

PA: Professional Adviser

INCA-Rural. National Institute of Rural Training

FO. Farmers’ Organizations

13

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This study is an assessment of a new strategy to deliver agricultural
services in Mexico, the processes implemented and some of its ﬁrst results. The
theoretical foundation for this study emerged from a review of literature on
program planning and extension systems, program evaluation and
comprehensive evaluation approach. It was also a review of literature related to

training evaluation and the use of indicators in evaluation.
Program planning and extension systems

According with Boone et al.(1994) the major outcomes sought through
planned extension programs are to effect the needed changes in the overt and
covert behaviors of targeted populations that will empower them to cope with and
bring to an acceptable and successful resolution to the issue, need or problem
with which they are now, or will be confronted.

An ideal and operational concept of a program includes (1) a deﬁnition of
a major program or need that is a critical concern to a targeted population and to
signiﬁcant other stakeholders who are affected or have a keen interest in the
problem or need; (2) clearly focused objectives; (3) carefully selected change
strategies or interventions that are linked to the objectives and that will assure
learners’ achievement of the behaviors deﬁned in the objectives; and (4) a
concise identiﬁcation or description of expected outcomes (i.e. results, impact)

that should be attained as a result of the plan and its successful implementation.

14

Continuous diagnosis, study and reﬂection on those program components
and possible other alternatives that might be pursued to obtain maximum impact
are extremely important. Data obtained from ongoing and well-planned
evaluation studies are critical to the decisions and choices made with regard with
these four components of the planned program.

Thus, armed with accurate and objective data about the problem that has
been deﬁned, validated, and legitimized; knowing who constitutes the target
population with regard to the problem; and possessing accurate information that
is based on how informed the target population is about the scope and nature of
the problem, the next step is to design a program to help the target population
acquire the knowledge, skills, understanding of, and commitment to taking the

actions needed to correct the problem.
Historical overview of extension services in Mexico

The extension services in Mexico have a recent history, initiating at the
beginning of 1940. At the end of that decade, there were only 49 extension
agents in the country, in 1954 the number increased to 230 and eight years later,

there were 258 agents (Altamirano, 1999).

It was not until the beginning of 1970 when the Extension Ofﬁce within the
Ministry of Agriculture was established and 1,500 extension agents were hired.
Years later, the Extension Ofﬁce disappeared and the extension services were
transferred to the National Institute of Agriculture and Research (INIFAP). ‘

Between 1970 and 1990, the Federal Government in Mexico designed

and implemented at least ten different programs intended to create an

15

institutional structure to deliver technicalagricultural services. However, since
most of these programs worked only for short periods of time (six or fewer years),
they did not contribute to creating the desired structure, even though by 1985
there were nearly 20, 000 extension agents working in the ﬁeld (Altamirano,
1999)

Some of the failures of these programs that reduced their effectiveness of
transferring the knowledge and technology to the farmers were:

- The low number of extension agents compared to the number of farmers,

- The concentration of efforts in irrigated areas and commercial farmers
leaving no attention to seasonal regions and small farmers,

- The lack of preparation and training of the extension agents to meet the
farmers’ needs,

- The low wages for the extension staff,

- The lack of linkages between research and extension, and

- The low rate of adoption of technology by farmers.

By 1982 Mexico initiated a structural adjustment process which resulted in
the reduction of its governmental structure in such away that during 1988 the
public extension services nearly disappeared. At this time, the strategy followed
consisted of stimulating the private sector to provide the technical services. The
strategy promoted the creation of private ofﬁces supported with public ﬁnancial
resources and in some cases the hiring of extension services obligatory to
farmers with agricultural credits (Altamirano, 1999).

For the creation of these ofﬁces, the governmental institutions developed
a program in which the cost of the technical assistance was partially reimbursed

to farmers. The support was decreased 20% each year, initiating with 80%, after

16

five years the farmers should be able to cover totally the cost of the service.
Unfortunately, this strategy did not work, mainly because the farmers did not
want to cover the cost of the service after the third year, when they had to pay
60% of the cost of the service (Altamirano, 1999).

One of the ﬁrst programs developed under this philosophy was the
System of Integral Technical Assistance (SATI in Spanish). This program was
initiated in 1982. The central idea of this program was to offer services of
extension to all those individual and organized producers that received credits
from a commercial bank. The cost of these services was covered under a
scheme of providing decreasing amounts during a period of up to ﬁve years. As
the reimbursement diminished, it was assumed that the producers would
contribute with a proportion greater every time, until covering 100% of the costs
with their own resources (Muﬁoz, 2000).

This system of subsidies or decreasing reimbursements was emulated in
other governmental extension programs such as the Program of Regional
Stimulus (PER in Spanish), High-yield Maize Program (PROMAP in Spanish),
and the Low Income Producers Program (PROBISCI in Spanish), among others.
In the case of PER and PROMAP, an additional component was included in
order to induce the adoption of technology by the farmers. This consisted of
granting an economic stimulus to those producers who obtained a yield superior
to a regional average. In the PROBISCI, unlike the rest of the programs, no

governmental institution participated in its operation because it was a

17

nongovernmental organization which had the responsibility of contracting,
supervising and evaluating the extension advisers’ performance (Muﬁoz, 2000)

In 1996, in order to overcome the adverse effects of a possible grain
shortage that was anticipated by 1996 as the result of a strong drought that
affected the country in 1995 and a fall in the lntemational grain reserves, the
Federal Government implemented public extension services again, the Basic
Agricultural Technical Assistance Program (PEAT in Spanish). This program was
part of the Alliance for the Countryside, the agricultural policy implemented in
1996. The program objectives were to increase the agricultural production by
spreading technologies developed by research institutions, increase the farmers’
income and to encourage the development of farmers’ organization.

In this program the Federal and State Governments disbursed resources
in way of subsidies to able farmers to cover the payment of the technical
services. This program tried to facilitate the transition from a deprived public
service to one of a demand-driven private service and it was assumed that

farmers could contribute to revalue the extension services.
Rural Policy in Mexico: The Alliance for the Countryside

Alliance for the Countryside is the policy basis of the Federal Government
of Mexico to promote agricultural and rural development. The program was
initiated in 1996 with the combined efforts of farmers, State and Federal
government and other organizations involved in the agricultural development in

Mexico (Suvedi, 2000).

18

It is a Federal Government strategy, in the frame of a process of
decentralization, that grants federal resources, functions and programs to the
State governments, fortifying the decentralization and giving more attributions in
the decision making process to the state, municipality, farmers and their
organizations.

Under this initiative, all States sign a technical agreement with the Federal
Government each year, committing funds to support rural and agricultural
development programs identiﬁed by the Alliance. Each State decides which
programs of the Alliance it would like to invest in, based on its own needs and
priorities. It is called the Alliance because the funds to support these programs
come from a partnership of the Federal Government, State Government and
farmers. The ultimate goal of this Alliance is empower to the State Government
to make investments in areas of their needs and priorities (Suvedi, 2000).

The alliance for the Countryside is based on a public policy intended to
bring about structural changes to address the needs for agricultural development.
It was designed to address the problems facing agricultural producers including
low productivity and low level of technology adopted by the farmers (Suvedi,
2000)

The objectives of the Alliance for the Countryside as stated in the National
Development Program (1996-2000) are the following:

- To increase farmers’ income

- To achieve an agricultural production growth rate higher than the
population growth rate.

- To improve the balance of trade

19

- To support the overall development of rural communities.

The Alliance delivers its services through four generic programs:
agricultural improvement, livestock improvement, rural development and
sanitation. Under each State Agricultural Committee, there is one sub-committee
to represent these four generic programs. An individual farmer or a group of
farmers may apply for the funds by submitting an application to the State
Agricultural Committee. An appropriate sub-committee reviews the applications
and the recommendations are fonrvarded to the State Agricultural Committee who
makes the ﬁnal funding decision. The funding is provided on a demand-driven
and ﬁrst-come ﬁrst-served basis (Suvedi, 2000).

The objective population identiﬁes itself accurately. It establishes a
maximum amount by beneﬁciary and a percentage of the total cost of the project,
in order to assist the lower income population. Periodic mechanisms of
supervision and intemal evaluations of the process and impact are conducted
each year (SAGARPA, 2002).

The decentralized operation of the Alliance for the Countryside, the co-
participation of the beneﬁciaries by means of their economic contributions and
the presence of other agents involved in the sector to integrate resources and to
add capacities in common directions, previously established, has allowed the
accomplishment of more proﬁtable productive investments, and an efﬁcient
public resources allocation. The Alliance has six basic characteristics:

1) The Alliance operates in the frame of decentralized functions and
resources arranged between the Federal Government and the State

20

2)

3)

4)

governments. It means that the sources of the resources public are federal
and state and that, even though the operation rules are deﬁned federally,
the operation is essentially state responsibility.

The Alliance demands the ﬁnancial co-participation of the beneﬁciaries,
since these must contribute complementary resources to the subsidies of
the programs. Actually, it is the beneﬁciaries who must determine the yield
of their investment, which increases the efﬁciency in the allocation of
resources to the units of production. Additionally, in most of the programs,
the beneﬁciaries themselves select the suppliers making the purchases
and directly contract the services that they require, which exert their
capacity of selection. At the same time, this promotes the creation of a
competitive market of goods and services.

The Alliance is designed to take care of the demand of the beneﬁciaries.
For that reason, participation in the program requires presenting an
explicit request so that that the demand does not exhaust the existing
resources for a program, the state institutions in charge of the program
can make changes between programs and components that locally are
judged necessary to respond to the demand of the producers.

The Alliance allows ﬂexibility in its instrumentation. When operating
through programs that at the national level, the diverse Farming State
Councils can make decisions to determine the stratiﬁcation of their

producers and to grant differentiated supports, as well as to include

21

concepts in favor of a productive activity, of a region or a speciﬁc type of
producers.

5) When demanding co-responsibility of the beneﬁciaries, when orienting
themselves to the demand and operating by means of bipartite or tripartite
devices, the Alliance reduces some risks on its operation that could distort
its actions.

6) A sixth characteristic determines that the participation of the producers
occurs in a organized rather than individual way through farmers’
organizations. A special emphasis of the programs is placed on the

producers with lower incomes. (SAGARPA, 2002).
The institutional arrangements to operate the new strategy

The objectives of the new strategy to deliver agricultural services in 2001
is promote the rural development encouraging farmers’ organization and
empowering rural people to make decisions to develop and implement income-
generation projects.

The structure to operate this new strategy is the same established to
operate the 1996-2000 extension program. The institutional structure is shown in
Figure 3. Part of this structure is also used to operate the Alliance for the
Countryside programs.

This structure resulted from the decentralization process that began in
Mexico in order to delegate functions, responsibilities and resources to the
states. Thus, each State had established the State Agricultural Council to

oversee the management and operation of the Alliance for the Countryside

22

programs. The Council members come from various levels of state government

and related agencies. The funds of the Alliance are managed through a

Trusteeship that is managed by the State Agricultural Council. The Federal

Government has established the procedures and guidelines for the management

of the Trusteeship fund (Suvedi, 2000).

Figure 3 Institutional arrangements to the new strategy (2001)

 

 

 

I

 

Ministry of
Agriculture

 

 

 

 

>

V

 

V

 

> I AgriculturalState Council ]<

 

xl/

 

 

Trusteeship of
the Alliance for the
Countryside

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rural Development
Committee

 

 

\l/

 

 

Executive Extension
Committee

 

 

\l/

 

 

Technical District Com mittee

 

 

\I/

Coordinator

 

\1/

Extension Adviser

 

1
\

A

A

 

 

 

 

State
Agriculture
Secretary

 

I

 

In general terms it is the Ministry of agriculture at the federal level who is

in charge of the program design, establishment of rules of operation and the

evaluation of the program. On the other hand, at the state level there are two

different institutions, the Rural Development Committee and the Executive

Extension Committee that assume the operation of the program, to take

responsibility of the administrative and ﬁnancial functions, technical operation

and decision-making (Munoz, 2000).

23

 

The responsibilities of each of these institutions are to:

Ministry of agriculture

Establish and publish the program’s operation rules.

Design the agreement that is signed between the Federal and State
Government.

Coordinate the program a national level.

Monitore the program.

State Agriculture Secretary

Head the Agriculture State Council.

Handle the Trusteeship of the Alliance for the Countryside.

Apply jointly with the Secretary of Agriculture the operation rules.

Share responsibility with the Ministry of Agriculture in the promotion and
diffusion of the program.

Rural Development Committee

Approve the farmers’ groups and authorize the extension advisers
contracts.

Negotiate with the Trusteeship the funds for the operation of the program.
Approve the extension advisers” selection process and the training
program. .

Authorize the payment to the extension advisers and coordinators.

Executive Extension Committee

Establish the program’s budget and activities’ schedule.

Support the integration of the farmers groups.

Select the extension advisers and coordinators.

Coordinate and verify jointly with the Technical District Committee the
work of the extension advisers and coordinators.

Technical District Committee

Support the coordinators and extension advisers in the integration of
farmers’ groups.

Keep in contact with the extension advisers, coordinators and farmers.
Validate the coordinators” work schedule.

Validate jointly with the VEE and the coordinators the extension advisers’
work schedule and approve their reports.

Coordinators

Support the extension advisers in establishing the farmers’ organizations.
Support extension advisers in all the activities implemented with the
farmers.

Keep in contact with the extension advisers and farmers.

24

- Support extension advisers to develop and implement the income-
generation projects identiﬁed by the farmer’s organizations.

- Validate jointly with the Executive Extension Committee the extension
advisers’ work schedule and approve their reports.

Program evaluation deﬁned

Horton, Peterson and Ballantyne (1993) deﬁned evaluation as the judging,
appraising, or determining worth, value, or quality of proposed, on-going, or
completed activity, generally in terms of its relevance, effectiveness, efﬁciency
and impact. Relevance refers to the appropriateness and importance of goals
and objectives in relation to assessed needs. Effectiveness refers to the degree
to which goals have been achieved. Efﬁciency refers to the cost-effectiveness of
activities. And impact refers to the broad, long-terms effects of research or
extension.

According with Rossi and Freeman (1982), evaluations are undertaken to
(1 ) judge the worth of ongoing programs and to estimate the usefulness of
attempts to improve them; (2) asses the utility of innovative programs and
initiatives; (3) increase the effectiveness of program management and
administration; and (4) meet various accountability requirements.

The major purpose of program evaluation is to assist in reaching decisions
on future directions, design, and funding of programs. Decisions on whether
programs should be terminated, curtailed, maintained, or expanded are aided by
program evaluations. Such evaluations may also suggest reformulation of
program objectives, delivery organization, educational methodology, and

intended audiences (Bennett, 1976).

25

Organization, programs or activities are monitored or evaluated for many
reasons: to check on progress, to assess productivity and results, to monitor
resource utilization, and to decide on future support. Different methods may be
used to assess the impacts, but in each case, the purpose is to provide
managers, scientists, or those who sponsor the program with indicators of its
beneﬁts or negative effects. Assessment done when the program is being
planned (ex-ante studies), or while it is still under way, can provide information to
help decision-markers identify the most promising directions for future activities.
Assessments done after programs are completed (ex-post studies) can extract
lessons to improve the design of future programs. They also provide an
indication of the magnitude of beneﬁts (or problems) that have resulted from
program activities (Horton et al., 1993).

After completion of a project, two types of ex-post evaluations may be
done: ﬁnal evaluation and impact evaluation. Impact evaluation deﬁned by
Bennett (1979) is assessment of a program’s effectiveness in achieving its
ultimate objectives or assessment of relative effectiveness of two or more
programs in meeting common ultimate objectives. In a ﬁnal evaluation, the
emphasis should be on learning lessons to improve future programs (Gapasin,

1993), and may address the following issues:

a) The relevance of project objectives;

b) Whether objectives were attained;

c) The cost-effectiveness of the project;

d) The contribution of knowledge;

e) The outputs produced;

f) Adoption and use of new information and technologies;

26

9) Lessons learned;
h) Possible follow-up activities, including new programs.

Impact evaluation determines the long-term effects of research and the
extent to which program results have contributed to broader development goals,
such as increased farm production, food self-sufﬁciency, or natural resource
conservation (Gapasin, 1993). Impact assessment in the broadest sense is
evaluation of the effects of programs. Various kinds of effects can be assessed,
including changes in yield, production, income, food security, social welfare, and
the environment.

Various types of impact assessment can be done. An economic impact
evaluation can estimate the rate of return on investments several years after the
program has been completed. These evaluations can be usefully compared with
earlier ex-ante evaluations, where objectives were set and expected outcomes
were project during planning (Gapasin, 1993). The results of impact assessment
can also be used to convince policy makers to allocate more resources to the

program by demonstrating the beneﬁts arising from it.
Comprehensive evaluation approach

Program evaluation begins with collecting and analyzing objective and
valid information that leads to the conceptualization, the design and
implementation of the planned program, and extends through assessment of the
impact of the planned program. Thus, some authors elect to utilize the concept of
“comprehensive evaluation” which is deﬁned by Rossi and Freeman (1985) as
“analysis covering the conceptualization and design of the planned programs

[interventions]; the monitoring of program implementation; and the assessment of

27

program impact [utility]. Rossi and Freeman (1985) allege that the assessment of
initial decisions in conceptualizing the planned program, as well as those
decisions made in monitoring its implementation, are essential to any analytical
and objective assessment and measurement of impact that can be connected
and conclusively attributed to the planned program.

This approach to program evaluation (labeled as comprehensive
evaluation) is consistent with Boone’s proposition that evaluation is critical to
every decision and choice made in the programming process. Simply stated,
program evaluation to establish cause and effect cannot be construed as a
separate process that occurs after the conceptualization, design and
implementation of the program (Boone, Pettitt and Safrit, 1985).

Previous attempts to assess program impact as a result of planned
(extension) programs have failed or yielded suspect evidence (impact) because
of the following factors: (1) little attention was given to the importance and use of
data obtained through systematic and rigorous evaluative inquiry in deﬁning the
problems of critical concern to the people that could be solved through planned
educational programs (interventions); (2) few extensionists consciously used the
problems deﬁned, to study, analyze and map target population affected either
directly or indirectly by the problem; (3) there is a tendency to not to identify and
involve leaders or spokespersons of the target population, as well as other
stakeholders, in reﬁning, redeﬁning and validating the problem, as well as
obtaining their legitimation and support of programs that could lead to the

resolution of the program; (4) further, for the most part, extensionists acting

28

alone, have conceptualized and designed planned program (interventions) for
responding to problems; (5) most extensionists have given little or no thought to
developing and implementing a system of systematic monitoring and evaluating
program activities, while they are being implemented, to determine whether or
not they are indeed reaching the target population and their relative
effectiveness; and (6) the lack of a monitoring system has resulted in many
extensionists proceeding with program activities that, in the end, were judged to
have been useless in attaining the results sought through the planned program
(Boone, Pettitt and Safrit, 1985).

Comprehensive program evaluation, as deﬁned, performs a critical
function in generating scientiﬁc data that extensionists can use in making
informed decisions and choices throughout the planning, design and
implementation, and evaluation and accountability sub-processes that are

inextricably linked to constitute what is referred to as “the programming process'
in extension (Boone, Pettitt and Safrit, 1985).
Training Evaluation

According with Mabeza (1973) evaluation of training involves the
systematic collection of inforrnatlon about a training activity, and its use for
determining the accomplishments, relevance, effectiveness, and impact of the
activity. Evaluation can focus on training needs, program design, content,

delivery, outcomes, and impact on behavior and organizational performance.

29

What is training evaluation?

Training evaluation is a system, process of collecting and assessing
information about a training activity, which can be used to judge its
accomplishments, relevance, effectiveness and impact.

Any organization that conducts training as part of its human resource
development needs to make key decisions on the design of its training activities,
its training strategies, the delivery of training events, and the communication of

its training programs (Mabeza, 1973). Training evaluation can be used to:

- Provide information on training needs

- Measure progress towards achieving training goals

- Assess the quality of training delivery, facilities, and materials
- Expose a training program’s strengths and weaknesses

- Help to determine the impact of training (for example, changes in an
individual’s job behavior or in an organization performance)

- Meet routine accountability needs
- Provide information to justify continued or expanded support for training

Doing training evaluation

There are ﬁve stages in the training cycle at which evaluation can take
place a) needs assessment before the event, b) during the training event, c)
upon completion of training, d) after resumption of job-related activities, e)
assessment of changes in organizational performance after the event (Mabeza,
1993)

Needs assessment. In reality, training objectives are often based on the
mandate of the ﬁnancing agency or on the interest of trainers, rather than on
assessed needs. But ideally, training needs should always be carefully assessed

before training activities are designed or implemented. This process begins with

30

identifying the strength and weaknesses of the organization, program or target
group for which improvement through training is sought. After that has been
done, then training objectives should be set —based on these identiﬁed needs.

Once a training activity has been delivered, it is useful to reassess needs.
This can be done by going back to the drawing board, taking a fresh look at
institutional needs, and comparing the conclusions to those outlined in the
training prospectus. The results can then provide a basis for adjusting training
goals and priorities.

The training event. There are two main feature of a training event that
should be evaluated: content and delivery. Trainees can provide a feedback on
training content through questionnaires and interviews. This is especially useful
for evaluating the relevance of the content because trainees know their work
environment and the constraints they face.

In evaluating the delivery of a training event, the important considerations
are the trainees learning and level of satisfaction with trainers and facilities. One
method for evaluating delivery is to use evaluation forms, which should be
comprehensive but simple. Participants ﬁll out the forms during the course or at
the end, depending on the range of material covered and the length of the
course.

Trainers may be given the opportunity to apply what they have learned by
taking tests or working in projects or case studies during and after the course,
which also provides an indicator of how much useful learning has occurred.

Another way to evaluate delivery is by observation, where the evaluator sits in on

31

training sessions. However, this technique can make the presenters and the
trainees nervous and can inﬂuence their behavior.

Completion of training. At the end of the training event, immediate
outcomes may be evaluated. The focus at this stage is generally on learning
criteria, which includes increased knowledge, acquired skills, and changed
attitudes that can be attributed to the training. Pre -and post-tests are common
approaches to this. The pre-test is given to trainees before the training begins,
and the same or similar test is given at the end. The two tests are compared to
assess changes in knowledge that occurred as a result of participation in the
training event. Another approach is to administer a ﬁnal questionnaire, followed
by discussion and interviews with trainees. This can provide feedback on how
participant feel about the training event —its relevance, the quality of materials,
etc.- as well as their expectations about using what they have learned when they
are back at work.

Resumption of Job-related activities. Here the goal is to assess the
extent to which new knowledge, attitudes, and skills are being used in the job.
Usually this type of evaluation is done six months to a year after the training
event and seeks to respond to questions such as who uses the training? What
parts of the training are being used? How is the training being used? When and
where is the training being used?

Change in organizational performance. The ultimate impact of the
training should be assessed in term of changes in organizational performance;

however, this is difﬁcult to measure because there are so many other factors that

32

affect organizational performance. There are several procedures that can be
used to evaluate training impact —organizational audits, performance analysis,
observation, organizational surveys, document reviews and hearings, and cost-
beneﬁt studies— but this all tends to be complicated and costly. Several of these
procedures have been carried out in more developed countries to assess formal
education, but few have been used to evaluate training programs in less-

developed countries.
Indicators in evaluation

What are indicators?

According with Gallopin (1997) (cited by Suvedi et al., 2000), indicators
are variables. A variable is an operational representation of an attribute (quality,
characteristic, property) of a system. Indicators are observable phenomena that
point toward the intended and/or actual condition of situations, programs,
outcomes (Benett and Rockwell, 1994) (cited by Suvedi et al., 2000, and help
gauge the performance of natural system as well as the human endeavors.
Indicators can be used to measure the “health” of the economy or the
environment, and monitor progress toward, or away from, stated goals, or point
to a problem or condition. If there is a problem in moving away from a stated
goal, an indicator can help determine what direction to take to solve the problem,
or to get back on trackito meet one’s goal (Pomeroy, 1997) (cited by Suvedi et
al., 2000), The most important feature of indicators compared to otherfonns of

information is relevance to policy and decision-making.

33

Function and use of indicators

Gallopin speciﬁed the following major function of indicators (cited by
Suvedi et al., 2000), to assess conditions and trends, to compare across places
and situations, to assess conditions and trends in relation to goals and targets, to
provide early warning information, and to anticipate future conditions and trends.

Indicators can be helpful to farmers, extensionists, researchers,
professionals, as well as to policy makers. The Rural Industry Research and
Development Corporation in Australia advanced the following reasons why
indicators are important to farmers, but the same reasons can also be applied to

the other groups (RIRDC, 1997) (cited by Suvedi et al., 2000):

a) Indicators can help people notice changes at an early stage and seek advice if

required;

b) Proﬁtability indicators can highlight strengths and weaknesses and show

trends;

0) Land and water quality indicators can highlight natural resources issues which
may be ‘sleepers’ and not obvious to the eye until they are well advanced and
difﬁcult to address;

d) Managerial self-auditing skills can assist individuals to appraise honestly their

talents and to plan for professional development;

e) Off-site impact indicators can ensure that individual businesses do not
contribute to problems for the wider community; and lastly

f) Indicators can be used as a tool to educate people in sustainable resource

management issues.

34

Criteria for choosing indicators

In the area of agriculture, there are two sources with slightly different sets
of indicator selection criteria. The Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation in Australia used the following criteria to judge the usefulness of a
given indicator to measure progress in achieving a more sustainable agriculture
in that country (cited by Suvedi et al., 2000). The indicators selected using these

criteria were to be used at both the farm level and at the regional/national level.

a) It is measurable?

b) Is it relevant and easy to use?

0) Does it provide a representative picture?

d) Is it easy to interpret and does it show trends over the time?
e) Is it responsive to changes?

f) Does it have a reference to compare against so that users are able to
assess the signiﬁcance of its values?

9) Can it be measured at a reasonable cost, and can it be updated?

The second source is the Organization fOr Economic Cooperation and
Development OECD) (cited by Suvedi et al., 2000) what is primarily concerned
with policy and economics issues in the industrialized world. The indicator
selection criteria used by the OECD are described as follows:

Policy relevance: The indicator should identify issues of importance to
policy makers and which can be addressed (potentially) through policies. The
indicators chosen should be ﬂexible so as to incorporate new issues and
abandon old ones.

Analytical soundness: This concerns the extent to which the indicator

can establish links between agricultural activities and environmental [and social]

35

conditions. It should be possible for the indicator to explain a link between
agriculture and environmental [social] issues which is easy to interpret and
applicable to a wide set of farming systems. The indicator should also be able to
show trends and ranges of value over the time.

Measurability: Appropriate data must be available [or obtainable] to
measure the indicator. The indicator should be developed from established
national or sub-national data, preferably using a time-series, where this is
available, given the lengthy time period for many environmental effects to he
become apparent. Moreover, the attributes measured for each indicator should
also be sensitive to speciﬁc national or sub-national situations, as such attributes
(for example, measurement of soil quality) will vary between and within countries
[regions, states and counties].

Level of aggregation: The level of aggregation seeks to determine at
which level the indicator can be meaningfully applied for policy purposes and not
to conceal more than it reveals. The criterion highlights the issue of
encapsulating the special and temporal diversity of the environment and the
geographical scale. There is no unique way to address the aggregation issue for
each indicator and it is most effectively tackled pragmatically, on an issue-by-
issue and indicator-by-indicator basis.

Concern with the use of indicators

While indicators do serve a number of useful purposes, there are also
some pitfalls and down sides associated with their use. According with Pomeroy

(cited by Suvedi et al., 2000), while indicators enable us to see ”the big picture’

36

by looking at smaller pieces of specific phenomena, there are a number of

dangers associated with their use:

a) Indicators, if not sufﬁciently ﬂexible or current, will not be reliable reﬂection of

social, economic and environmental trends.

b) Once deﬁned, there is a risk that indicators themselves may be targeted,
rather than the situation that they are supposed to represent.

c) It cannot be assumed that indicators can be transplanted easily from the one
culture of context to another, or from the one era to another. In other words,

indicators are time, space and society speciﬁc.

d) A presumption is often made that aggregation is always possible or advisable,
and that a mass of complex data can be reduced to a simple statement or set
of statistics. However, the information that is lost from aggregation may be
critical for showing the whole picture.

e) It is often assumed that if an indicator changes in the right direction, people,
the environment or the economy is better off. However, if the measure used as
an indicator of change is too narrow, or ambiguous, it will not reﬂect the whole
picture and may give false or misleading impressions. Indicators are
descriptive, not explanatory, but this distinction is often ignored.

37

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the methods and procedures
used to assess the new strategy to deliver agricultural services in Mexico. This
was an exploratory study intended to draw conclusions that serve to assist
stakeholders and decision makers to improve the program.

The questions that guided this research were ﬁve:

Question 1. What is the proﬁle of extension advisers and what is their perception
about the training program?

Question 2. What kinds of income-generation projects did the Extension
advisers identify?

Question 3. What is the level of involvement of the beneﬁciaries or members of
farmers’ organizations in the projects development and
implementation?

Question 4. What is the current mechanism to advise and monitor the extension
advisers’ work?

Question 5. What is the extension advisers’ perception about the new strategy?

Design of the study

Since only one state of the country was evaluated, this study was
conducted as a case study of the national program. Program evaluation that is
based on a case study is a focused, in-depth description, analysis, and synthesis

of a particular program or other object (Stufﬂebeam, 2001).

38

Before describing the methodology it is important to analyze the program
processes and how the research ﬁt into it.

Processes followed to implement the new strategy of extension services

 

2001 2002

 

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Jun

 

Program design X

 

Publication of X
operation rules and
distribution of the
technicamiide

 

Contracting of advisers X
y the State

 

Extension advisers’ XX XX
training at the State
level

 

Projects’ deadline X

 

Deadline to submit XX
projects for funding

 

Evaluation of projects XX XX XX
by State

 

Implementation of the XX XX
projects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This research was conducted between December 2001 and February
2002. The methods for gathering information included participant observation
during training workshops of extension advisers carried out in August; content
analysis of the income-generation projects carried out in December and the
semi-structured interviews with program administrators, surveys of extension

advisers and farmers’ economic organizations on January and February.
Population and sample

The target population for this study included the 82 Extension advisers

working in Nayarit State and 82 farmers’ organizations beneﬁciaries of the

39

program in 2001. The sample consisted of 42 Extension advisers and 3D farmers
organizations.

The extension advisers’ survey was sent to all extension advisers in
Nayarit State through the coordinators, 42 Extension advisers responded to the
survey. The response rate was 51 percent.

In the case of the farmers’ organizations, in order to gather a
representative response a random sample of 30 farmers’ organizations was
i selected, 10 of them received funding for their project in 2001 funded and 20 did

nor receive funding in 2001.
Data Collection

a) Extension advisers’ survey

The extension advisers’ survey was conducted to assess the usefulness
of the training program. In addition to the training questions, advisers were asked
about farmers’ participation in the income-generation projects identiﬁed and their
perception about the new extension strategy.

The extension advisers’ survey consisted of both closed- and open-ended
questions. It also included Likert type scales to measure respondents’ opinions
and attitudes toward the training program.

The researcher also gathered qualitative data about the training program
through participant observation. The observation focused on the trainers’
experience, the instructional design followed, the learning procedures utilized by
the trainers, the extension advisers’ participation, and the infrastructure and

facilities.

40

The data was collected through a self-administered questionnaire
conducted by the coordinator who had the responsibility to contact the
professional staff at least once per week. A direct group administered
questionnaire is one that is administered to a group of people assembled at a
certain place for speciﬁc purposes (Ary, 1996).

b) Farmers’ organization beneﬁciaries

Due to the time and ﬁnancial resources available, a random sample of 30
farmers’ organizations was selected. The basic characteristic of random
sampling is that all members of the population have an equal and independent
chance of being included in the sample (Ary, 1996).

A total of 45 farmers were interviewed, 30 organizations’ representatives
and 15 organization members. For organizations with fewer than 15 members,
only the representative or another member of the board or trustees (secretary or
treasurer) was interviewed. For those farmers’ organizations with more than 15
members, an additional member was randomly selected and interviewed. This
was done so for two reasons. On one hand, it was thought that the access to the
information about the project would be greater in the small organizations
compared to the big ones, and interviewing only the representative in both cases
could overestimate the results. The second reason was to ﬁnd differences in
proﬁle between representatives and members of farmers’ organization.

The questions asked of the representative included farmer's organization
proﬁle such as number of members, year of ofﬁcial establishment, organization

objective, and activities realized or services offered to the members.

41

. The rest of the questions were divided into three different sections and

asked of both the organization representatives and members.

- Respondent’s level of participation in the income-generation project
identiﬁed.

- Level of satisfaction from the services provided by the program.
- Demographic characteristics.

Before conducting organizations’ survey, the instrument was tested to
identify ambiguities, misunderstandings, or other inadequacies. Likewise, the
ﬁeld test was indirectly used to measure validity, that is, whether the
questionnaire was really measuring what it was supposed to measure.

Since in Mexico many of the farmers do not know how to read and write
the data gathering technique used was a face-to-face interview. In a face-to-face
interview, the interviewer reads the questions to the respondent in a face-to-face
setting and records the answers. One of the most important aspects of the
interview is its ﬂexibility and the possibility to repeat the questions in case the
meaning explained in the questions are not understood by the respondent (Ary,
1996)

c) Program administrators

In addition to extension advisers and beneﬁciaries’ survey, semi-
structured interviews were conducted to the people in charge of the program at
various operation levels. The kind of information gathered was related to different
aspects of the program such as: criteria used in the selection of Extension

advisers, activities realized by them, changes in extension advisers’ training

42

process, selection of beneﬁciaries and problems with the implementation of the
new strategy.
d) The income-generation projects proposals

The program established that each extension advisers should deliver by
September 30, 2001, at least one development project for a group of farmers. In
this case, it was possible access all these projects (N=82). The projects were
assessed using a criteria developed by the Ministry of Agriculture to be used in

the 32 states of the country participating in the program.
Data analysis

Surveys were coded and analyzed using the Statistic Package for Social
Science (SPSS). In the case of the extension advisers’ survey, the analysis
consisted of determining the demographic characteristics, response frequencies,
percentages, range and measures of central tendency and dispersion.

To assess the training course, advisers were asked about the program
instructional design and the different issues included in the training.

The analysis of organizations” survey was divided in two parts:
organizational information and respondents characteristics.

Statistical analysis such as the t-test was used to examine if the
respondents (farmers) differ in their ages, educational level and attendance at

meetings.

43

Criteria and indicators used

Income-generation projects’ assessment

In order to assess the quality of the income-generation projects delivered
by the Extension advisers, the Ministry of Agriculture in Mexico developed ﬁve
criteria to be used in all the states in the country. These criteria included
completeness of the proposal, participation of the beneﬁciaries, relevancy of the
project identiﬁed, congruence among the proposal elements, and accuracy of
project information. The detailed description of these criteria is as follows:

a) Completeness of the proposal. This aspect was veriﬁed by the extent
to which the different themes developed during the training program were
included in the document. If all the basic components, chapters and sub-chapters
were included, the project was considered as complete. If it included the basic
components and the chapters, but was lacking one or more sub-chapters, the
project was considered as partial. If the project included the basic components,
but not all the chapters it was considered incomplete. Finally, if it did not include
the basic components, it was not acceptable.

b) Participation of the beneﬁciaries. The farmers’ level of interaction
and involvement in the project could be scored as real, formal or non-existent.

The participation was considered real when the project proposal clearly
showed the commitment established by the organization members to contribute
or participate in the project, with both physical and ﬁnancial resources. The

participation was considered as formal when the participation of the organization

members will had been evaluated only by their attendance at the different
meetings and workshops carried out during the design of the project.

The participation was considered non-inexistent if none of the two latter
options had been reached.

c) Relevancy of the project identiﬁed. Relevancy is shown when the
project effectively contributes to solving a problem or taking advantage of an
opportunity.

There are three levels in this category: complete, partial, and nill, which
were assessed if the project deﬁned had taken into account the organization’s
intemal and external conditions.

When the project took into account only the intemal or external aspects, it
was considered partial, when it includes both was considered complete, when it
did not take into account any of the aspects then it was considered nill.

d) Congruence among proposal elements. The different parts included
in the project should be congruent among themselves. In this category, the
following components of the project were considered: organizational aspects,
commercial aspects, the technical- process, administrative structure of the
projects, and’ﬁnancial analysis of project. Thus, a project could be considered as
incongruent, little congruent, fairly congruent or congruent.

e) Accuracy of project information. The data included in the project
should have real values within the technical and commercial frameworks used.

This means that the information included in the document such as yields, prices

45

of sale, input quantities and prices and the ﬁnancial resources to implement the

project, should be valued according to the regional and local conditions.

If the value of a parameter was not very coherent, this criterion had a

value of O and a value of 1 if the parameter used was real. If the number of

parameters to evaluate is ﬁve, the criterion of truthfulness could get a value

between 0 and 5.

Parameter Value
Yields 0 or 1
Prices of sale 0 or 1
Inputs required (quantity and quality) 0 or 1
Inputs cost 0 or 1
Financial resources available 0 or 1
Total 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conditioned, and 5 credible

Project’s global score

was calculated according to the following table:

The truthfulness categories were as follows: 0 to 2 not credible, 3 to 4

Once the projects were assessed using the above criteria, a global score

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Value Criteria
Completeness FO’s participation Relevancy Congruence Accuracy
2 Complete Real Complete Congruent Credible
1 Partial Formal Partial Fairly Conditional
congruent
0.5 Incomplete Little
conﬂuent
0 Not Non-existent Nill lncongruent Not credible
acceptable

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to the numeric values established in the ﬁrst column, a

calculated a global score was calculated adding the different points obtained by

the project in the different criteria. Thus, the project was:

46

 

Satisfactory - 8-10 points
Acceptable 6-7.5 points
Not acceptable 0-5.5 points

Farmers’ level of involvement in the project

In order to assess the implementation of the projects, one additional
element (i.e. farmers’ participation) was included. Five criteria were used to
develop an indicator to give a measure of the farmers’ level of involvement in the

project. Each positive answer had a value of 20 percent, and the criteria were as

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

follows.

Criteria . Value
Knowledge about the project 20
Attendance to any meeting 20
Knowledge about the total investment 20
Knowledge about the organization’s investment 20
in the project

Willingness to contributeﬁnvest 20
Involvement indicator 100

 

 

 

 

47

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter describes the most relevant ﬁndings obtained. They provide
evidence directed to the research questions and were drawn from different
sources of information as described in Chapter III. The discussion of ﬁndings is
arranged to answer the research questions set forth in this study.

Question 1. What is the profile of extension advisers and what is
their perception about the training program?
Extension advisers’ proﬁle

A majority of advisers (86 percent) were male and 14 percent females.
Regarding their educational level, all of them had a bachelors degree, 88 percent
had a degree in agriscience and 12 percent in animal science.

Figure 4 Extension advisers’ gender

Female

14%

    

48

Age of Extension advisers ranged from 25 to 55 years with a mean of 38

years and a standard deviation of 7.6. Extension advisers' professional

experience ranged from 1 to 30 years with a mean of 13 years and a standard

deviation of 7.8. Even though there is no information about the activities

performed by the advisers before they were hired by the program, as for many

years agricultural services such as inputs supply (seeds and fertilizer), credit, and

commercialization were offered by the government it is possible that those

advisers 41 years old and older (40 percent) spent many of these years working

in a governmental institution and had little experience working with farmers’

organizations.

Figure 5 Age of Extension advisers

31- 40 years
43%

       
  
   
   

Less than 30 year

41 years and over

40%

The program established that Extension advisers were natives from the

communities. This objective ensures a better knowledge of regional and local

49

conditions as well as theremaining of advisers in the villages. Currently, six out

of ten advisers live in the community where they serve farmers’ organizations.

Figure 6 Extension advisers’ residence

No
40%

 

Yes
60%

 

 

Quality of the trainingprogram

Nearly three fourths of advisers expressed that the quality of the training
program was good, and one fourth said that it was fair. Advisers said the training
was good because the content was adequate, updated, provided them with the

tools needed to carry. out their job with the groups, and all the information

provided was very useful.

50

Table 1 Training quality (N=42)

F Percent
1 2
62

air 26
O
otal 1OO

 

Some advisers rated the quality as fair because the sessions were too
long (12 hours/day), there few days of training, it was a lot of information in short
time, some concepts were not explained in depth, and they thought that more
examples were needed for a better understanding.

Table 2 Trainers’ quality (N=42)

F Percent
8 19
28 67

5

1

lent

1 2
2
otal 42 1 00

air

 

A majority of advisers (86 percent) rated trainers’ quality as good and 12
percent as fair. However, since the training sessions were divided among three
different trainers, according to the advisers, not all of them possessed the
knowledge and experience needed. Some trainers only read the slides and
presented examples that were from other states having different local conditions.

In the participant observation realized by the researcher, it was possible to
observe some of the trainers’ deﬁciencies. The most important was, indeed, the
lack of experience in income-generation projects and in other the use of learning

procedures inappropriate to transmit the information.

51

The lack of time was also a weakness in the training program because it
was not possible to present many examples, and more time was needed to
promote the discussion and the exchange of experience among advisers.
Likewise, too long of sessions resulted in tedious sessions and low extension

advisers’ participation in the case studies used to apply the knowledge learned.

Table 3 Percent of respondents rating the instructional design (N=42)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good Fair Poor

Content adequate to the 93 7 0
program objectives

Linked to farmers’ needs 66 29 5
Updated information 74 21 5
Timeliness 40 4O 10
Time allocated 28 4O 32
Handouts and materials 88 12 O
Usefulness 73 24 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

Among the different instructional design components, the content,
handouts, and materials were the most important to advisers. A majority of them,
93 and 88 percent respectively, expressed that these were good. Furthermore,
with the written materials and handouts, each adviser received a CD with all the
information presented in the training program and additional readings and
examples.

Nearly three fourths of advisers expressed that the information presented
was current or updated and agreed that the information was useful. About one
third (34 percent) said the duration of the training was short and about 10 percent

mentioned that the training was not timely.

52

Assessment of the projects and use of the training to develop the projects’

proposals
Global score

The Rural Development Committee in the state decided to ask the support
of two different institutions to assess the income-generation projects using the
ﬁve criteria (completeness of the proposal, participation of the beneﬁciaries,
relevancy of the project identiﬁed, congruency among the proposal elements,
and accuracy of project information) developed at central level by the program
administrators. One of these institutions was the National Institute of Agriculture
Research (INIFAP). The second one was the Nayarit State University. Half of the

projects were assessed by the INIFAP, the other half by Nayarit University.

In the agreement signed by these institutions, it was agreed that they
should make a second review of those projects that did not receive an
acceptable rating in the ﬁrst review. Thus, the projects with a low global score
(i.e. less than 6) were returned to advisers. These projects were expected to be
improved and re-submitted for a second review. The score given in this review

was considered as the ﬁnal score.

Before analyzing the ﬁnal score, it is important to report the results
obtained in the ﬁrst assessment. It should be noted here that the program rules
did not mention that projects might be submitted for a second review. Thus, in

the ﬁrst review, less than half of the projects (45 percent) were scored as not

53

acceptable, and almost two ﬁfths (38 percent) were acceptable and 17 percent
were scored as satisfactory (Table 4).

Table 4 Results of ﬁrst of round rating of proposals (N=82)

 

Figure 6 shows the ﬁnal score obtained for the projects. The ﬁrst three
bars show the score obtained by the state evaluators to add the ﬁve criteria
(completeness of the proposal, participation of the beneﬁciaries, relevancy of the
project identiﬁed, congruency among the proposal elements, and accuracy of
project information) developed by the Ministry of Agriculture. The last three bars
show the global score obtained by myself (researcher) using the same criteria.

Figure 7 Projects’ ﬁnal global score (N=82)

 

 

Percent

60 51%

 
 
 
 
 
 
   

50/
40‘

30-/ ,

20-

 

 

 

State assesment Researcher

 

 

 

I Satisfactory [:1 Acceptable (:1 Not acceptable I

 

 

Nevertheless the criteria used were the same, the scores given by the
state level institutions and the researcher were slightly different. Hence, for the
state evaluators, half of the projects were satisfactory, while for the researcher
two ﬁfths of the projects (37 percent) were ranked in this category.

In the information provided to the researcher by the State Executive
Extension Committee, only the income-generation projects” global score could be
observed. However, following are the result obtained by the researcher in each
individual criterion used to assess the projects. The difference in rating between
the state evaluators and the researcher’s global score could due to the

subjectivity with which these criteria were evaluated.

Completeness of proposal

According to the complete criterion, two thirds of the projects were found
to be partially complete and one ﬁfth was incomplete. The major deﬁciencies
were the commercial nature of the proposal and the ﬁnancial aspect of the
evaluation. 2

Table 5 Completeness of projects’ proposal (N=82)

F Percent
10 12
rtial 55 67

ncom 16 2O
1 1
otal 82 100

 

In the case of commercial aspect, it was common to ﬁnd little information

about the commercialization channels to be used or about the appropriate market

55

(local, regional, or national) wherein the product would be commercialized,
according to the volume produced.

Extension advisers were asked about the quality of the training program.
Findings in Table 6 show that at least two thirds of the advisers rated the training
quality as “good”. In the ﬁnancial analysis, 41 percent of the advisers indicated
the quality was poor, which could explain the deﬁciencies observed in the
projects.

Table 6 Extension advisers’ rating of training issues quality (N=42)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Training issues Good Fair Poor
Organization needs assessment 71 26 3
Commercial aspects 67 31 3
Organizational aspects 73 24 3
Technical process 76 19 5
Administrative structure of 76 19 5
project

Financial analysis of project 54 41 5
Judgment of prg'ect 6O 33 7

 

 

 

 

 

In the case of commercial aspects, advisers rated the quality as good,
however, in the projects it was possible to observe some deﬁciencies. Two
factors could explain these deﬁciencies. On one hand, according to the advisers,
the length of time allocated to the training was insufﬁcient. A lot of information
was provided in a short time, and some issues were not clearly explained.

On the other hand, the extension advisers’ lack of experience in
commercialization issues had an impact on the proposal. It should be noted that
though advisers had on average 13 years of professional experience, it is
possible that most of this time was dedicated to work in technical aspects or in

government ofﬁces rather than in farmers’ organizations.

56

Participation of beneﬁciaries

With the simple reading of the projects proposals, it was difﬁcult to assess
the real participation of farmers in the development of the projects. In most of the
projects the advisers said that farmers had interest and they were willing to
contribute and invest in the project. However, from the researcher’s point of view
this can only be assessed through the ﬁeldwork. For this reason, overall projects

were assessed with formal participation.

Relevancy of the project

Approximately three out of ﬁve (62 percent) of the proposal ideas were
considered as ‘completely relevant’ to the organization, while 38 percent were
considered as ‘partially relevant’. In some cases, the professional adviser took
into account solely the intemal conditions, and in other cases only the external
organization conditions, never both as they should have.

Table 7 Relevancy of projects (N=82)

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Complete 51 62
Partial 31 38
Total 82 100

 

 

 

 

 

Congruency of proposal

Less than half of the projects (43 percent) that extension advisers
developed were congruent, that is, where the information presented in the
different chapters was related and was described in a logical way. The other half

of the projects, (51 percent) were found to be fairly congruent. For those projects

57

with little congruence, the problem found was incongruence with the information
presented in the commercial strategy and the ﬁnancial evaluation.

Table 8 Congruency of proposals (N=82)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Congruent 35 43
Fairly congruent 42 51
Little congruent 5 6
Total 82 100

 

 

 

 

Accuracy of project information

Concerning the truthfulness of the numerical and monetary values
presented in the projects, a strong majority of the Extension advisers used in the
ﬁnancial evaluation credible values of product prices and inputs, as well as other
services required for the project.

Table 9 Accuracy of project information (N=82)

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Credible 8O 98
Conditioned 2 2
Total 82 1 00

 

 

 

 

 

Question 2. What kinds of income-generation projects did the

extension advisers identify?

Activities involved in the projects

A majority of the projects developed by the advisers (88 percent) were
focused on two activities: agriculture and livestock production. More than 60
percent involved an agricultural activity, while one fourth were related to livestock

activities.

58

Table 10 Type of farm operation involved in the projects (N=82)

ltu re

lture
lture and livestock

otal

 

Percent

52 63

20 24
3
6
1

4
7
1
82 1 00

In the projects classiﬁed as non-agricultural we found projects involving

activities such as carpentry, a beauty parlor, a dressmaker, a bakery, and a

grocery store, among others.

Within the projects that involve agriculture activity, one third (33 percent)

were intended to grow orchards and a similar percent (31 percent) were projects

about row crops (corn and beans), while 15 percent were projects to raise

vegetables.

Table 11 Type of agriculture activity involved in the projects(N=82)

rds

bles

 

Percent
17 33
16 31
8 15

4 8
1 2
6 12
52 100

59

Projects’ current situation

One third of the projects were funded and are currently in operation, and
the rest (67 percent) were in “stand by” waiting the funding support of the
Alliance for the Countryside1 2002 program resources.

Figure 8 Projects’ current situation (N=30)

 
 
    
   

In operation
33%

Stand by

According to the program rules, advisers should seek different sources of
resources to ﬁnance the projects. This includes commercial banks and local
micro ﬁnance institutions. Because currently, there are no subsidized credit
programs in Mexico, and only few a people have access to commercial credit

services, this could be a major limitation for funding the projects.

 

1 Alliance for the Countryside is an agricultural policy implemented in 1996 that includes 20 sub-
programs intended to support farmers in activities such as crops, livestock, animal health, vegetal
sanitation and irrigation. It is a decentralized program, its resources come both from federal and
state level. It promotes the beneﬁciary participation through its contribution to complement the
support (subsidy) given by the program.

60

An attempt was made to analyze the total amount of resources required to
implement the projects. The average amount of support needed was found to be
approximately US $91,847 with a standard deviation of US $130,966. The
Alliance for the Countryside had in Nayarit State a budget of US $ 1.1 million in
2001 to fund such projects. This means that many of projects could not be
ﬁnanced with the Alliance funds.

Table 12 Total resources needed to fund projects (N=82)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US$
Minimum 2,517
Maximum 761,100
Mean 91 .847
Standard Deviation 130,966

 

 

However, it should be noted that most advisers decided to apply for the
Alliance for the Countryside 2001 resources to ﬁnance the projects instead of
seeking alternative sources, even knowing that the Alliance resources would not
be sufﬁcient to ﬁnance all the projects.

From the 82 projects proposals submitted for funding in 2001 only 14 (17
percent) were funded with Alliance for the Countryside 2001 ﬁscal year
resources. The remainder are waiting for the 2002 resources that will be
allocated to the State between April and May 2001. However, not all the projects
are expected to be supported.

Here is important to point out that for funding these projects the State
Rural Development Committee did not take into account the projects’
assessment carried out by the INIFAP and Nayarit University. Because the

deadline to allocate the Alliance for the Countryside resources was October 31

61

2001. those projects that were submitted before this date had more opportunity
to be funded. Thus, 57 percent of the projects funded were rated as satisfactory
and the remainder 43 percent as acceptable.
Number of projects submitted by advisers

According to the State Executive Extension Committee, beginning in
January 2002, extension advisers were required to work with at least 80 farmers.
This was established in the program rules. To accomplish this, advisers were
encouraged to develop more than one project. It was found that on average 20
farmers were involved in the projects, with a minimum of four and a maximum of
106 farmers. This means that each adviser should develop at least four projects
to include the 80 farmers required.

Figure 9 Number of projects submitted by advisers (N=82)

Two and three

21%

More than three

9%

 

One project

70%

 

 

62

Figure 8 shows that nearly one out of ten Extension advisers have worked
in more than three projects, while more than two thirds (70 percent) have
developed only one project.

The problem, however, is that in some cases the advisers, in order to
meet this requirement (80 farmers), only promoted the different Alliance for the
Countryside programs and invited the farmers’ organizations to choose for the
project the support of the programs that were the most suitable for them. This
means that projects were not the result of an actual needs assessment.

In other cases, it was possible to identify the adviser’s inﬂuence in the
deﬁnition of the project. Thus, in nearly one ﬁfth of the projects (17 percent), the
organization’s representatives indicated that the project was the professional
adviser’s idea.

Projects funded and implemented

From the farmers’ organization sample, 10 of the 30 organizations
obtained funds to implement the income-generation project developed by the
advisers. Some characteristics of these projects are shown above in Table 13.
One characteristic is the source of funding, 70 percent of the projects funded
were ﬁnanced with the Alliance for the Countryside 2001 resources. This could
be important because it means that nearly one third of advisers sought
alternative ﬁnancial resources. However, it is worth noting that those projects
ﬁnanced with the farmers’ organizations’ own resources were very small and did
not require much money. In other way, it is difﬁcult for organization members to

contribute the total amount of investment.

63

It is also worth noting that 30 percent of these organizations were
established recently (between 2000 and 2001) solely to get the funding for their
project. Likewise, the organizations that seem to be working in a group are those
organizations created before 2000 that have experience offering services to their
members. Perhaps, because of this previous experience working together, they
are convinced that this is the best way of working.

Table 13 Characteristics of agricultural projects funded and implemented

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. Activity or kind Number of Year of F0 Source of Type of organization
of project - members establishment resources services
1 Fertil-irmation 4 2000 Alliance None
2 Livestock 10 1999 Alliance Inputs delivery,
marketing
3 Pineapple 11 2000 Bank Inputs delivery,
packagi_ng marketing
4 Production of 7 - Own None
nopal
5 Livestock 22 2001 Alliance Inputs delivery
6 Grow ﬂowers 1O - Own None
7 Blackberry 31 1999 Alliance- Inputs delivery,
Lroduction Bank marketing
8 Livestock/dab! 6 2001 Alliance None
9 Livestock 10 1997 Alliance Inputs delivery,
marketing
10 Machinery 22 2002 Alliance None
Beneﬁciaries profile

Farmers’ organization has been a priority in recent years within the rural
development policies of Mexico. For this reason, the new extension strategy
stated that the Extension advisers should work with farmers' organizations or
informal farmers’ groups instead of individual farmers. Since farmers’
organizations do not prevail in the countryside, some advisers started working in

the establishment of farmers’ organizations, and others completed the

64

 

requirements to legalize the organization in 2001. However, 27 percent of
extension advisers indicated they are still working with informal groups.

Findings of this study indicate that two thirds of farmers’ organizations (68
percent) are new. They were established during the last two years (Table 14).
From the groups currently established, advisers formalized 37 percent of them
during 2001.

Table 14 Year of establishment of farmers’ organizations (N=30)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ear Frequency Percent
1997 1 5
1998 1 5
1999 4 21
2000 5 26
2001 7 37
2002 1 5
Total 19 100

 

 

 

 

 

Respondents were asked whether their farmer’s organization offered any
services to their members. The fact that farmers’ organizations are new may
explain why half of them do not offer any service to their members, while 37
percent offer services related to inputs delivery and another 37 percent offer
marketing services (Table 15).

Table 15 Kind of services offered by the farmers’ organizations (N=30)

F Percent

del 37

7
services 7 37
1 O 53

 

A similar situation was observed in the case of the organizations' assets.

More than three fourths (79 percent) of the organizations’ representatives

65

indicated that they do not have any asset. Only ﬁve percent own ofﬁces and
buildings, and 16 percent own tractors and machinery (Table 16).

Table 16 Farmers’ organizations’ assets in Nayarit State (N=30)

 

 

 

 

 

Kind of asset Frequency Percent
Ofﬁces and buildings 1 5
Trucks, tractors and 3 16
machinery

Other 1 5
None 1 5 79

 

 

 

 

 

Organizations’ representatives were asked to indicate the number of
members in the organizations or groups. Table 17 shows that one third of them
have fewer than 10 members and more than half (53 percent) have between 11
and 30 members.

Table 17 Farmers’ organizations’ number of members (N=30)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
Less than 10 members 10 33
Between 11 and 30 16 53
members
More than 31 members 4 13
Total 30 100

 

 

 

 

Nevertheless the pronounced farmers’ awareness regarding the
importance to belong to organized groups, it is important to point out that this
awareness was the result of the interest of getting any kind of governmental
support (such as seeds, animals or money) as some advisers indicated to

farmers.

66

Some organization members mentioned that the extension advisers talked
with them about the various Alliance for the Countryside sub-programs, and they
explained the characteristics of each program and asked them to choose one of
the area sub-programs to develop the project.

Although there were exceptions noted, in the organizations that offer
services of inputs delivery, their members have proof that they can get important
savings working jointly, and they were sincerely interested in the project.
However, in most of the cases, farmers agreed to organize solely to get the
program support, yet they prefer to continue working in individual way. For
instance, in the case of some livestock projects, where the project included the
purchase of cattle heads, the respondents indicated that once the support was
obtained, the heads would be divided among the members, according to the
number of heads that each of them could afford to pay. In this case, there is a
risk that the organizations established by advisers do not function as farmers’
groups. If they were formalized only to fulﬁll the requirements for the project,
farmers will team together temporarily while they receive the support. After that,
due to the lack of farmers’ commitment, the organization could disappear.
Respondents ’ proﬁle

As indicated in the methodology section, 45 farmers were interviewed, 30
organizations’ representatives and 15 organization members. For those
organizations with 15 members or fewer only one of the organizational
representatives was interviewed, and an additional member was interviewed in

the organizations with more than 15 members.

67

Half of the organization representatives were between 45 and 64 years of
age, while 60 percent of the members were in the same age strata.

Table 18 Respondents’ age (N=45)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Representative (%) Member (%)
(N=30) (N=15)
Fewer than 25 years 0 7
Between 26 and 44 years 30 20
Between 45 and 64 years 50 60
65 years and over 20 13
Total 100 100

 

 

Regarding the educational level, two thirds of the organization
representatives have more than primary school, while more than half (54
percent) of the members have the same education level (Table 19).

Table 19 Respondents’ education level (N=45)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Representative (%) Member (%)
(N=30) (N=15)
Never went to school 3 7
Until 3rd grade 30 40
Primary school 20 7
Secondary school 27 27
High school 17 7
Bachelor degree 0 13
Other 3 0
Total 100 - - 100

 

 

 

 

 

An independent sample t-test was applied to ﬁnd out whether or not the
age differs between the representatives and the members. The difference of the
mean was found not signiﬁcant at 0.05 level (t = .720, p = .475). This means

there is no difference in the average age of the two groups of respondents.

68

A Chi-square test was applied in the case of educational level, the
signiﬁcance was higher than 0.05, this means there is no difference between
representatives and members of farmers’ organizations in educational levels.

Another characteristic studied was the main farm operation. Table 20
shows that 60 percent of the representatives and less than half of the members
(47 percent) had row crops as their main farm operation. The second farm
operation was livestock/dairy activity practiced by 23 and 13 percent of the
representatives and members, respectively.

Here it is worth saying that almost two thirds of the respondents (62
percent) had experience in the activity involved in the project. However, for 38
percent, the activity involved in the project is new.

Table 20 Respondents” main farm operation (N=45)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Representative (%) Member (%)
(N=30) (N=1 5)

Row crops 60 47
Livestock/dairy 23 1 3
Vegetables 7 1 3
Orchard 3 1 3
Sugarcane 7 7

Other 0 7

Total 1 00 1 00

 

 

Some respondents agreed that the low marketing prices faced by some
crops, mainly the row crops have forced them to look for other more proﬁtable
farm operations such as raising vegetables, growing orchards, or by combining
row crops and livestock as a way to add value to the agriculture production to

convert the maize and sorghum in meat or dairy.

69

Figure 10 Farmers’ experience in the activity involved in the project (N=45)

No
38%

 

 

Yes

62%

 

 

Question 3. What is the level of involvement of the beneﬁciaries
or members of farmers’ organizations in the projects

development and implementation?

The farmers’ attendance at meetings was used to measure indirectly the
farmers’ participation or interest in the projects. Analyzing the number of
meetings attended, Table 21 shows that the farmers’ organization members had
major participation in the meetings implemented by advisers. It was found that 60
percent of the farmers’ organization representatives attended more than ﬁve
meetings, compared to 67 percent of the members.

An independent sample t-test was applied to ﬁnd out whether or not the

number of meetings attended differs between the representatives and members.

70

The difference of the mean was found not signiﬁcant at 0.05 level (t = .175, p =
.862). This means that there is no difference in the average number of meetings
attended by the two groups of respondents.

Table 21 Respondents’ attendance at meetings (N=45)

 

 

 

 

 

Representative (%) Member (%)
(N=30) (N=1 5)
Fewer than 5 meetings 40 33
Between 6 and 10 50 67
ore than 11 meetirLgs 10 0
otal 100 100

 

 

 

 

 

In order to learn the farmers’ level of involvement in the project, several
questions were asked both of the representative and members of farmers’
organizations.

The ﬁrst question was related to the knowledge about the project. They
were asked ‘whether they know the title of the project’. In this question all the
respondents, representatives and members answered afﬁrmatively.

In the remainder of the questions, there were some differences. Table 22
shows that all of the representatives attended at least one meeting implemented
by the extension advisers, while 93 percent of the members did so.

Similarly, in the question related to the knowledge about the total
investment in the project, almost two thirds of the representatives (63 percent)
showed awareness compared with one third (33 percent) of the members.

In the same way, the representatives showed more access to the
information related to the corresponding organization’s investment contribution

compared with the members, 60 percent and 47 percent, respectively.

71

Lastly, the respondents were asked about their willingness to contribute or
invest in the project. A great majority of the representatives (83 percent)
answered afﬁrmatively, compared to 60 percent of the members. For some of
respondents, both representatives and members, their willingness to contribute
was conditioned to the amount of investment, only 3 percent of representatives
and 20 percent of members answered negatively to this question.

Table 22 Comparison of farmers’ participation in the project (N-45)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Representative (N=30) , Members (N=15)
Knowledge about the project 100% 100%
Attendance to at least one 100% 93%
meeting
Knowledge about the total 63% 33%
investment
Knowledge about the 60% 47%
organization’s investment in the
project
WillirLgness to contribute/invest 83% 60%
Involvement indicator 81 67

 

 

 

 

Even though a higher percentage of respondents indicated willingness to
contribute to the projects, it is worth noting that in the case of those organizations
created before 1999, not all the members were willing to invest in the project.

The answers to these questions were used to build an indicator to
measure the farmers” level of involvement in the projects. Table 22 shows that
the organization representatives have an involvement indicator of 81 percent,
compared to the members’ involvement indicator, 67 percent.

One of the reasons that could explain this difference is that the adviser
has more communication with the representative, because the representative

signs fortnightly the adviser’s work-plan as well as his paycheck.

72

In order to determine the extension advisers’ perception about the
farmers’ participation in the project, they were asked to respond to questions
related to the farmers' participation in the activities undertaken to develop the
project. Table 23 shows the results.

Table 23 Extension advisers’ perception about farmers’ participation (N=42)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good (%) Fair (%) Poor (%)

Attendance at meetings 66 24 0
Participation in the needs 85 12 3
assessment

Participation in activities to 90 10 0
implement the project

Interest to contribute or invest 66 26 8
Level of involvement 81 19 0

 

Extension advisers were asked a question related to the farmers‘
attendance at meetings, the adviser’s answer reﬂects either the number of
farmers as well as the consistency of the attendance.

About two thirds of advisers (66 percent) rated the farmers’ attendance at
meetings as “good”. Over four ﬁfths (85 percent) of the advisers indicated that
farmers have participated in needs assessment. Nine out ten indicated that
farmers participated in activities to implement the project.

Lastly, two thirds of advisers felt that the farmers have sufﬁcient interest to
contribute or invest in the project and 81 percent rated the overall level of

involvement as good.

73

Analyzing farmers' participation is important because according to
evaluation studies implemented by the Wodd Bank in area development projects2
among the different factors that assure the success of these kinds of projects are
aspects such as commitment and beneﬁciaries’ participation.

The OED (1993) reported that ‘ownership’ of the project is vital, by the
rural people to be directly affected, the government —at the political level- and the
principal agencies involved.

Rural people’s commitment to a project’s goal, while rarely analyzed, is a
crucial determinant of outcome. Beneﬁciaries’ participation in planning and
implementing development projects is so important that govemment’s genuine
commitment to this approach can be viewed as a leading indicator of government
commitment.

In the case of beneﬁciary participation (from identiﬁcation through to
operation and maintenance), it was found that ‘participation’ in a development
project implies that members of the community to be affected initiate changes,
not that they merely accept, or do not object to changes offered to them by
outside agencies. This implies that individuals help to identify the goals of the
project, are provided with authority, and then become substantively involved in

decision-making. Involvement in implementation allows smooth adjustment to

changing circumstances and may lead to communities taking responsibility,

 

2 Area development projects are investment projects designed to develop a rural area largely to
beneﬁt the rural poor. They often serve low potential, degraded areas neglected by investment
strategies. Many are multi-sectoral, with activities in agriculture (crops, livestock, conservation,
ﬁsheries, forestry), water supply, health, rural infrastructure, and small-scale off-fann enterprises
(OED, 1993).

74

through their own organizations, for maintenance of the investments.
Participation helps to ensure that only investments what have prospects of being

sustained, are ﬁnanced (OED, 1993).

Question 4. What is the current mechanism to advise and

monitor the extension advisers’ work?

In order to advise the professional adviser’s work, the program design
included coordinators. A coordinator had the responsibility of advising the work of
ten advisers through different activities. The activities were to accompany
advisers to the meetings with farmers, support advisers to realize the needs
assessment and establishment of farmer‘s organizations, help them gather the
information needed to develop the project, and support them in the activities
needed to implement the project. The coordinator had also the responsibility of
meeting fortnightly with the Executive Extension Committee to discuss the
adviser’s achievements.

The coordinator activities were intended to improve the quality of services
delivered, however, during the ﬁeldwork from the interviews with the program
administrators, the researcher could perceive and observe only in a few cases a
sincere participation of the coordinators in the activities realized by the advisers.
It seems that the coordinators believe that their role in the program is solely
meeting weekly with the advisers. Sometimes, they participate in the meetings
with farmers, but they did not make any difference in the activities implemented
by the advisers. That is, coordinators did not provide feedback, suggestions, or

recommendations through which advisers could improve their work.

75

In fact, if coordinators actually carried out their work, the number of
projects scored as non-satisfactory in the ﬁrst review would have been lower.
The problem could be due their lack of training and experience to support
advisers. On the other hand the program design does not seem to consider any
mechanism to reward or punish the quality of coordinators’ and extension
advisers’ work.

Regarding the monitoring mechanism, it is worth mentioning that it was
proposed, at central level, the development of an information system with the
objective of gathering information about all the Extension advisers working in the
32 states in the country. However, it was not possible to implement the system in
2001, now it is being improved in order to meet all the requirements needed to
start working in 2002.

On other hand, extension advisers’ performances were assessed through
the ‘products’ delivered. For this ﬁrst stage of the program, the ‘products’
considered were: (a) the group or community needs assessment and (b) the
income-generation project. According to the operation rules, those advisers who
not deliver the products in a fashion Would be ﬁred.

Since the beginning of the program in June 2001 to the end of January
2002, 14 advisers were ﬁred. The program administrators said that advisers were
ﬁred because they did not accomplish the ‘products’. This might be considered
as an advance, compared to the former extension program where the advisers

never lost theirjobs because there had been no way to assess them.

76

It was thought that with the coordinator’s supervision and the ‘products’
delivered by the extension advisers, there could be enough information to assess
the extension advisers’ performance, however, the ﬁndings show the contrary.
Through evaluating the ‘products' it is possible to discover who accomplished the
requirements, but not to know the real quality of their work with the farmers’
organizations.

To know the farmers' perception, representatives and members of the
farmers’ organizations were asked about their satisfaction with extension
advisers’ jobs. Figure 10 shows that 87 percent of respondents are satisﬁed.
However, taking into account that 70 percent of projects are in “stand by” waiting
for funding and that during the interview some farmers said that the last time they
saw the advisers, it has been almost two months ago (La. December 2001), the
majority of respondents tend to show no concerns about advisors.

Figure 11 Satisfaction with the professional adviser’s work (N=45)

 

77

Question 5. What is the extension advisers’ perception about the

new strategy?

Advisers were asked to respond to questions about whether the new
strategy ﬁt the current farmers’ needs and whether this approach can improve
the farmers’ welfare. In both questions a majority of advisers responded
afﬁrmatively, 95 and 90 percent, respectively.

To analyze the extension advisers’ response to the ﬁrst question, it was
possible to distinguish two groups of responses from the advisers. The ﬁrst group
of extension advisers’ responses about the new strategy included:

- “because it promotes farmers’ organization to reach goals that individually they
could not meet,”

- “because it is a way to identify rural problems and propose strategies to solve
them,”

- “because this new strategy is integral, this means it takes into account aspects
such as production, transformation and commercialization, not only the
technical aspects as the former extension program did,”

- “because it promotes farmers’ participation in the decision-making to decide
what is better for them,” and so on.

The second group of responses from the advisers implied that the
program was only an opportunity to get supports to farmers, a way to get
infrastructure and inputs to improve the agriculture production. They see

themselves as extension agents and not as “change agents” who can work along

78

with farmers in income-generation projects to tackle problems beyond agriculture

production.

When advisers where asked about “whether this approach can improv the
farmers’ welfare”, the advisers felt that through this approach the farmers’ welfare
could be improved only if certain conditions were met. For instance:

- “if the income-generation project is a farmers’ idea and it is developed with their
participation,”

- “if the organizations are created with farmers with similar interests and
objectives, this would facilitate the decision-making process to reach the goals
established,” and

- “if farmers agreed to invest and get the support needed to implement the
project.

If all these conditions are met, then the project developed will add value to
production, farmers’ income will increase; the projects will create sources of
employment and will promote rural development.

Lastly, advisers where asked about the limitations or hurdles to reach the
program objectives. They offered four limitations, which included:

a) Lack of capital, credits, economic support and so on, to implement the
projects,

b) Farmers’ lack of organizational culture, the farmers’ resistance to work
jointly due to bad past experiences, the low farmers’ participation

0) Too many requirements and bureaucracy to get the supports

d) The lack of coordination among the three different levels: federal, state
and municipal to deﬁne priorities, and invest resources with responsibility

79

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

With the design and implementation of a new strategy, the Federal
Government of Mexico sought to improve the agricultural extension services by
promoting farmers” organization and developing income-generation projects that
are responsive to farmers needs. The new strategy of the Alliance for the
Countryside was adopted in April 2001. This study was conducted to assess the
implementation of the new strategy in bringing about changes in agricultural
services.

This study was conducted in Nayarit State in Mexico. Data were gathered
from extension advisers, representatives of farmers’ organizations and key
informants at the State level. Altogether, 82 income-generation projects
proposals were reviewed, 42 surveys of extension advisers were analyzed, 30
representatives and 15 members of farmers’ organizations were interviewed.

Findings showed that the new strategy brought about changes in the
agricultural extension services. However, there are also deﬁciencies that limit the
program outcomes. This study has identiﬁed some actions that might signiﬁcantly

improve the extension program.
Conclusions and recommendations

About the extension advisers’ training program
During the 1996-2000 extension model, the training focused only on
technical aspects of agriculture. Under the new strategy, extension advisers’

training focused on the design and evaluation of income-generation projects. The

80

overall training quality was improved: 74 percent of advisers rated the quality as
‘good’. Advisers also agreed that the subject-matter content was adequate,
updated, and it provided them with the tools needed to carry out their jobs with
the groups. Likewise, 86 percent rated the quality of trainers as ‘good’, though
there were differences among them about their experience in income-generation
projects.

A major deﬁciency of the training program was the short time allocated to
training. Advisers felt that much useful information was included in the training
program, but it was delivered in a few days. The training sessions were
perceptibly too long (12 hours/day).

The ﬁndings also showed that for 38 percent of the farmers, the activity
involved in the project represents a new activity for them. In this regard, in order
to improve the program, it is recommended training advisers in those activities in
which they have not enough experience, in order to improve their capacity to
develop any kind of income-generation project.

Likewise, it is recommended training them in ﬁnancial aspects in order to
promote the search of alternative ﬁnancial sources and not wait only for the
Alliance for the Countryside resources to fund and implement the projects.
About the income-generation projects and their beneﬁciaries

Under the new strategy, extension advisers’ activities were clearly deﬁned
and established. They were expected to work jointly with the local farmers’
organizations. Each of them conducted a needs assessment to identify an

income-generation project for the members of farmers’ organization.

81

The way in which these activities were carried out is important because it
could make the difference between successful and failed projects.

a. Deﬁnition of the problem and target population. In most of the cases
Extension advisers organized meetings and workshops in the villages to conduct
local needs assessments. Through discussion and the analysis of different
scenarios including the organization’s weaknesses, strengths, threats and
opportunities, farmers identiﬁed an income-generation project that would beneﬁt
their groups.

b. Clearly focused and attainable objectives. Unfortunately, this
process seems to be lacking in many groups. It seems that the project itself or
getting the support for the project is the objective to be attained. The truth,
however, is that the income-generation project should be the triggered from a set
of activities that would result in the accomplishment of several different
objectives. If the organization is created only as a way to get support from the
government, even though the organization gets the support, the organization will
be weak and uncommitted. For this reason, the advisers should try to give less
importance to the funding support itself and focus their work on establishing
realistic and precise objectives of the organization.

c. Change strategies. Since only a few projects obtained credit or other
kinds of ﬁnancial support to start working, there is little information about how this
process was implemented by advisers. However, in those projects that are
currently working, it was possible to observe an unclear deﬁnition of actions or

strategies to be followed by the organization. Taking into account that with the

82

project, 38 percent of the respondents are involved in a new activity or an activity
in which they have little experience, it seems clear that the beneﬁciaries will need
the implementation of learning activities to get the knowledge and skills needed
to implement the project successfully.

Likewise, even though the project does not involve a new activity, it should
be undertaking learning activities in order to bring about the change in attitude
. needed in the farmers to work jointly as a group. This is perhaps the most
important challenge for the organization members participating in the program.

In regard to the projects proposals, ﬁndings of this study showed that the
overall quality of the income-generation projects developed by the advisers was
good. More than half of the projects (51 percent) were rated as satisfactory by
the state institutions that assessed the projects. Only one third of the projects (33
percent) are currently working and 70 percent of them were funded with the
Alliance for the Countryside 2001 resources.

The farmers’ organizations are new. Two thirds of them were established
between 2000 and 2001. This explains the fact that half of them (51 percent) do
not offer any service to their members, though 37 percent offer services related
to inputs delivery and other 37 percent offer marketing services.

The indicator designed to measure the farmers’ level of involvement in the
projects showed that farmers’ organization representatives have a higher level of
involvement compared with the farmers’ organizations members, 81 and 67
percent, respectively. However, it was also found that many of the farmers

organizations were created just to get the support of the government, and that

83

farmers prefer to continue working individually. This represents a risk to the
program because the farmers’ organizations will work together temporarily and
once they receive the support, the organization could disappear.
About the new strategy

With the ﬁeldwork and interviews with program administrators, it was clear
that there are two aspects that limit the establishment of an efﬁcient mechanism
to measure the advisers’ performance. One aspect is the mechanism through
which the adviser is hired and paid. The second one is related to the
organizational structure that supports the operation of the program.

The program design: According to the program, communities or farmers
organizations get support from the government to pay an adviser who should
work for them. However, since farmers did not ask for the adviser, they did not
choose him -the State Executive Extension Committee assigns the adviser to the
group-,~ and as farmers themselves are not paying for the services of the
advisers, they have little interest in the extension advisers’ job. Most farmers
appreciate advisers Who can governmental supports for them, but the general
perception was that whatever the adviser does for them is better than having
nothing done. It was clear that since farmers do not pay the adviser they could
not demand from him services of quality.

The program organizational structure: In the organizational structure
there are two elements that should be key to assess the performance of the
adviser, the coordinator and the State Executive Extension Committee. Findings

indicate that the coordinators are not really helping to improve extension

84

advisers’ performance. The primary role of the coordinator is to support adviser
in farmers’ meetings and advise them in the project development and
implementation activities. These roles were not carried out at all. It was found
that coordinators have not performed their role as expected.

On the other hand, the State Executive Extension Committee is expected
to play an important role in the physical and ﬁnancial program follow-up, but it did
not contribute to the improvement of the services. The problem could be that it
does not have enough personnel, both in numbers and in quality. They lack staff
with appropriate training and experience to support the advisers as well as to visit
and advise farmers groups to talk with farmers about the adviser job. The
existing Extension Committee structure is designed to give supports to farmers,
not to develop income-generation projects and promote development.

In this regard, in order to increase farmers’ participation, not only in the
projects, but also in overall activities realized by advisers, it is necessary to make
some changes to increase the farmers’ responsibility in the program. One means
could be through their direct participation in the adviser selection, i.e. the
extension advisers might be hired directly by a farmers’ organization or
community interested in implementing an income-generation project.

Regarding the organizational structure, the Executive and Extension
Committee activities should be limited to the physical and ﬁnancial program
follow-up. In the case of coordinators that they are not helping to improve
extension advisers’ performance, it is recommended eliminating them. Instead of

coordinators, it will be necessary to establish another institution totally

85

independent from federal and state government as well as from the Extension
Committee. The main work of this new institution would be selecting the advisers
that really meet the requirements to work in the program, supervise and monitor
their work, establish the mechanisms to measure their performance, support the
Extension Committee with feedback, suggestions and recommendations to help
it make decisions about the program, and most important, jointly with farmers,
approve or deny the extension advisers’ pay.

Indeed, an institution that is totally independent from federal and state
government, (i.e. it could be an university or another autonomous institution
involved in the rural sector), could provide an objective assessment of the
performance of advisers, which would be helpful. The new institution could
monitor the work of advisers, supervise their work, and pay them based on the
quality of the services.

Likewise, it is important to put emphasis in the computer-based
information system. If the information system were implemented this year, it
would be very important because it would allow counting with updated
information about extension advisers’ activities.

The system will have also several advantages: the stakeholders would
have access to information to make decisions related to extension advisers’ and
the possibility to evaluate the extension advisers’ and farmers’ training. The
information suggested to be gathered by the system could include:

a) General information about the adviser

b) Farmers’ organization request of services

0) Needs assessment of the groups to be served
d) Adviser’s training schedule

86

e) Training schedule of farmers
f) Proposal of the income-generation project

Final comment

It is worth saying that with the new Federal administration in 2001 the
extension service was one of the Alliance for the Countryside programs that
underwent more structural changes during 2001. However, as ﬁndings of this
study indicate, the changes made were not sufﬁcient. One of the most important
characteristics of this new strategy is that it is a long-term program as compared
to the former extension program, which was an annual program. In the former
program, processes such as hiring extension agents and deﬁning farmers’
beneﬁciaries were determined each year. It seemed that the whole program
began anew each year. The fact that this new strategy is long-term oriented
implies more challenges. This means that all the needed changes to improve it
should been undertaken now, in its second year of operation. In other words, if
each year the program administrators make changes to tackle the deﬁciencies
found, the program will never mature and it will be difﬁcult to establish long-term

goals and to assess its outcomes.

87

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE AND SURVEYS MATERIALS

88

Questionnaire to extension advisers

The Program of Professional Services for the Rural Development (PESPRO in Spanish)
is part of a new strategy designed to promote the development of the rural communities A
not only technologically but also economically and socially through the delivering of
extension services to farmers groups and farmers’ organizations with the objective to
develop and implement income—generation projects.

The information received from this survey will be used for a thesis research that seeks
knowing about the program operation as well as to provide to the stakeholders with

valuable information to improve the program.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. The information that you provide will be
kept completely conﬁdential and will be used only in combination with other responses.
Please be as candid as possible when responding the questionnaire.

If you have questions about being a human subject of research you may contact:
Ashir Kumar

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Michigan State University

246 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 355-2180

E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

If you have questions about this research project you may contact:
Elizabeth Landa Franco, Graduate student

409 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823

E-mail: landafra@msu.edu

Dr. Murari Suvedi

409 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823

E-mail: suvedi@msu.edu
89

I. TRAINING

1. How do you rate the quality of the training received?

1 ) Excellent
2) Good

3) Fair

4) Poor

5) Very poor

Explain

 

 

 

 

2. How do you rate the trainers’ quality?

1 ) Excellent
2) Good

3) Fair

4) Poor

5) Very poor

Explain

 

 

 

3. Rate some aspects from the training received according with the following scale:

 

Aspect

Exceﬂent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor

 

Content adequate for the job to
be done

 

Relation between the training
content and the farmers' real
needs

 

Updated of content

 

Training timeliness

 

Time allowed to the training

 

Handouts and course materials

 

 

Usefulness of training

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

4. Rate the quality with which were covered the following issues in the training program

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor

Diagnosis and strategic 5 4 3 2 1
planning

Commercial aspects
Organizational aspects
Technical process
Administrative structure
Financial analysis
Judgment

010101010101
A-b-ktbk-h
ODODOJWODW
NNNNNN
AAA—8AA

II. FARMERS’ PARTICIPATION

5. Evaluate the farmers’ participation in the following activities related to the economic
project identiﬁed

Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor

Attendance at meetings or 5 4 3 2 1 .
workshops

Participation in the needs 5 4 3 2 1
assessment

Participation in the activities 5 4 3 2 1
required to implement the

project .

Interest to invest/contribute 5 4 3 2 1
Level of involvement in the 5 4 3 2 1
project

III. PERCEPTION ABOUT THE PROGRAM

6. Does the new program initiative actually ﬁt the current producers’ needs?
1) Yes 2) No

Explain

 

 

 

 

91

7. Do you think that this approach can improve the farmers’ welfare?
1) Yes 2) No

Explain

 

 

 

 

8. What could be the major limitations to accomplish the program objectives?

 

 

 

 

' IV. PROFILE

9. Age
1 0. Gender
1) Male 2) Female

11. Highest degree earned

1) Technician
2) BS.
3) MS
4) PhD.
5) Other

 

12. Did you get a degree?
1) Yes 2) No

13. Years of professional experience

 

14. Do you live in any of the communities where you are working?
1) Yes 2) No

92

Organization’s name

 

Position

 

Date of interview

 

Questionnaire for farmers’ organizations beneﬁciaries of the PESPRO

The Program of Professional Services for the Rural Development (PESPRO in Spanish)
is part of a new strategy designed to promote the development of the rural communities
not only technologically but also economically and socially through the delivering of
extension services to farmers groups and farmers’ organizations with the objective to
develop and implement income-generation projects.

The information received from this survey will be used for a thesis research that seeks
knowing about the program operation as well as to provide to the stakeholders with
valuable information to improve the program.

Your participation in this survey is voluntary. The information that you provide will be
kept completely conﬁdential and will be used only in combination with other responses.
Please be as candid as possible when responding the questionnaire.

If you have questions about being a human subject of research you may contact:
Ashir Kumar

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Michigan State University

246 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 355-2180

E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

If you have questions about this research project you may contact:
Elizabeth Landa Franco, Graduate student

409 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823

E-mail: mdafr§@msu.edu

Dr. Murari Suvedi

409 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823

E-mail: suvedi@msu.edu

93

I. FARMERS’ PARTICIPATION IN THE PROJECT
1. Do you know the project developed by the extension adviser?
1) Yes 2) No

2. Did you attend to any meeting or workshop where the extension adviser implemented

activities related to the project?
1) Yes 2) No
(specify how many)

3. What was in percentage the level of participation of farmers at the meetings?

4. Did you participate in any meeting where the extension adviser presented the ﬁnal
project?
1) Yes 2) No

5. Do you know the total amount of investment required for the project?
1) Yes 2) No
(specify amount)

6. Do you know what is the organization’s investment in the project?
1) Yes 2) No
(specify amount)

7. Are you willing to contribute or invest in the project?
1) Yes 2) No 3) Maybe depend on

 

8. Do you think that the project developed by the extension adviser is the best alternative

for your organization or group?
1) Yes 2) No

94

Why? (please specify)

 

 

 

 

ll. ORGANIZATION PROFILE

9. When was the organization created (year)

 

10. Total number of members

 

11. Number of active members

 

12. What is the members’ main agriculture enterprise?

1) Agriculture (grains) production

2) Livestock production

3) Horticulture production

4) Fruit trees production

5) Perennials production

6) Processing of agricultural products
7) Marketing of agricultural products
8) Other (specify)

 

13. What kind of services does the organization offer to its members?

1) Credit and insurance services

2) Inputs (fertilizer, seeds, chemicals, etc) services
3) Marketing services

4) Other (specify)
5) None

 

14. Does your organization own

1) Ofﬁce and buildings

2) Ofﬁce equipments such as computer, phone, fax, etc.

3) Infrastructure and equipment such as weight machine, freezer, processing
equipment, etc.

4) Storage area, sales ofﬁce, collection facilities

5) Trucks, tractors

6) Other (specify)
7) None

 

95

Ill. FARMER PROFILE

15. Age

 

16. Gender

17. Do you know to read and write?
a) Yes b) No

18. Highest degree earned

a) Never went to schools

b) Until 3'd grade

0) Primary completed

d) Secondary school completed
e) High school

f) Bachelor Degree

9) Other

 

IV. CONTROL

19. Had the extension adviser agent worked before with your organization or group?
1) Yes 2) No

20. Do you have experience in the agriculture enterprise developed in the project?
1) Yes 2) No

21. Is your organization satisﬁed with the extension adviser’s job?
1) Yes 2) No

Why? (specify)

 

 

 

 

96

Semi-structured interview to program administrators

. What criteria were followed to select the extension advisers?

. What were the main activities implemented by the extension advisers to
identify and develop the income-generation projects?

. What criteria were used to select the beneﬁciaries of the program and what
was the process followed?

. What is your opinion about the quality of the training program?, Do you think
that there had any improvement compared with the 1996-200 extension
model?

. What do you consider have been the most important problems in the
implementation of this new strategy to deliver extension services?

. What are the major limitations to reach the objectives established?

. How can the government help the farmers better?

If you have questions about being a human subject of research you may contact:
Ashir Kumar

University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)
Michigan State University

246 Administration Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 355-2180

E-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu

If you have questions about this research project you may contact:
Elizabeth Landa Franco, Graduate student

409 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823

E-mail: landafra@msu.edu

Dr. Murari Suvedi

409 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48823

E-mail: suvedi@msu.edu

97

APPENDIX B

FIELDWORK NOTES

98

January 15, 2002

Program administrator 1

Question 1. Para la seleccién de los PSP se tomo en cuenta la entrevista
personal y la evaluacion realizada por el coordinador si eI PSP habia participado
anterionnente en el PEAT o PCE.

Question 2. En este nuevo programa los PSP tenian Ia responsabilidad de
trabajar con organizaciones de productores para identiﬁcar un proyecto
productivo, mismo que después evaluarian e implementarlan.

Question 3. A diferencia del PEAT donde eI técnico tenia que confonnar un
modulo de 80 productores y Ievantar un padrén con sus respectivas ﬁnnas, en el
PESPRO los beneﬁciarios fueron organizaciones o grupos de productores
quienes para poder participar deblan llenar una solicitud donde solicitaban los
servicios de un técnico, podian solicitar a alguien en especial o pedir que la
Vocalia lo asignara. Estas solicitudes fueron entregadas al CADER 0 al DDR,
después pasaron a la CDR quien las analizo y aprobo las que serian apoyadas.
Question 4. Deﬁnitivamente la calidad de la capacitacién mejoro.
Desafortunadamente hubo algunos problemas con los forrnadores, aI principio
los técnicos estaban confundidos sobre oomo realizar los diagnésticos pero los
forrnadores ofrecieron asesorais y eso ayudo mucho. Algunos técnicos
comentaron que fue mucha informacion pero muy util.

Question 5. El principal problema ha sido el tiempo, estamos un poco
atrasados, no estoy seguro de que los proyectos puedan estar listos para ﬁnes

de Septiembre, posiblemente vamos a tener que darles mas tiempo.

99

 

Question 6. La mayor Iimitacion es la disponibilidad de recursos, si a ﬁnes de
octubre no hay suﬁciente dinero para apoyar todos los proyectos algunos
productores podrian sentirse decepcionados y ya no creer mas en el programa.
Aun asi algunos productores se han quejado porque dicen que los técnicos no
les estan dando asesorais como en otros aﬁos, se les ha explicado que ahora
estan trabajando en un proyecto pero ellos quisieran ver al técnico todos los dias
en campo como sucedia anteriormente en el PEAT.

Question 7. Creo que esta es una buena estrategia para apoyar a los
productores, desafortunadamente el campo esta muy descapitalizado y va a ser
dificil convencer a los productores de trabajar organizados y sobre todo de
invertir recursos, estaban muy acostumbrados al patemalismo gubemamental,
pero creo que es una buena oportunidad para romper con esos vicios.

January 18, 2002

Program administrator 2.

Question 1. Para la contratacién de los PSP fueron considerados varios
criterios, los mas importantes fueron una entrevista y la evaluacion de
desempeno del aﬁo anterior. Muchos de los técnicos no pasaron el proceso de
seleccidn por lo que fue necesario contratar técnicos de nuevo ingreso. Algunos
de ellos entraron después debido a que algunos técnicos fueron dados de baja
porque no cumplieron con el diagnostico y el proyecto. Este es un cambio
importante con respecto al programa anterior, desafortunadamente todavia hay

algunos casos de técnicos “recomendados” que se sienten intocables.

100

Question 2. Las actividades desarrolladas por los PSP fueron los talleres
comunitarios donde se realizo el diagnostico y la identiﬁcacion del proyecto
productivo.

Question 3. En teoria debian ser los grupos de productores quienes solicitaran
directamente a los técnicos a través de una solicitud. Sin embargo, en la practica
fueron los técnicos mismos quienes se encargaron de llenar la solicitud y hacerla
llegar aI DDR. Los productores aun no estan convencidos de necesitar a un
asesor técnico.

Question 4. El contenido de los cursos fue bueno, sin embargo creo que los
fonnadores de aqui del estado no fueron los mas adecuados. Por alguna razon
Ia convocatoria no de difundio y debido a que solo un despacho participo al ﬁnal
fueron ellos los elegidos. Pero deﬁnitivamente hay gente en la entidad con
mucha mas experiencia en proyectos que ellos.

Question 5. Yo creo que todos los programas son buenos, Ia diferencia esta en
la gente y en la forma en que se implementan pero en el papel todos suenan
bien. Este tiene objetivos muy ambiciosos habra que ver que tanto se cumplen.
Las principales problemas para su implementacion han sido Ios mismos de
siempre, Ia llegada tardia de los recursos lo cual afecta los tiempos.

Question 6. Los mayores limitaciones para cumplir los objetivos establecidos
estaran por el Iado economico, no creo que haya suﬁcientes recursos para
apoyar todos los proyectos.

Question 7. El gobiemo debe continuar apoyando a los productores pero en

forma diferente a oomo lo ha hecho en los ultimos 20 aﬁo.

101

 

LITERATURE CITED

102

 

LITERATURE CITED

Altamirano, C. Reyes. 1999. Evaluation of the REME-AIMSA Club in
Huatabampo Sonora. Universidad Autonoma Chapingo. Chapingo, Mexico.

Antholt, Charles H. 1998. Agricultural Extension in the Twenty-ﬁrst Century. In C.
Eicher and J. Staatz, eds. lntemational Agricultural Development (pp 354-369)
The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.

Ary, 0., Jacobs L.C.,)and Razavieh, A. 1996. Introduction to Research in
Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Bennett, Claude. 1976. Analyzing Impacts of Extension Programs. Washington,
DC. US Department of Agriculture.

Boone, Edgar J., Pettitt, John and Safrit Dale R. 1985. Program Evaluation in
Extension. Journal of Extension Systems, National Dairy Research Institute,
Kamal India. Pages 87-121. Volume 10, No. 1 1994.

Evenson, Robert, Feder Gershon. 1991. The Economic Impact of Agricultural
Extension: A Review. Economic Development and Cultural Change. Vol. 39,
No.3. pp. 607-650. The University of Chicago Press.

Gapasin, Dely P.1993. Research Project Management. In D. Horton, P.
Ballanttyne, W. Peterson, B. Uribe, D. Gapasin and K. Sheridan, eds. Monitoring
and Evaluating Agricultural Research (pp 155-161) Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB
lntemational.

Horton, Douglas; Peterson, Warren and Ballantyne, Peter.1993. M&E Principles
and Concepts. In D. Horton, P. Ballanttyne, W. Peterson, B. Uribe, D. Gapasin
and K. Sheridan, eds. Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Research (pp 5-19)
Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB lntemational.

Horton, Douglas: Peterson, Warren and Ballantyne, Peter. 1993. Impact
Assessment. In D. Horton, P. Ballanttyne, W. Peterson, B. Uribe, D. Gapasin and

103

K. Sheridan, eds. Monitoring and Evaluating Agricultural Research (pp 100-107)
Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB International.

INEGI. 2001 [Online]. Available: http://www.inegigobmx

Mabeza, Hlezi. 1993. Training evaluation. In D. Horton, P. Ballanttyne, W.
Peterson, B. Uribe, D. Gapasin and K. Sheridan, eds. Monitoring and Evaluating
Agricultural Research (pp 180-186) Wallingford, Oxon, UK: CAB lntemational.

Mellor, John W. 1998. Foreign Aid and Agriculture-Led Development. In C.
Eicher and J. Staatz, eds. lntemational Agricultural Development (pp 55-66) The
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. .

Munoz, R. Manrrubio; Santoyo C. Horacio. 1999. Lessons from Alliance for the
Countryside Program: The Case of PEAT. CIESTAAM, Universidad Autonoma
Chapingo. Mexico.

Muﬁoz, R. Manrrubio; 2000. The Institutional Structure to Operate Extension
Programs: A Case Study of PEAT. CIESTAAM, Universidad Autonoma
Chapingo. Mexico.

Munoz, R. Manrrubio; 2000. The Payment of Extension Agents: A Case Study of
PEAT. CIESTAAM, Universidad Autonoma Chapingo. Mexico.

Munoz, R. Manrrubio; Landa, F. Elizabeth. 2000. Basic Technological Assistance
Program (PEAT in Spanish) National Evaluation..ClESTAAM, Universidad
Autonoma Chapingo. Mexico.

Operation Evaluation Department (OED) World Bank. 1993. Lessons and
Practices Number 3: Area Development Projects [Online]. Available:
http://www.wbln0018.worldbank.org/geg[oeddocclib.nsf

Rivera, M. William and Schram, G. Susan. 1987. Agricultural Extension
Worldwide. Issues, practices and emerging priorities. Croom Helm New York.

Rossi, Peter H. and Howard E. Freeman. 1985. Evaluation: A Systematic
Approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

104

 

SAGARPA. 2001 [Online]. Available: h_ttp://www.saqarpa.oob.mx

Santoyo C. Horacio. 2001. Program of Professional Services for the Rural
Development. SAGARPA. Mexico.

Staatz, John and Carl Eicher.1998. Agricultural Development Ideas in Historical
Perspective. In C. Eicher and J. Staatz, eds. lntemational Agricultural
Development (pp 8-38) The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and
London. .

Suvedi, M., Biggelaar, C., and Smalley S. 2000. Monitoring and Evaluation
Framework for the North-Cetral Region SARE Program. ANRECS Center for
Evaluative Studies. Michigan State University. Lansing, MI.

Suvedi, Murari. 2000. Evaluation of the Alliance for the Countryside. Report of
the Consultant submitted to FAO, Mexico.

Stufﬂebeam, D. 2001. Evaluation Models. New Direction for Evaluation. No. 89.
Jossey-Bass. San Francisco.

105

   

llliliilllilliil