1 Decentralization and Access to Agricultural Extension Services in Kenya Omiti, J.M., Mugunieri, G.L. and E. Nambiro

2 Introduction 1. Decentralise to make Extension Services more accessible, accountable and also empower clientele (farmers). 2. Two common forms of decentralisation : i. Shift extension provision to other institutions - e.g, KTDA for tea, HCDA for horticulture ii. Change management of programs through farmer participation in decision-making and responsibility for extension programs

3 Empowerment and Participation 1. Empowerment entails: i. Capacity Building ii. Raising Awareness 2. Greater farmer participation to exert pressure on extension services to provide timely and relevant advice

4 Extension Delivery Systems 1. Public delivery and public finance – traditional government extension but diminished budgetary support (high potential areas) Public delivery and private finance – contracting public staff (high potential areas/high value produce) Private delivery and private finance – privatised extension (high value enterprises, Agrovets) Private delivery and public finance – NGOs, CBOs (low potential areas)

5 Research Problem 1.Decentralisation appears to have been successful for high-value produce (tea, Coffee, horticulture, etc) 2.Some segments have not benefited, e.g. i. Low-value/traditional food crops ii.Agro-pastoral livestock production iii. Segments of smallholder dairy 3.Can these poor farmers afford privatised extension services?? 4.What are the workable delivery models for enhanced growth of Rural Economy?

6 Research Objectives 1.Identify types, quality, cost and access to different extension delivery channels 2.Identify opportunities for broader participation in a decentralised environment

7 Methods and Data 1.Kakamega District - High potential i.Ikolomani & Municipality Divisions 2.Makueni District - Low potential i.Kibwezi & Makindu Divisions 3.Random sampling of households farmers 4. Primary and Secondary data 5. Logit and Probit models 6. Willingness to Pay (Contingent Valuation Method)

8 Major Extension Delivery Systems 1.Kakamega (high potential) mainly served by Public delivery and private finance 2. Makueni (low potential) dominated by Private delivery and public finance 3. Limited public delivery and public finance in both districts 4.Increased decentralisation enhanced level of awareness (empowerment) by farmers of the different channels for extension service delivery

9 Determinants of Access to Extension 1.Distance to source (-) 2.Gender (favouring male) 3.Age(-) 4.Education level (+) 5.Ownership of telephone (+) 6.Social capital (+) 7.Income (ability to pay)(+)

10 Ranking of Different Extension Channels ChannelAccessCostQualityRank Public1211 CBO2142 Private3323 Media3434

11 Effects of Decentralization 1.Stimulates formation of farmer organisations (social capital), a proxy for participation which is believed to facilitate accountability of extension to farmers. 2. Enhances social capital which is an important determinant of access to extension service. 3.Encourages a pluralistic approach in the provision of extension services, with synergy within this pluralism.

12 Conclusions 1.Develop strategies to exploit and build on partnership and pluralism arising from decentralisation 2.Strengthen and implement policies that will institutionalise pluralistic extension services 3.Promote development of social capital so as to foster an efficient and sustainable extension system 4.Emphasize formation and strengthening of farmers' groups for sustainable rural development 5.Promote mechanisms to enhance co-ordination amongst different extension service providers.

13 Acknowledgements  Farmers  Enumerators  SAGA programme  Colleagues ( for comments and suggestions )  THANK YOU ALL