Agricultural Extension Services Delivery

System in Nepal

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

UN Complex, Pulchowk, Nepal
June 2010
 Table of Contents

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... i
1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Study Methodology .............................................................................................................. 1
2 Agricultural System in Nepal ...................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Agricultural Research .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Agricultural Extension .......................................................................................................... 5
3 Historical Perspective of Agricultural Extension Development .................................................. 9
4 Nepal’s Experiences with Different Agricultural Extension Systems and Their Impacts .......... 14
4.1 The Conventional Extension System ................................................................................ 14
4.2 The Training and Visit Extension System .......................................................................... 20
4.3 The Block Production Programme .................................................................................... 21
4.4 The Tuki Extension System ............................................................................................... 22
4.5 Farming Systems Research and Extension Approach ...................................................... 24
4.6 The Integrated Rural Development Project ....................................................................... 24
5 Policy Environment .................................................................................................................. 25
5.1 National Agricultural Policy 2004 ....................................................................................... 25
5.2 Nepal Agricultural Extension Strategy 2007 ...................................................................... 26
5.3 Three-Year Interim Plan (2007-2010) ............................................................................... 28
6 Extension Support Services ..................................................................................................... 29
6.1 Production inputs ............................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Agricultural Credit .............................................................................................................. 31
6.3 Agricultural Marketing ........................................................................................................ 31
6.4 Rural infrastructures .......................................................................................................... 33
7 Agriculture and Livestock Education and Training ................................................................... 33
8 Agriculture Information and Communication ............................................................................ 36
9 Farmer Organizations .............................................................................................................. 37
10 Some Experiences in Nepal with Piloted Extension Systems ................................................ 38
 10.1 Private Extension Service Providers ............................................................................... 38
10.2 Cofinancing for Extension Services ................................................................................. 40
10.3 Fee-for-Extension Services ............................................................................................. 40
11 Recommended Reform Measures for Relevant, Effective and Efficient Agricultural Extension
Services in Nepal ........................................................................................................................ 41
References

Annexes

ii
 Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADBL Agricultural Development Bank Limited
ADB/N Agricultural Development Bank/Nepal
AEC Agro-Enterprise Centre
AIC Agriculture Inputs Corporation
AICC Agriculture Information and Communication Center
AICL Agriculture Inputs Company Limited
APP Agriculture Perspective Plan
APROSC Agricultural Projects Services Center
ASC Agriculture Service Center
BPP Block Production Program
CALSC Community Agriculture and Livestock Service Center
CBO Community Based Organization
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CDP Crop Diversification Project
CLDP Community Livestock Development Project
CTEVT Council of Technical Education and Vocational Training
DADO District Agriculture Development Office
DAE Directorate of Agricultural Extension
DCCI District Chambers of Commerce and Industries
DAT Directorate of Agricultural Training
DDC District Development Committee
DFID Department for International Development
DFTQC Department of Food Technology and Quality Control
DISSPRO District Seed Self-Sufficiency Program
DLS Department of Livestock Services
DLSO District Livestock Services Office
DLSTE Directorate of Livestock Services Training and Extension
DOA Department of Agriculture
DOAE Directorate of Agricultural Extension
DOC Department of Cooperatives
DOLIDAR Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads
ECA Extension Command Area
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FG Farmers’ Group
FNCCI Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industries
FSRE Farming System Research and Extension
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GON Government of Nepal
GTZ German Technical Cooperation
HICAST Himalayan College of Agricultural Sciences and Technology
HRD Human Resource Development
IAAS Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences
ICP Integrated Cereals Project
IDE International Development Enterprise
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IHDP Integrated Hill Development Project
IOM International Organization for Migration
IPM Integrated Pest Management
(I)NGO (International) Non-Government Organization
IRDP Integrated Rural Development Project
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JMA John Mellor Associates
JT Junior Technician
JTA Junior Technical Assistant
LAC Lumle Agriculture Center
LSGA Local Self-Governance Act
LS(S)C Livestock Service (Sub) Center
MLD Ministry of Local Development
MOAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
MOE Ministry of Education
MOF Ministry of Finance
MOLTM Ministry of Labour and Transport Management
NAES Nepal Agricultural Extension Strategy
NAP National Agricultural Policy
NARC Nepal Agriculture Research Council
NARDF National Agricultural Research and Development Fund
NDRI Nepal Development Research Institute
NMTPF National Medium-Term Priority Framework
NPC National Planning Commission
NRB Nepal Rastra Bank
NSCL National Seed Company Limited
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product
OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
OVOP One Village One Product
PAC Pakhribas Agriculture Center
PSP Private Service Provider
RATC Regional Agriculture Training Center
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
SDC Swiss Development Corporation
SEAN Seed Entrepreneurs Association Nepal
SLC School Leaving Certificate
SNV Netherlands Development Organisation
SWOT Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat
T&V Training & Visit Extension System
TU Tribhuvan University
TYIP Three-Year Interim Plan
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VAHW Village Animal Health Worker
VDC Village Development Committee
VLAA Village Level Agriculture Assistant
WB The World Bank
WFP World Food Programme

ii
 Acknowledgements

The author would like to express a special debt of gratitude to: Ms. Bui Thi Lan, the FAO
Representative to Nepal for her guidance and support in the conduct of this study; Mr.
Lakshman K Gautam, Assistant FAO Representative, for his valuable insights regarding the
agricultural extension system in Nepal; Dr. Lokendra Poudyal, National Team Leader for the
preparation of NMTPF, for his support; and Mr. Shrawan Adhikary for his help on needed
information. Thanks are also due to many individuals of Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives, Department of Agriculture, Department of Livestock Services, Department of
Food Technology and Quality Control, National Agricultural Research Council, whom I cannot
name now because the list is very long.

I am especially indebted to many farmers, farmers group members, private service provider
representatives, traders, agro-entrepreneurs, (I)NGO representatives, agricultural scientists and
extensionists whom I have met and benefited from their suggestion during their participation in
the workshops, focus group discussions and meetings.

I am particularly thankful to Mr. Malcolm Hazelman, Senior Extension, Education and

Communication Officer of FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, for his meticulous
review and suggestions to improve my draft of this report. Omissions and errors in the report
are, of course, the responsibility of the author.

Tek Bahadur Thapa

 Agricultural Extension Services Delivery System in Nepal1

1 Background

1.1 Purpose of the Study

At the request of the Government of Nepal (GON), Ministry of Agriculture and

Cooperatives (MOAC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO) is formulating the National Medium-Term Priority Framework (NMTPF) for FAO’s
assistance to support objectives related to food security and agriculture development. In
so doing, FAO is supporting sector studies to bridge the gap of knowledge in some
areas as identified in the Stakeholders Workshop jointly organized by the
Government—the National Planning Commission (NPC) and MOAC—and the FAO in
August, 2009. Agricultural extension services delivery system is one of the areas for
such a study.

This study is expected to contribute to the formulation of the NMTPF for Nepal. The
main objective of the study is to identify the major issues and challenges facing the
agricultural development sector from the perspective of technology transfer to the
clientele. The strengths and weaknesses of the existing agricultural extension services
will be analysed and recommendations will be put forth to address the identified gaps.
Thus, the findings of the study will be helpful in the situation analysis and the
preparation of the programme framework for the NMTPF.

1.2 Study Methodology

The consultant had earlier been engaged in the situation analysis exercise of the
NMTPF formulation and presented the findings on issues and challenges facing the
agriculture sector in the country during the joint Stakeholders Workshop described
above. Further, to identify the gaps confronting the agricultural extension system and to
suggest interventions by FAO and the Government to achieve development objectives
in the agriculture sector, following study methodology was adopted.

a. Review of literature. There is a dearth of evaluation studies concerning

agricultural extension system in Nepal. However, this has been complemented

1
This report is prepared by Mr. Tek Bahadur Thapa, FAO Consultant for NMTPF Formulation Team.
 by the analysis of historical changes in the system and its contribution to meet
demands, priorities and needs of the agricultural producers. An insight from the
experiences of implementing different agricultural extension systems, often
supported by donor partners, has helped in assessing the suitability in the
Nepalese context. The study of these pilot agricultural extension systems has
helped to understand the impact on agricultural producers, cost effectiveness of
the various systems and, finally, the sustainability of new system intervention.
Review of documents highlighting extension reforms and experiences elsewhere
was conducted. This was helpful as a reference for suggesting interventions in
light of successes and failures observed in the Nepalese agricultural extension
system.
b. Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT) analysis. During the process of
situation analysis for NMTPF formulation, the SWOT analyses were conducted in
the Department of Agriculture (DOA) and the Department of Livestock Services
(DLS) separately in June 2009. Under MOAC, these are the two departments
responsible for public extension services delivery. The outputs of those SWOT
analysis exercises have been used in this study.
c. Focus group discussions. These discussions were held with private sector and
public sector groups.
d. National Workshop on Agricultural Extension. The author presented a paper and
participated actively in this workshop organized by Directorate of Agricultural
Extension (DOAE) of DOA in June, 2009. The workshop was participated in by
farmers, farmer group members, input dealers, traders, processors, private
service providers, (I) NGOs, agricultural researchers, extensionists and donor
representatives. This workshop was very useful to gather opinions of the
stakeholders regarding the state of agricultural extension services and
suggestions for future reforms.
However, no mention of this workshop, the focus group discussions and SWOT
analyses has been made in this report because of the differences in the duration
of this assignment and occurrences of those events. But the information from
those events has been drawn for the present analysis.
e. Meetings. Key persons were visited to seek their opinion about the issues that
demanded clarification and to solicit their suggestions for improving agricultural
extension services delivery in the country.
f. Collection of secondary data. Published data on extension programme funds,
number of women extension workers and private extension service providers
was not available. Organizations were visited personally and a research assistant
was engaged to collect that information. It was apparent that after the devolution
of agricultural extension services delivery to the local body (District Development
Committee), communication of information, to the departments from the district

2
 extension institutions and vice versa, has deteriorated. Analysis has been
conducted based on the limited information available and, in some cases,
qualitative information by informed authorities has been used to substantiate the
findings.

2 Agricultural System in Nepal

Nepal is divided into three physiographic regions—mountains, hills and Terai—with

elevation ranging from 60 m in the Terai flatland in the south to 8848 m Himalayas in
the north (K.C., 2001). Climate also varies according to topography from alpine and
tundra in the north to subtropical in the south. Precipitation ranges from 1500 mm to
2500 mm and 60-80 percent is received from June to September. More than 70 percent
of this monsoon rain goes waste and, at times, causes heavy loss of lives and assets.
Owing to different topography and climate, Nepal is home for varieties of flora and fauna
(Figure 1).

Figure1. Map of Nepal

3
The features of Nepalese agriculture are unique in the sense of its complex nature of
farming systems that are intertwined among the multiplicity of enterprises of crops,
livestock, poultry, vegetables, fruits, spices, fisheries, agro-forestry and non-timber
forest products. To this day, majority of the farmers produce what they consume and
consume what they produce. The average farm size is 0.8 ha with 47 percent
landholdings of size less than 0.5 ha (Table 1). Rice, maize, wheat, finger millet and
barley are the major cereals grown. Maize and millet are mostly grown in the non-
irrigated uplands and rice-based cropping pattern is popular in the irrigated areas.
Oilseeds, pulses, sugarcane and potato are the other important crops. Different fruits
and vegetables are cultivated in summer and winter seasons in different physiographic
regions. Aquaculture is popular in the southern Terai flat land and river systems
originating mostly from the Himalayas harbor indigenous fish species. Nepalese land
use pattern has been presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Selected indicators of agriculture in Nepal

Particulars Area in ‘000 ha Percent

A. Land use pattern:
1. Agricultural land cultivated 3091 21.0
2. Agricultural land uncultivated 1030 7.0
3. Forest (including shrub) 5828 39.6
4. Grass land pasture 1766 12.0
5. Water 383 2.6
6. Others 2620 17.8
Total 14718 100.0
B. Number of holdings (‘000) 3 364.1 100.0
1 Holdings with land (‘000) 3 337.4 99.2
2 Holdings with no land (‘000) 26.7 0.8
3 Holdings less than 0.5 ha (‘000) 1 578.9 46.9
4 Holdings more than 0.5 ha and 1 504.3 44.7
less than 2.0 ha (‘000)
5 Holdings 2.0 ha and above 254.2 7.6
(‘000)
C. Average size of holding (ha) 0.8 NA
D. Average parcel per holding 3.3 NA
(number)
E. Average parcel size (ha) 0.24 NA
F. Cropping intensity 1.8 NA
Sources: 1) MOAC.2008. Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture, Kathmandu
2) Central Bureau of Statistics. 2004. National Sample Census of
Agriculture, 2001/02, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.

Important livestock include cattle, buffalo, goat, sheep and pig. Poultry keeping is
increasingly popular as demand from urban areas is rising. About two-third of the milk
4
and meat produced in the country is contributed by buffalo alone.

2.1 Agricultural Research

The Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) was established in 1992 by an Act of
Parliament as an autonomous body to coordinate agricultural research in the country. It
is headed by an Executive Director appointed by the government. Under NARC, there
are 15 divisions, two national research institutes, 14 commodity programmes, four
regional agriculture research centers and 18 agriculture research stations.

The main areas of responsibility of NARC are (NARC, 2002): 1) to promote, support,
coordinate, and evaluate research activities related to agriculture, natural resources and
rural development, 2) to ensure that the national research agenda and resource
allocation reflect the needs and priorities of rural communities and agro-entrepreneurs,
3) to ensure that researches are conducted with full participation of stakeholders,
particularly the resource poor farmers, small entrepreneurs, food insecure and remote
areas, 4) to promote participation of potential research partners, including government
departments, university system, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private
agencies and individuals, 5) to mobilize national and international resources for
agriculture and natural resources research, 6) to coordinate and facilitate in defining
research agenda, priority setting and resource allocation for core and competitive
research programs, 7) to encourage pluralistic regional research and development
capabilities, and 8) to develop mechanism to transfer technologies and to ensure
coordination among research providers and technology delivering agencies in public,
NGO and private sectors.

To date, agricultural research is more focused on food crops than on horticulture,

livestock, non-timber forest products and fisheries. In general, funds for research on
agriculture and natural resources are limiting factors but in horticulture, livestock and
fisheries, dearth of human resources in both quality and quantity is also a binding
constraint. New technologies in terms of varieties and practices are available on food
crops for increased productivity but availability of modern inputs, credit facilities and
market have constrained the full exploitation of technologies by the agricultural
producers. Likewise, the focus of research is primarily on production aspects so the
postharvest research is lagging behind. Since the private sector participation in
agricultural research is almost non-existent, NARC is the single largest public body
entrusted for the cause.

2.2 Agricultural Extension

5
Under the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC), the Department of
Agriculture (DOA) and the Department of Livestock Services (DLS) are responsible for
public sector extension services. The departments are headed by Directors-General
and supported by Deputy Directors-General. At the central level, there are disciplinary
Programme Directorates to help the departments in specific subject matters and to
advise on matters related to policy, planning, monitoring and evaluation. These
directorates supervise and provide technical guidance to agricultural farms and district
level extension offices. Private sector linkage and coordination are also facilitated by
these programme directorates. In essence, they function as technical hands of the
departments.

The organizational structures under DOA and DLS are similar from the departments
down to the grassroots level in the districts. A representative and simplified structure of
agricultural extension system under DOA has been presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Simplified organizational structure of the agricultural extension system in Nepal

Ministry of Agriculture and

Cooperatives

Department of Agriculture
Programme
Directorates
Regional Directorate of
Agriculture (5)

District Development
Committee (75)

District Agricultural
Development Office (75)

Agricultural Service Center

(378)

Farmers’ Groups and Farmers

Under the DOA and DLS, there are five regional directorates—one in each
developmental region—which primarily focus their functions in coordination with
6
agriculture related line agencies and private sector, monitoring and evaluation of district
level extension services. There are District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs)
and District Livestock Services Offices (DLSOs) in all 75 districts of the country
respectively for agriculture and livestock related extension services to the agricultural
producers. These district offices are under the direct technical supervision of the
respective regional directors but administrative control is somewhat ambiguous: after
the devolution of agriculture and livestock extension to the District Development
Committees (DDC) according to Local Self-Governance Act 1999, the DADOs and
DLSOs fall under the administrative purview of the DDC. However, the regional
directors of the departments of MOAC are exercising administrative authorities in
practice. This conflict in the line of command creates confusion to district extension
offices. This situation persists because of the absence of elected body in the DDC. The
DDCs are presently headed by the Local Development Officers who are the cadres of
the Ministry of Local Development (MLD).

The districts are subdivided into Agriculture Service Centers (ASCs) and Livestock
Service Centers to provide extension services to the agricultural producers. The
producers are organized into Farmers Groups to access government extension
services.

The major objectives of the DOA and DLS are as follows:

! To increase agricultural production based on geographical specialization;

! To ensure food security through increased agricultural production and
productivity in the country;
! To supply raw materials for the expansion of agrobased industries;
! To provide suitable markets for agroproducts and to promote competitive
agriculture system for increased value addition in agricultural commodities;
! To promote agro-enterprises for increased off-farm employment;
! To support import substitution and export promotion of agricultural products;
! To help in reducing poverty of marginal, small and women farmers by creating
productive employment opportunities;
! To verify technology through adaptive research; and
! To maintain balance between agricultural development and environmental
protection, and conservation, promotion and utilization of genetic resources.

Strengths of Agricultural Extension (DOA)

! Well established organizational structure throughout the country, up to the

7
 subdistrict (service center) level;
! Availability of infrastructures and facilities like agricultural farms, laboratories
(seed, soil and plant protection), agriculture training centers and plant
quarantines to support extension service;
! Availability of human resources with specialization in different agricultural fields;
! Presence of different kinds of partners like (I)NGOs, private input suppliers
(called agrovets), farmers groups and cooperatives; and
! Liberalized economic policy adopted in the country.

Weaknesses of Agricultural Extension (DOA)

! Weak motivation of technical staff;

! Frequent transfer of trained human resources, and placement not in accordance
with “the right man in the right place”;
! Career opportunities not in line with performance and qualification;
! Inadequate technical expertise of professionals and low literacy of farmers;
! Blanket recommendation (one size fits all) of technologies, and lack of need
based technology generation and transfer;
! Insufficient facilities and organizational set up at the grass roots (ASC) level;
! Lack of crop insurance policy;
! Weak coordination among related departments and ministries;
! Insufficient physical infrastructures like laboratories and ASC buildings;
! Minimum budget flow to the disadvantaged groups/ farmers;
! Lack of required training to human resources;
! Weak technology dissemination;
! Lack of appropriate programme planning;
! Weak marketing system; and
! Poor agricultural commercialization in hills and mountains.

Strengths of Livestock Extension (DLS)

! Organizational structure present down to the subdistrict level with 999 LSCs;
! DLS has 4050 human resources;
! Rich in animal genetic resources;
! Good land resources for forage and fodder development (feed resources);and
! Acts and bylaws are in place.

8
Weaknesses of Livestock Extension (DLS)

! High cost of production of milk, meat, egg, seeds, medicine;

! Indigenous knowledge and skills not transferred to new generation;
! Poor information flow, analysis and dissemination mechanism—poor
communication;
! Inadequate skilled manpower in major technical fields like animal breeding, dairy
technology, farm management, acts and regulation, safety and quality, laboratory
analysis, trade, continuing education, policy analysis , human resources
planning, harmonization with international standards, sanitary and phytosanitary
standards;
! Inadequate human resources especially at medium technical level;
! Low staff motivation;
! Poor infrastructures and facilities at service centers;
! Inadequacy of appropriate technologies;
! Economically important diseases not prevented;
! Inadequate infrastructures and facilities for milk and meat marketing;
! Profitability analysis of enterprises not done;
! Inadequate linkage with stakeholders; and
! Weak planning, monitoring and evaluation.

3 Historical Perspective of Agricultural Extension Development

Changes in the agricultural extension services delivery system can be broadly classified
into three distinct periods according to the emphasis put on the development of the
agriculture sector in conjunction with the shift in the political economy of the country.
They are: The period before 1951, the period between1951 and 1990 and the period
between 1991 to the present.

Before 1951
This period signified the autocratic rule by the Rana Regime until 1951. The ruling class
was impressed by the new technologies used in countries they visited and thus
introduced such new technologies and techniques as they considered appropriate and
especially if considered useful to them. Imports of Jersey and Red Sindhi cattle, clover
grass, tea, and other plant species are examples. The first ever Agriculture Office was
established in Singha Durbar, Kathmandu in 1921, later upgraded to become the
Department of Agriculture in 1925 to provide information on the modern agriculture
practices to the farmers for producing more food in the Terai regions and as sources of
9
supply to the Kathmandu valley where they resided. Institutional growth resulted from
the creation of an Agriculture Council as well as a vocational agricultural school in 1937.
This marked the provision/emergence of agricultural extension workers for the country.
Plant nurseries and orchards were also developed and a veterinary hospital established
all of these located in the Kathmandu valley for the benefit of the then elites who were
the ruling class. Later, agricultural farms were established, one each in Terai
(Parwanipur) and the hills (Kakani) regions for experimentation on exotic crop varieties
as to their adaptability in the Nepalese context. There existed, however, a problem of
coordination and linkages between the Department of Agriculture and the Agriculture
Council which necessitated a merger resulting in a new Agricultural Development Board
that existed until the end of this era. The Department of Agriculture was reestablished in
1951 (K.C., 2001).

The period 1951 to 1990

The end of the 104 years long Rana Regime in 1951 led to the start of bilateral
assistance from donor countries. The Agricultural Extension Service was formally
constituted in 1953 with the Tribhuvan Village Development Programme which started
in the mode of an integrated rural development initiative in which agriculture was one of
the important components. However, the first planned agricultural development started
with the launching of the First Five Year Plan in 1956. Increased production and
employment were envisioned through the development of agriculture which gave
emphasis to the transfer of agricultural technologies to farmers. However, the supply of
modern agricultural inputs and the availability of extension workers were recognized as
constraints to agricultural development.

A School of Agriculture was established under the Department of Agriculture in 1957.

Later in 1959, an extension function was transferred to the Department of Agriculture
and was placed under the new Agriculture Extension Section. A Rural Youth (4-H)
Program and Home Science activities were also initiated. Earlier, extension agents were
termed as Village Development Workers who were later renamed as Junior Technicians
(JTs) and Junior Technical Assistants (JTAs) —the titles they still carry to date with
roles relating to the discharge of their specialized tasks relating to either agronomy,
livestock, horticulture, home science and agriculture engineering after the subject
specific training that was imparted to them. District Agriculture Development Offices
(DADOs) were gradually opened in all 75 districts to provide information on improved
farming techniques through the use of various extension methods including
demonstrations, trainings, farm visits, agriculture tours, competitions, leaflets and
meetings. The use of these extension methods have not changed substantially to this
day. Zonal Agriculture Development Offices were later abolished and the districts
10
became supervised by the Regional Agriculture Directorates.

Frequent organizational restructuring has been the state of affairs in the agriculture
sector beginning in 1966 when the Department of Agriculture was dissolved to give way
to five departments that include Research and Education, Horticulture, Livestock,
Fisheries and Agricultural Extension under the Ministry. In 1968, the School of
Agriculture was upgraded to collegiate status but was transferred in 1972 to the
Tribhuvan University (TU) and became known as the Institute of Agriculture and Animal
Sciences (IAAS).

The decades of the 1970s and 1980s witnessed the inflow of Integrated Rural
Development Projects financed by bilateral and multilateral development partners
covering the entire country, some with larger coverage of districts than the others. All of
these had, by and large, agricultural extension components.

The Government’s decision in 1990 had also made provision for the establishment of a
Department of Horticulture which was later reviewed resulting in horticultural services
being located under the DOA where it currently is located. Similarly, all research
mandates were vested in the Nepal Agriculture Research Council (NARC) which was
created by a separate Act of Parliament in 1992 formalizing it as an autonomous
institution. Thus, the responsibilities for agriculture extension, research and education
rest with three separate entities respectively of departments, council and institute
spanning a distance difficult for coordination and linkage. At different times, a unified
extension system to address the integrated agriculture-livestock based farming system
was tried with the merger of the Agriculture and the Livestock Departments. After 1995,
four departments—Agriculture, Livestock Services, Food Technology and Quality
Control and Cooperatives—are operational under the Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives. The Departments of Agriculture and Livestock Services are the two major
extension service providing institutions with district offices established in all 75 districts
of the country.

The period 1991 to the present

The Peoples’ Movement of 1990 displaced the erstwhile Panchayati System of
governance to establish the Multi-Party Democracy. At this juncture, seven
development plans had already been implemented and agricultural extension was
primarily involved in the transfer of improved agricultural technologies to farmers for
facilitating increased production and for raising their standards of living. New avenues
were open in the international arena and Nepal could no longer be isolated from the rest

11
of the world in the need to embrace the advent of globalization.

The Eighth Plan (implemented between 1992 and 1997) was amidst the challenges of
economic stagnation, increasing poverty, rapid population growth, structural anomalies
and environmental degradation. In the beginning of the Plan, the agriculture sector
alone contributed 61 percent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and provided 80 per
cent of the employment to the work force. Hence, priority was accorded to it for
agricultural intensification and diversification to achieve food security and to create
accelerated demands for labor in providing employment opportunities. The Plan marked
the turning point for the economy, hence true for agriculture, by forging an open market
policy in its operations.

The Eighth Plan also placed major emphasis on extension services delivery through
grassroots Agriculture Service Centers2 (ASCs) together with the mobilization of leader
farmers from the farmers group to undertake extension functions for expansion of
extension coverage while at the same time reducing government expenditure by the
public supported extension system. As a cost reduction measure and for effective
service delivery, all extension services were again organized through single
administrative umbrella in 1992 but this only lasted for duration of just three years.

Privatization had been the order of the day in the plan and having a competitive
agricultural system was taken on board in regards extension services, research, input
distribution, agro-processing, and marketing. The role of the government was defined
mainly in terms of management, quality control and monitoring. As a result, chemical
fertilizer distribution was deregulated and opened to the private sector on equal footing
with the government-owned Agriculture Inputs Corporation (AIC). The initial response
by the private sector was encouraging but it did not last owing to policy differences
imbedded in neighboring India which continued subsidies for chemical fertilizers even to
this day. The border regions between India and Nepal enabled illegal inflow of
subsidized fertilizers, often of inferior quality, into Nepal and the supply and use has
never been smooth since deregulation.

Macro-policies were not reviewed to match with agriculture policies or vice versa for
open market operations. Agriculture was viewed as entirely the private sector
undertaking and there was a slump in the public sector investment. Indian agricultural
policies supported heavy public sector investment along with subsidies on production
inputs. But in Nepal, along with the chemical fertilizers, subsidy on shallow tubewell

2
ASCs are public extension offices located at subdistrict levels. Throughout the country the ASCs are 378 under
DOA and LS(S) Cs are 999 under DLS.
12
irrigation development was also withdrawn which slowed down the pace of irrigation
infrastructure development in the Terai that was advocated for increasing food
production under the Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) (1995-2015). Withdrawal of
subsidies in Nepal put Nepalese farmers in a difficult situation to compete with Indian
farmers who are enjoying subsidies on different production inputs.

Government agricultural farms which had been established in different agro-ecozones

at different times also had limited extension functions in their command areas in the
name of outreach programme in the field of specialization of each farm in agronomy,
horticulture, fisheries and/or livestock. These farms were basically charged with the
responsibility of producing improved seeds/breeds, saplings, fingerlings, and poultry
chicks for distribution to the farmers. Training for farmers and the maintenance of
mother stocks for further multiplication and breeding were also functions of the farms.
While some specialized farms had significant impact on improving farmers’ enterprises,
linkage with the extension system was weak owing to duplication of efforts and
confusion in the roles played.

Public extension was seen as having poor partnership and linkages even with
government partners. The Departments of Agriculture and Livestock Services are
primarily responsible for advisory services for farmers and NARC has outreach research
sites in some locations that facilitate or enable interaction among extensionists, farmers
and researchers. The national research organization (NARC), extension services (DOA
and DLS) and education (IAAS/TU) are functioning under different umbrellas, making
coordination and linkage functions difficult to enable the provision of unified extension
services to farmers. The IAAS does not have any such venues for interaction among the
stakeholders.

Extension services about home science, food quality and regulation, marketing and
agribusiness development are extremely limited to the level of constraining the pace of
agricultural commercialization and the growth in international trade. The role of
cooperatives in technical services, input distribution, marketing, and credit facilities are
also found limited due to organizational, financial, and human resources constraints.
Cooperative members lack technical and management knowledge and skills. As well,
there is dearth of capital, infrastructures and facilities to run on sound business
principles. About 40 percent of Nepalese cooperatives are limited to saving and credit
functions. There were 11 454 cooperatives in the country by mid-March 2008; primary
cooperatives constituted 98.7 percent (11 302) and saving and credit occupied 39
percent (4 432) out of the total numbers.

Under the Ninth and the Tenth Development Plans, there was faced a slump in public

13
funds earmarked for the agriculture sector as priorities shifted to education, health and
infrastructure development. Agriculture in general was regarded as a private sector
venture, while at the same time, the country was experiencing the decade-long armed
conflict beginning in 1996. After the Peoples’ Movement II in 2006, the country entered
into the era of federal democratic republic for which a new constitution is now in the
making and the system of agricultural extension services delivery is bound to have a
new structure following promulgation of the constitution. The Three-Year Interim Plan
(2007-2010) was prepared amidst the peoples’ rising expectations, and the challenges
related to agriculture and rural sector were seen as ensuring food security and
alleviating poverty.

4 Nepal’s Experiences with Different Agricultural Extension Systems

and Their Impacts

During the last six decades of agriculture development endeavors, various initiatives
had been publicly financed with the support of international development partners.
Several experiments were also conducted with different approaches specific to the
donor-assisted projects that were implemented throughout the country. These projects
varied in terms of geographical coverage of districts, the size of funding and the number
of project components. However, they also had commonalities such that all projects had
agriculture and natural resources components, they tested the approaches for services
delivery, implemented income generating activities through knowledge and skills
development, had external advisors with varying experience levels, were implemented
for a time-bound period, developed local infrastructures, and were aimed at raising the
standards of living of the beneficiaries.

4.1 The Conventional Extension System

The Nepalese agricultural extension system is characterized by the public services

delivery dominated by conventional approaches to advise agricultural producers and the
stakeholders. After several experiments with different approaches, Government of
Nepal (GON) has resorted to the conventional one, working through Farmers’ Groups
(FGs), since 1988 and thus deserves an elaborate treatment in this report. Features of
such a conventional system include the following:

a. Organizational structure and manpower. The public sector, under the

GON, is the major extension service provider in Nepal. Under the MOAC, the
Departments of Agriculture and that of Livestock Services are the responsible
institutions for extension services provision. In all 75 districts of the country,
14
 District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs) and District Livestock
Services Offices (DLSOs) are respectively designated for agriculture and
livestock extension services. The strength of the manpower varies between
those located in mountains, hills and Terai districts. In the agriculture
subsector, the number of Agriculture Service Centers (ASCs) located at the
subdistrict level are fixed—4 each in Terai and mountains, and six in the mid-
hill districts—irrespective of the number of farm households, scale of
commercialization, agricultural area covered, the types of crops grown, the
level of poverty faced, access to information and connectivity, existence of
rural infrastructures, and so forth. Farmers can visit the ASCs to seek advice,
and extension workers do not have to make regular schedule to visit them,
except for a definite purpose of their own. The total number of ASCs is 378
throughout the country while in the livestock subsector, there are 999
Livestock Service (Sub-) Centers (LS(S) Cs) varying in number from one
district to another.

Earlier the number of service centers was in correspondence with the number
of Ilaka3 in the district, but this number has changed from time to time. The
service centers are headed by JTs (Junior Technicians) or JTAs (Junior
Technical Assistants). Farmers visit agriculture and livestock service centers,
often located in different places, separately to seek advice they require. The
attempt to provide a unified service from the same center failed as merger of
DOA and DLS did not last long.

b. Farmers’ group approach. GON has adopted the farmers’ group approach
of extension service delivery for reasons of cost effectiveness, group learning
and joint decision making. To access government services, farmers are
required to be organized into such groups having persons of similar interest in
enterprise types. Agriculture and livestock farmers’ groups are generally in
separate groupings. They are advised by extension workers to conduct
regular monthly meetings and to raise welfare funds. The JT/JTA contact FGs
to select candidates from among farmers to make use of available external
trainings, to conduct demonstrations, to participate in agricultural tours and in
other activities offered under government funding. These groups ultimately
graduate into cooperatives as formal institutions and get operated following
business-like operations and for purposes of accessing benefits provided to
cooperatives from the government.

3
Ilakas are the subdistrict headquarters meant for government service delivery contact points.
15
 c. Leadership and capacity. District, region and department levels are headed
not by extensionist but by any of the officials of the DOA because the
leadership post is of the facultyless4 nature. Some of the appointees happen
to be recent recruits and thus of limited experience in agricultural extension.
In the district, other subject matter specialists are also posted. They represent
various technical areas/fields including horticulture, agronomy, plant
protection, agricultural economics, fisheries and agricultural extension. The
required entry level is a graduate in agriculture related sciences or by
promotion from JT level. The extension advice, even today, is related
primarily to new technologies for higher productivity without much regard to
aspects such as profitability, sustainability of production, post harvest
operations, grading, packaging and marketing.

There exists also a lack of information on quality standards and marketing

management due to the lack of expertise among the extension workers
themselves. The front line extension workers are mainly the JTAs and JTs in
the ASCs who hold respectively mainly high school (some with JTA training)
and intermediate level qualifications from the vocational school and
agricultural colleges. The needs, priorities and demands of the farmers for
improved farming thus remain unmet by the available extension work force in
the country.

There are only two specializations —livestock and veterinary services—under

the livestock subsector while the rest of the leadership and staff capacity
scenario is similar to agriculture extension services described above. In
essence, there is a narrow focus of the extension service and the technical
capacity of the extension system is inadequate to meet farmers’ demands for
agribusiness development, commercialization, diversification and natural
resources management.

d. Partnership and funding. At the local level, funding for extension support is
very limited that the staff find no resources for their full time engagement
without forging partnerships with the Village Development Committees
(VDCs), or the District Development Committees (DDCs), (I) NGOs, farmers
groups, Community Based Organizations (CBOs), and other government and
private sector stakeholders. Local priorities funded from DDC sources ( which

4
There are various subject matter faculties in MOAC including agronomy, horticulture, fisheries, livestock and
dairy, veterinary, extension, plant protection, agri-engineering, agri-economy, food technology and soils. These
Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs) are responsible for advice to farmers in line with the relevant disciplines they
come from.
16
 are mostly from Central Government grants) are not, however, earmarked for
agriculture purposes but are meant to be used for infrastructures (roads,
drinking water, telephones, etc) and for the social sector (such as for
education and health services). There is generally difficulty in finding partners
having the resources to address in needs in agriculture. In the absence of
having elected local bodies, JTs/JTAs have the added responsibility to
represent as members of the VDCs pursuant to the Government decision.

e. Personnel management and incentive mechanisms. There exist 11

technical specialties (called the faculties) that make up the agriculture service
of MOAC. Entry levels, promotion and transfers have to be managed within
the specific technical area to which an individual belongs. Poor remuneration
packages, frequent transfers and limited opportunities for higher level studies
for career development are problems facing extension staff. The Civil Service
Act is one that is applicable to all types of government employees, excepting
the health personnel.

There exists token field allowances available for the field staff such as the JTs
and JTAs, but these are insufficient to motivate them. As well, frequent
transfers do not relate to the earlier experiences and individual capacity.
There is also the absence of clear job descriptions for the employees as well
as career development paths that are transparent and based on a scientific
performance evaluation system.

f. Thinly spread public resources. To satisfy political demands equally among

parties, extension programs tend to focus coverage over the entire districts of
the country. This approach distributes the limited public funds available to all
ASCs rendering gamut of extension packages of inputs, trainings, marketing,
etc ineffective in isolation. DADO finds no better alternative than to allocate at
least some activities to each ASC as target for engaging JT/JTA.

g. Program planning, monitoring, evaluation, and experience sharing.

Extension workers have been trained in some of the tools and techniques
useful in extension work which includes those such as participatory rural
appraisal, problem census/problem solving, projectization, project concept
note preparation, logframing, proposal writing, bottom-up planning,
participatory monitoring and evaluation, etc. Needs assessment is normally
carried out at the Farmers’ Group (FG) level one year in advance for use in
planning during the following year but there is no assurance that planned
activities are carried out and funds committed for implementing these from the

17
 Central Government. There is also no flexibility to articulate programmes and
funds based on farmers’ priorities and needs. The Central Government
provides the ceiling for funds allocated each year and the district council
approves an annual extension programme based on the availability of funds
according to the devolution principles. The extension programmes are then
translated into activities which form the targets for each ASC annually.
Monthly reports are submitted to the district by the ASC and districts forward
them to the region, and the region to the department with limited feedback
from the supervisors. Joint planning and priority setting between and with
research, education, and client groups is generally absent within the
extension system. Client surveys, diagnostic studies, program evaluation and
impact assessments are also not built into the system. As well, indigenous
knowledge of the producers is not well understood (and not considered) by
research and extension.

On the positive side, the NARC does organize summer and winter crop
oriented workshops where research and extension can interact. Outreach
research sites of the NARC also provide useful venues for local level
information sharing. There is, however, no joint projects/programmes
participated in by research, extension and education arms of the agricultural
system leading to their acting as independent and separate entities.
Therefore, extension has not been able to adequately address the needs,
priorities and demands of the agricultural producers. Programme areas are
scattered and geographical coverage is large for successful monitoring of
extension activities. The situation is also aggravated by the shortage of
vehicles for mobility.

h. Logistic support and extension materials. ASCs are ill-equipped with

required mobility by field vehicles, teaching aids and extension materials. In
many places the ASCs operate from rented premises or share facilities with
VDCs and others. Extension messages are not often accompanied by critical
support services of inputs, credit and marketing. There are neither means nor
capacities of the extension workers to put up a trial to solve local problems at
the farmers’ fields.

i. Knowledge and information management. The system does not embrace

regular experimentation, reflection and learning for the improvement in the
service delivery system. There are several good practices visible with farmers
groups which are published and broadcast through radio and television
programmes but are seldom internalized and replicated. Technical advices

18
 passed on to farmers are based mainly on recommendations from NARC but
the extension workers do not have capacity to adapt them for area-specific
problems and needs.

j. Changing needs of farmers. Commercial farmers’ demands are more

specialized than input-based demands of subsistence farmers. The former
demand for enterprise management, dairy animal production and supply of
quality semen (CLDP, 2008). Donor-assisted projects tend to push through
agreed activities which farmers generally have no or little need for or consider
as low priority to them. In Community Livestock Development Project (CLDP)
districts where the milk market is well developed, farmers prefer milk
production as opposed to meat production which the CLDP is promoting
according to what the focus is in the project design. Thus, there is a mis-
match between farmer’s real needs and interests and project focus.

k. Services to the disadvantaged. The extension system works with a

generalized approach to delivering the services without regards to the types
of clientele existing in the farming community. These different types of service
recipients include: small/marginal and big farmers; agricultural producers
devoid of communication infrastructures in the remote areas; and different
indigenous and ethnic communities, Madhesis and Dalits who historically had
poor access to all services provided by the state. So the extension system
should design different mechanisms and related service inputs to address the
needs and priorities of these different clienteles prevailing in the agriculture
sector in the country.

l. Women farmers. Widely recognized, Nepalese women farmers work longer

hours and contribute more in farming than their male counterparts. But
extension service coverage for women farmers is less than that for male
farmers. The reasons for this are: very few or no frontline female extension
workers in the districts; male extension workers not well oriented towards
gender sensitive service delivery skills; cultural values in some societies
prohibit free movement of women out of their homes; lack of women-friendly
technologies to reduce their drudgery (for example, food processing);
additional responsibilities of child care and household core borne by women
compared to the males; and lower literacy rate of women farmers than the
male farmers.

One important extension method to reach women farmers, however, is

noteworthy; the organization of on-the-spot training in the farming community

19
 has helped in the technological empowerment of women. But such events are
very limited in number and the duration for such one-day-trainings happen to
be for just few hours.

m. Migration of youth. A study conducted jointly by the World Food Programme

(WFP) and the Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) in the Mid-and
Far-Western part of the country concluded that the average age of the
surveyed migrants was about 30 years, almost 75 percent of the migrants
were between 19 and 44 years of age and almost all migrants were male.
Though migration is also viewed as a coping strategy against shocks and
crises, Nepalese youth from all parts of the country tend to migrate abroad
because: 1) normal life was disrupted during the Maoists’ armed conflict
between 1996 and 2006, and many were displaced from their communities, 2)
both on-farm and off-farm livelihood opportunities were limited in the country,
and 3) the growing demand for labour abroad was conducive for supporting
the economy from migrant remittances. This scenario resulted into the
agricultural activities in the hands of elderly people, women and children.
During the same period, agriculture sector received low priority in policies and
programmes, and resources allocation by the government.

n. With the changing context of the peace process, Nepalese youth should be
brought into the mainstream of commercialization and diversification of the
agriculture sector for it to contribute significantly to the economy with the
involvement of the youth, the active labour force.

The Nepalese agricultural extension system is still conventional characterized by the

notion and practice of research generating the technologies which extension passes on
and the farmers hopefully adopting these technologies. Experiences in Nepal have
shown that the present system is old-fashioned and not suited to farmers’ current
needs, priorities and demands. As a result, the present day objectives of food security,
poverty reduction, commercialization, competitiveness, inclusive services, and natural
resources management for sustainable livelihoods improvement are difficult to achieve.

4.2 The Training and Visit Extension System

The World Bank assisted the GON for the introduction of the Training and Visit or T and
V Extension System first in the Bara and Parsa districts in 1975, and later extended it to
all 19 districts in the Terai and in four districts in the mid-hills. The approach was well
accepted in the beginning as a means to expand extension coverage, to train farmers
and extension workers and to pass on technical recommendations in a time-bound
20
schedule of visits to contact farmers. This approach was implemented from 1975 up
until 1989 (Basnyat, 1990). As implementation progressed, the extension service
developed fatigue with this system due to the following reasons:

! The T and V system could not be replicated in other districts where the
donor finance was not available as it was costly to sustain in terms of both
financial and human resources.
! The main emphasis was put on technical recommendations which farmers
and extension workers found uninteresting when the same messages
were repeated.
! The system emphasized more on the production aspects, and in the
absence of corresponding post harvest and agribusiness activities for
value addition, farmers, extension workers and entrepreneurs experienced
disincentives to raise production and productivity. The support services for
inputs, credit and marketing were weak compared to farmers’ demand due
to weak partnership and linkage between extension and the various
stakeholders.
! Extension workers lacked motivation, and regular supervision especially of
the front line Village Level Agriculture Assistants (VLAAs), was hampered.
VLAAs were not motivated given the meager honorariums paid to them
and eventually sought to discontinue making regular visits to contact
farmers.
! The system could not be replicated in the hilly areas owing to poor
communication infrastructure given the difficult terrain where households
are more scattered.

4.3 The Block Production Programme

The Block Production Programme (BPP) is an approach of extension services which

has its roots from the concept of Green Revolution technology development in that
production and productivity can be increased when complete packages of production
practices are integrated and concentrated in a particular commodity in the contiguous
agricultural area called the “block”. In 1982, the approach was tested in the two Terai
districts of Chitwan and Parsa under a USAID supported Integrated Cereals Project
(ICP). Later it was expanded to the entire Terai and to some hill districts with the
government funding. Originally, the block consisted of 1 000 hectares of contiguous
plots but was later changed to 100-hectares sub-blocks when the pre-requisites were
not available for larger size “blocks”. In the hills regions, the sub-blocks were often of
much smaller size, some of just 20 hectares per block. The success of BPP rests on the
integrated use of seeds, fertilizer, irrigation and management practices. These inputs
21
were to impact on raising productivity through large scale demonstration effect to the
farmers, and to support self-reliance in the food security needs of the country.
Agronomists (not the regular extension workers) from research were deputed to the
blocks supported by JTs/JTAs, thus there was a higher ratio of extension workers to
farmers compared to normal extension support found elsewhere, which, although
positive, proved to be unsustainable for large scale replication throughout the country
and was thus finally discontinued. Originally, the 1 000 ha blocks was to be supervised
by one agronomist, 2 JTs and 10 agriculture assistants but this was later relaxed in line
with manpower availability. The BPPs covered 1 10 000 ha consisting of about 78,000
farm households in 28 districts (Basnyat, 1990).

The BPP relied heavily on public sector support for inputs, credit, irrigation, technical
recommendations, and marketing. The private sector’s participation was grossly
neglected. As the programme expanded, networks and linkages among stakeholders
(such as input and credit suppliers, etc) was found to be weak since they did not have
the organizational resources to match with the required extension coverage. It may be
argued that the BPP approach was bias towards large and resource-rich farmers who
had large farm sizes with irrigation facilities and afforded purchased inputs. The BPP
was even highly criticized by neighboring farmers who were devoid of services because
they lacked the prerequisites of resources to participate in the programme. Overall, the
BPP approach was costly in terms of financial and human resources compared to the
nationwide conventional approach.

4.4 The Tuki Extension System

Under a Swiss-assisted Integrated Hill Development Project (IHDP), the Tuki5 system of
agriculture extension was introduced in the Dolakha and Sindhupalchowk hill districts in
1977. The main features of the system are the following:

This system did not generate new technologies for use by the farmers but relied on
technologies developed by commodity research programmes in the country and
screened them through the conduct of adaptive trials in the three agricultural farms by
the researchers in the project districts. A package of seeds and fertilizers was also
distributed to test their suitability in the local condition. Then the researchers met with
the extension staff to relay the results of the trials conducted (Dongol, 2004). Farmers
trainings were conducted at quarterly basis with the involvement of researchers.

5
The word “Tuki” refers to a kerosene lamp that is commonly used by villagers in the remote areas where the
modern amenities of electricity are not available.
22
The Tuki System’s activities were not limited to technical subjects alone. The extension
worker under this system had to: fulfill the needs with respect to improved agricultural
inputs; disseminate information and train his neighbours; demonstrate new technology
to his neighbours; and understand his own capacity and those of the agencies helping
the farmers.

The system was implemented with the recruitment of volunteers (the Tukis) to the VDC
after an intensive 15-days long progressive farmers training. They received four
trainings in a year before the agriculture seasons. These volunteers called “Tukis” were
those who had high respect within the community, with willingness to help their farmer
neighbors in modern technologies, who maintained their own model farms, and
distributed agricultural inputs to farmers and who were also interested to interact with
neighbors regarding modern farming issues. As honorarium, Tukis received from the
project 20 percent commission on the sale of inputs (seeds, seedlings, saplings, chicks,
goats, tools, etc) and allowances at Nepalese Rupees6 (NRs) 0.50 per km travelled for
the deliveries of such inputs. As well, Tukis also received interest-free credit, up to NRs
500 (US$ 6.84) worth of inputs for three months. Later the commission on input sales
was replaced by the provision to them of a seed multiplication programme in which the
Tukis as well could participate.

Research and extension linkages were established between the DADO and agriculture
farms through meetings held at the project headquarter located in Sindhupalchowk
district. The DADO continued to operate following the conventional extension approach,
the only addition being that the Tukis functioned to provide inputs which was often a
missing component in the formers’ work. Thus the two systems were complementary to
each other. In Dolakha district for instance, one JT/JTA, the Tukis’ supervisor, had to
cover 960 households or 747 ha cultivated area (Basnyat, 1990).

The Tuki system, however, did not expand beyond the two project districts, and the
operation, since it was basically the conventional approach described earlier, after IHDP
was phased out in 1990. Under 1988/89 prices, the operation of the Tuki system
required about NRs 4,00,000 (US$ 5 469) per year (of which 20 percent went towards
the payment of Tuki commissions and travel) which was equivalent to about 24 percent
of the then annual budget of Dolakha district. Tukis later organized themselves into a
Tuki Association and also sought alternative forms of employment given the paucity of
business transactions.

6
1 US$ is equivalent to NRs 73.14 on March 23, 2010.
23
If linked to modern input suppliers, in partnership with DADO and research
organizations, some of the Tukis could perform as private sector inputs providers with a
successful enterprise to support effective extension services delivery.

4.5 Farming Systems Research and Extension Approach

Under a Department for International Development (DFID) assisted project, the Lumle
Agriculture Center (LAC) and the Pakhribas Agriculture Center (PAC) located in the
western and eastern hills respectively were assisted to integrate research and extension
in the hill districts. It was initiated in a Farming Systems Research and Extension
(FSRE) project under a single umbrella (and line of command) to generate technology
in the research outreach sites with the participation of farmers to avail inputs locally and
to expand the adoption of proven agricultural technologies within the Extension
Command Area (ECA). There were only two divisions in the project namely, technical
and administration. The integrated approach, however, confined itself within the project
for inputs delivery and not much attention was paid to the existence of private
stakeholders for future sustainability in marketing and enterprise development. At the
later stage, the project extended partnership with the T and V System in the hills, in the
western region, but the coordination and linkage was weak due to differences in
management aspects in separate projects funded by different donors. Though the
extension service under the project established good contact with farmers, the high
extension cost could not be sustained by the government.

4.6 The Integrated Rural Development Project

All the administrative zones in the country were covered by the Integrated Rural
Development Projects (IRDPs) in the 1970s and the 1980s. The mode of
implementation recognized the existence of technology but what remained to be done
was to boost agricultural production and productivity with improved supply of inputs,
better extension services support and infrastructural development to uplift the rural
standards of living. Thus the IRDPs emphasized strengthening the existing conventional
extension system with additional temporary manpower, the supply of production inputs,
construction of Agriculture Service Centers and additional fund for services. In sum, the
IRDPs adopted the conventional extension system described earlier and focused on the
intensity with which to implement the extension interventions. The projects in different
locations varied in terms of project components, level of funding, coverage of
geographical area from a single district to the entire zone, density of extension service,
and so forth.

The Ministry of Local Development (MLD) was the central coordinating agency and the
24
Project Coordinator was deputed from there. Individual components were to be
implemented by the respective ministries through their district level line agencies. Some
of the earlier IRDPs provided project allowance to the manpower working under the
project but this was later discontinued as it adopted a discriminatory policy compared to
the staff doing similar jobs elsewhere outside the project. The task of integration was
found difficult because of the varying rules and working guidelines adopted by different
line ministries and the line of command was unclear due to the presence of many
bosses that extension had to report to. The cost of extension services was moderate
under the IRDPs. Grass roots level extension infrastructures like ASC buildings, market
yards, trails, rural roads and small irrigation schemes proved to be of worth and some of
them are still useful today. Research-extension linkage worked through strengthening
existing agricultural farms within the project area while others relied heavily on the
available technology and was promoted through the DADOs. At later stages, it was
realized that technology was not available for all categories of farmers (e.g.
irrigated/non-irrigated conditions) to adopt based on the assumption of green revolution
technology applicable to all environments.

5 Policy Environment

The Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) (1995-2015) has twin objectives of poverty
reduction and sustainable agricultural growth with multiplier effect on non-agriculture
sector. National Agricultural Policy 2004 lends from APP and National Agricultural
Extension Strategy 2007 outlines implementation mechanism to achieve goals set by
the foregoing policies. The Three-Year Interim Plan (2007-2010) encompasses
objectives of ensuring food security with enhanced agricultural productivity,
commercialization and competitiveness, inclusive extension service delivery,
conservation of agro-biodiversity and sustainable environment.

5.1 National Agricultural Policy 2004

Despite the priority accorded to agriculture under the various Nepalese Developmental
Plans, the National Agricultural Policy was only formulated in 2004. This policy
envisions the sustainability in agricultural production, and transformation into a
commercial and competitive system from the existing subsistence farming system. Food
security and poverty alleviation are the current challenges while at the same time
agriculture is vital for the sustained economic growth of the country. There are three
major objectives outlined for the agriculture sector under the policy (NAP, 2004). They
include:

25
 a. Increasing production and productivity to ensure food security and alleviate
poverty,
b. Making agriculture competitive in the regional and world markets with the
development of prerequisites for agricultural commercialization and
diversification, and
c. Conserving and managing natural resources for environmental sustainability.

These policy objectives are, however, difficult to achieve because associated policies
do not follow corresponding reforms to complement the agricultural policies.
Agricultural research focuses on varietal development with higher production potential,
resistance to pests and diseases, and early maturity traits. Higher productivity does not
ensure higher returns to farmers owing to low product prices and high cost of production
inputs. Supply of livestock breeds, veterinary drugs and raw materials for feeds has to
depend largely on imports from India. Indian policies on agricultural outputs and inputs
have a large bearing on the profitability of farming in Nepal. Subsidy and price supports
in India are still continuing while the Nepalese government deregulated inputs
(especially chemical fertilizer and shallow tubewells) distribution, and minimum support
price was withdrawn.

Agro-processing and products marketing have not received due priority. Quality
standards and certification system development is lagging behind which constrains
participation in the domestic and export markets. Thus competitiveness in regional
markets is weak. These facts slowed down the pace of commercialization as well.
Natural resources management is a multi-sector endeavor, not related to the agriculture
sector alone. Agricultural practices continued to pollute the soils, water and the
environment as ecofriendly practices were not put to use to minimize the untoward
effects of agrochemicals, veterinary drugs and hormones. Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) was popularized only for a few crops but with limited geographical coverage.

Reasonable inclusion of women, small and marginal farmers, indigenous and ethnic
groups, and disadvantaged producers in remote areas could not be materialized from
the change in policy as the conventional extension system continued with the traditional
work procedures. Cooperatives suffered from reduced level of public services as the
organization was down-sized in coverage of districts. The private sector did not find it
encouraging participating in agricultural research and developmental works under the
existing policy provisions.

5.2 Nepal Agricultural Extension Strategy 2007

Nepal Agricultural Extension Strategy (NAES) primarily outlines the mechanism to

expedite the implementation envisioned by the Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995-
26
2015) and emphasizes efficient and effective services to agricultural producers through
a participatory process by enabling learning among them. The Strategy focuses
primarily on institutional pluralism, privatization and decentralization of extension
services. Since the services were devolved pursuant to the Local Self-Governance Act
(LSGA) 1999, it was necessary to define roles and responsibilities of the central
government and the District Development Committee (DDC). Coordination and linkages
among value-chain stakeholders are weak at all levels—from district to the center.
Monitoring of extension programmes by MOAC institutions is weak and there is a lack of
elected local body in the district for about a decade now.

The district and village governments are run by teams of bureaucrats –who have their
respective agency roles—relating to that of the central government. Under the current
practice, manpower and conditional grants are provided by the central government and
programme planning, budgeting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation rest with
the local government. The agricultural development fund to be managed by DDC has
been conceptualized in the NAES with the contributions from donors as well as from the
private and public sectors. The DDC grants from the central government are seldom
prioritized for the extension programmes; budget ceilings provided to DADO and DLSO
are the major sources of funding extension programmes.

The public sector extension has been mandated to address the poor, small and
marginal farmers, socially excluded groups, women, and areas where the private sector
does not find a comparative advantage to work in targeted programmes. For agricultural
commercialization, the public sector has to change its role from being a service provider
to that of service management in working with agro-entrepreneurs and to provide
support through the roles of facilitation, monitoring, standardization and quality control.
Collaborative and partnership roles of public and private agencies are highlighted in the
Strategy for efficiency and effectiveness. (I) NGO’s role has been best described as
being for social mobilization aspects for organizing farmers into groups and later to be
federated into cooperatives.

The use of lead farmers with the provision of training for them for capacity building to
disseminate information and to act as local resource persons has practical application in
IPM technologies and recognizes farmer-to-farmer extension as a cost effective and
relevant mechanism. Information and communication technologies has substantial role
to play in disseminating information but the application in agriculture is yet to be
popularized. The Strategy encourages the use of electronic media through Farmers’
Call Centers in rural areas that have telephone facilities. Thus far a toll-free number has
been established at the Agriculture Information and Communication Center (AICC) in
Kathmandu for interaction between the agricultural technicians and the farmers.

27
Identification of national and district priority commodities, division of districts in clusters,
and targeting of special projects for poverty reduction are envisioned in the Strategy.
Coordination among the stakeholders is expected through a district based committee
(e.g. the District Agriculture Development Committee) participated in by all the public
and private stakeholders.

The overall impact of the Strategy is expected to contribute to improved food security,
increased income, environmental balance, inclusive agricultural development,
commercialization, sustainable livelihoods, value addition and quality control of
agricultural products.

5.3 Three-Year Interim Plan (2007-2010)

The overall goal of the agriculture sector in the Three-Year Interim Plan (TYIP) of the
Government is to achieve broad-based, inclusive and sustainable agricultural growth. In
so doing, the objectives put forth under the plan are: increased productivity, food
security, competitive agriculture, inclusive development and environmental balance.
Nepal’s Agriculture Extension Strategy is to be implemented for efficient and effective
services delivery. On technology generation and services, the Plan encompasses
decentralized approach to establish sovereignty of farmers in the decision making
process in areas of agricultural research planning, implementation and evaluation. The
integrated role of research, extension and education is recognized for improved delivery
and information service provision through internet and website networks development in
accessible areas. The interagency coordination through partnership and complementary
roles among government, NGOs, cooperatives, community organizations and local
bodies is visualized.

At the Village Development Committee7 (VDC) level, demand based Community

Agriculture and Livestock Service Centers (CALSCs) establishment is geared towards
gradual self-sustenance. Devolved extension services will receive backup support for
soil testing, seed testing, plant protection, fertilizer quality test, different trainings,
artificial insemination, veterinary care, and quarantine services. As inputs delivery for
agricultural modernization are imperative, community resource centers will be
established for agriculture and livestock development purposes (TYIP, 2007).

7
The Village Development Committee is the lowest body of the local government comprising of about 5 800
inhabitants on the average.
28
6 Extension Support Services

The most important but limiting factors for modernizing agriculture in Nepal comprise of
the services of production inputs, agricultural credit, marketing of inputs and outputs,
and rural infrastructures. The relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the agriculture
extension system are also contingent upon these factors.

6.1 Production Inputs

Extension messages are often not accompanied by the availability of physical inputs.
This not only frustrates the farmers eager to adopt innovation but also demotivates
extensionists in their job performance, and the reliability of services is also questioned.
Agricultural innovations do not spread by just words-of-mouth. The government
extension system has been criticized since long for not delivering the production inputs
on time, to the places where they are needed, and in the right quantities and qualities.

The erstwhile government-owned Agriculture Inputs Corporation (AIC) was restructured

into the Nepal Seed Company Limited (NSCL) and Agriculture Inputs Company Limited
(AICL) which now mainly focus their transactions respectively in crop seeds and
chemical fertilizers. The distribution of chemical fertilizers has been drastically reduced
since restructuring while the sale of seeds has maintained the status quo. Sales by the
NSCL, the major organized sector seed agency, amounted to 3 799 MT of improved
seeds in 2007/08 (Table 2). This situation has prevailed for at least a decade in the
past. The major part of the seeds sold by NSCL constitute of the three important food
grains—paddy, maize and wheat—out of which wheat registered the highest use at 4.1
percent of the cultivated area in the country. At times, NSCL deals with meager
amounts of oilseeds, pulse and vegetable seeds.

Table 2. Sale of improved seeds by NSCL in Nepal, 2007/08

Particulars Unit Paddy Maize Wheat

Area sown Hectare 15,49,000 8,70,000 7,06,000
Improved MT 900 30 2869
seeds sold
Area covered Per cent 1.3 0.1 4.1
by NSCL
seed
Source: GON/MOF, 2009. Economic Survey, Fiscal Year 2008/09.

The distribution of chemical fertilizers by AICL was drastically reduced after

29
deregulation in 1997. The private sector participation in import and sale of these
fertilizers was encouraging in the initial years after deregulation but the high cost of
initial investment in such bulky items ultimately discouraged the entrepreneurs. There is
already a huge gap between the inputs demanded and the sale by these institutions.
Both NSCL and AICL have their networks primarily in accessible areas in the Terai and
mid-hills.

The government agricultural farms produce limited amounts of various crop seeds,
forage seeds, fruit saplings, fingerlings, poultry chicks, calves, piglets, etc for distribution
to farmers from their district extension agencies but the demand is far greater than can
be produced. Extension programmes encourage the development of local resource
centers, on private as well as farmers group initiatives, for the production of locally
demanded inputs. These include livestock breeding, fruit and vegetable nurseries,
district seed self-sufficiency programme, fish breeding farms and nurseries. In many
cases the quality mother stock are limiting factors. In such a scenario, the concept of
Community Agriculture and Livestock Service Center (CALSC) should be implemented
with priority as a resource center for multiplying locally demanded production inputs,
and as knowledge and information provider. This is one important area where
government and international development partners should forge partnership to develop
local level capacity of producers and other stakeholders.

Rural cooperatives can be instrumental in the supply of inputs and technical messages.
State support in geographical coverage, institutional development, capacity building in
managerial and business undertakings have been the limiting factors for their expected
roles in agriculture development. Private sector input dealers, popularly known as
agrovets, operate in more accessible areas (in Terai and mid-hills) and sell seeds,
fertilizers, pesticides, micronutrients, veterinary drugs and small tools. They are also the
service providers to producers but the quality of inputs and technical recommendations
is questioned because there is no monitoring mechanism of such services. Other
private companies deal in imported as well as locally produced seeds and other agro-
inputs.

The issue of major crop seeds supply has been attempted through a District Seed Self-
Sufficiency Programme (DISSPRO) with locally available technical manpower at the
DADO from DOA but the availability of source seed for further multiplication, storage
after harvest and marketing of the seeds produced have posed major problems.

About half of the national requirement of high value vegetable seeds is commercially
handled, of which the private sector shares four-fifth of the transaction. There is
immense potential for export to the SAARC countries, and vegetable seed industry has

30
been accorded the national priority industry by Industrial Enterprise Act of 1992. The
Seed Entrepreneurs Association of Nepal (SEAN) has members from registered seed
firms, farmers’ seed producer groups and individual seed entrepreneurs and is engaged
in production, processing, marketing and exporting of Nepali seeds. Much of the hybrid
seeds (about 80 percent) requirement in Nepal is met through imports as the market is
small for the private sector to invest in the business, nor are the foreign companies
attracted to it. Similarities in the Terai with Indian climatic and production environments
have benefitted farmers to access technology from across the border.

6.2 Agricultural Credit

In general, there is no easy access to agricultural credit in Nepal. The existing

Agricultural Development Bank, Nepal (ADB/N) has been restructured as a limited
company to perform on a commercial footing and there is no designated lending agency
for agriculture now. No particular amount of agricultural credit is earmarked as against
in the past when ADB/N performed the function for the institutional loan for agriculture
with resources support from the government. In the absence of this, targeted
programmes to reach specified vulnerable and disadvantaged group of peoples has
been difficult. Interest rates for agriculture purposes with ADBL range from 10-12
percent and rural areas are devoid of formal sources of credit as it is difficult to find
branches operating in the vicinity of farmers. The branch offices in rural areas were
recalled during the decade-long arm conflict by the Maoists and have not been
reinstated since.

To fill the credit gap, farmers raise their own group welfare funds and mobilize for
agricultural and social purposes on terms decided by their members. These
accumulated funds are growing bigger and extension should pay attention to utilizing
them as participatory investments in demand-driven programmes. Savings and credit
cooperatives constitute about 40 percent of the total cooperative organizations and are
potential lending institutions. But their presence is more pronounced in urban than in
rural areas.

Microfinance institutions operate at both retail and wholesale levels but the coverage in
rural areas is limited. The rest of the credit needs is met from informal sources on
varying interest rates which often happen to be exorbitantly high.

6.3 Agricultural Marketing

There is inherent inefficiency in the performance of the agriculture produce marketing in

Nepal as wholesalers and middlemen significantly influence prices of agricultural
31
products. There should be a level playing field for all stakeholders to participate in the
market to promote competition in efficient marketing. The contribution of the
cooperatives in marketing is very low as marketing cooperatives are few in number. An
Agricultural Marketing Act is in the making by the parliament and the current marketing
operations are conducted according to the guidelines issued by the MOAC. The GON
has assisted construction of collection centers, market centers and other market
infrastructures in partnership with the producer groups, other stakeholders and the local
government. Livestock and fisheries products markets are very few, follow the
traditional unhygienic practices and the regulation of these markets has been
challenging.

The GON lacks funds to facilitate construction of more physical infrastructures and
develop efficient and competitive agricultural markets that would provide producers the
incentive to invest in innovations for increased farm incomes. Demand-driven extension
programmes motivate producers to invest in such local rural market development which
raises their income earnings. Development Partners can play a crucial role to develop
locally viable agricultural markets at least in areas served by feeder roads. This should
be concomitantly supported with marketing extension services thus far neglected.
Extension service advocates unilateral transfer of technology for increased productivity
with new technologies. Services to market-oriented production planning (commercial
farming) are grossly lacking with the government supported extension system.

Marketing of outputs suffer from inadequate capacity of storage, absence of grading

and appropriate packaging, poor transport, quality control and marketing infrastructures.
Marketing infrastructures can broadly be classified into collection centers, small
wholesale and big wholesale markets according to Nepalese scale of operation. In the
local haat bazaars that mostly operate on weekly basis, inputs and outputs are
transacted freely without regards to quality and standards, a practice continuing since
long. Milk marketing is handled by three organizations—milk cooperatives, Dairy
Development Corporation (DDC) owned by the government and private sector dairies.
DDC alone handles about 50% of the milk marketed in the country. Similarly, fruits and
vegetable entrepreneurs operate for fresh products transactions in both government-
constructed Agriculture Produce Market Centers (APMCs) and private premises.
APMCs are managed by a committee of government, producers, traders and local body
representatives.

Export markets are managed by organizations and individuals of the business

community. Knowledge and information on quality control and certification system (e.g.
organic products), sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, and grades and standards
are becoming crucial for Nepalese producers to facilitate participation in regional and

32
global markets. These are specialized fields and the capacity of the extension system
should be enhanced to provide such needed services for the various agricultural
stakeholders.

The price information system works through both public and private service providers.
Radio Nepal broadcasts wholesale agricultural prices daily, and regional radios twice a
week in the eastern and mid-western regions. Agro-Enterprise Center of the Federation
of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FNCCI) maintains website for price
information. Efforts are underway by the government to broadcast price information at
the local level through the privately owned FM radio stations. Overall, the information
services relating to commodity prices should be strengthened to help producers improve
their marketing efficiency.

6.4 Rural infrastructures

Agriculture roads are vital for movement of commercial products to the markets. Farm to
market feeder roads construction as envisaged by APP has been constrained for want
of funds. Department of Local Infrastructure Development and Agricultural Roads
(DOLIDAR) under Ministry of Local Development (MLD) is responsible for constructing
agricultural roads. The development of cold storage facilities in rural areas is poor as
power shortage is rampant. Physical infrastructures are most deficient in remote hill
districts where food insecurity is acute. Regions inhabited by indigenous and ethnic
minorities tend to have poor rural infrastructures.

7 Agriculture and Livestock Education and Training

Agricultural producers should be educated and trained on technical innovations and

markets to empower them to demand for services. Education and training institutions
should therefore be aligned accordingly to cater to the needs for ever changing
technologies and markets. The Nepalese farming system is dominated by majority of
small farms where commercial and competitive production is a challenge. Experiences
have shown that small farm enterprises as well can produce commercial goods
profitably. Women’s contribution in Nepalese agriculture is more than that of men,
suggesting their technical empowerment through inclusive education and training.

There is currently no agricultural university in the country. However, Tribhuvan

University has institutes which provide undergraduate and higher level studies in
agriculture, livestock, veterinary and food technology sciences. The Council of
Technical Education and Vocational Training (CTEVT) under the Ministry of Education
(MOE) also provides paratechnical courses for JT/JTA levels. In the private sector,
33
there are few training institutes for paratechnicians as well as academic courses at
undergraduate levels and to a limited extent, those targeted at graduate level.

The main objective of agricultural training is to enhance the human resources capacity
in technology transfer to farmers and entrepreneurs. DOA and DLS have central as well
as regional institutions for staff, entrepreneurs and farmer trainings. The Directorate of
Agricultural Training (DAT) coordinates agricultural training activities under DOA; DAT
also prepares, updates and refines training curriculum, manuals, audiovisuals for use in
the trainings at the regional training centers. Training is not treated as a specialized task
as transfers of staff to and from these institutions are frequent. Of the 36 training officer
posts in the agricultural training institutes, 15 were vacant in the FY 2008/09. Similarly,
the Directorate of Livestock Services Training and Extension (DLSTE) runs and
oversees livestock related trainings. This institution is also responsible for central level
coordination of livestock extension functions.

There are also training institutes within the MOAC departments for the training of
farmers, entrepreneurs, cooperative members and government employees. The DOA
and DLS conduct various trainings at the community level and also at regional and
central training institutes. The Department of Food Technology and Quality Control
(DFTQC) conducts trainings in the departmental premises and 5 regional laboratories,
and DOC at central and divisional/subdivisional levels following their organizational set
ups.

In FY 2008/09, DAT provided trainings to 206 agriculture officers while the Regional
Agriculture Training Centers (RATCs), together with the program directorates and
agricultural farms, trained 350 JTs/JTAs and 662 leader farmers (Table 3).

Table 3. Trainings conducted under DOA and DLS in 2007/08

Particulars DOA DLS

Officer level training 206 officers 96 officers
Non-officer training 350 JTs/JTAs 218 JTs/JTAs
Farmer training 662 farmers 344 farmers and
entrepreneurs
Sources: DAT (2009) and DLS (2009).

Trainings for agriculture officers covered the areas of planning and management, basic
induction, training of trainers and technical subjects. The duration varied from a week,
two weeks to over month-long courses. The JTs/JTAs also received more or less similar
types of trainings but emphasis was on their capacity enhancement for front-line

34
extension service delivery. Farmer Leaders received training on subjects covering being
successful resource farmers, group management and welfare fund mobilization, gender,
agribusiness promotion and marketing, planning and other technical aspects of
production, post harvest and marketing. Village Agricultural Workers training was for a
total of 51 days focused on developing lead farmers, self employment and local
resource persons for the neighbors. In 2009, of the total leader farmers trained about 23
percent were women and 21 percent of these represented the lower caste and various
ethnic groups. The technological empowerment of women generates higher levels of
income through agricultural enterprises development.

There exists partnership of the training centers with the private sector, donors and
public organizations as well in the conduct of the trainings. The concept of community
farmer training in partnership with farmers group has also begun to take shape at the
local level. It is quite interesting to note the wide range of new and important areas
covered in the trainings but the concern is the quality of the training imparted as against
the low motivation of trainees to participate. Much emphasis is yet to be put on the
selection of right kind of trainees. Curriculum design should also originate from the
needs and priorities expressed by stakeholders through interactions, participatory
processes and diagnostic studies. Resource persons to the trainings are drawn from
public and private institutions, and from freelance individuals.

The DOA and DLS provide inservice trainings on planning and management to
extension officers at the central institutes while commodity specific technical and
management skills and knowledge are provided to JTs/ JTAs at the regional training
centers. Training for lead farmers are also conducted at the regional level. Districts
focus on season specific and problem-based trainings at ASCs and on-the-spot at the
farming communities. Some mobile trainings are of short duration (usually one day long)
and target specific problem areas, for example for women who cannot move outside
their community or the problem that needs to be addressed in farmers fields. Training
on home economics is, however, lacking and needs to be addressed.

The frontline extension workers posses various education and training backgrounds at
recruitment. Entry to JTA level are school graduates usually holding School Leaving
Certificates (SLCs) which constitute 10 years of schooling which is topped up with just
one agriculture course, JTA training at IAAS or private institutes after SLC, or JTA
training at trade schools of CTEVT, or through promotion from lower levels. Since their
knowledge and skills differ greatly, management and supervision of extension function
has been problematic.

Training the private sector stakeholders who handle input and output marketing is not

35
institutionalized in the training system. However, agrovets dealing with pesticides are
given orientation before they start the business; so are the Village Animal Health
Workers (VAHWs). Interactions among producers, input dealers, agrovets, extension
workers and traders are organized infrequently by departmental agencies to discuss
and share problems and opportunities. Such occasions have provided forums for
business deals as well. IPM has been one such area where the trainers from (I) NGOs
and private organizations were reasonably included and the impact is visible.

Identification of training needs and impact evaluation of trainings on job performance

and on the change in livelihoods of the farming community are seldom carried out.
DADO and DLSO staff put forth training demands to regional training centers and thus
need for training is recognized for farmers and JTs/JTAs. Most of the trainings at the
district and central levels are based on the best judgment of the training authorities with
little or no consultation with the extension colleagues and value-chain stakeholders.
Often the trainings have not been able to motivate extension workers for better
performance but at times yield frustration owing to performance evaluation weaknesses
inherent in the entire system.

8 Agriculture Information and Communication

The Agriculture Information and Communication Center (AICC) of the MOAC, uses
mass media to provide information on new technologies through Radio Nepal and Nepal
Television on daily basis. The central level broadcasting is of general nature to
accommodate the needs of the farmers countrywide. Agriculture news has only recently
been started in 2009 by these national level radio and television programmes. Print
materials include magazines, leaflets, diaries, folders and calendars published each
year for distribution through district extension agencies. Similarly, video documentaries
are also produced annually usually for use by the extension system. Toll free telephone
services, once a week, are of recent addition to the AICC’s services for interaction
between the farmers and the agricultural technicians. Some publications have been
digitized and internet based information is yet to be popularized.

The AICC has regional units attached to each Regional Directorate of Agriculture with
limited (usually one or two) staff entrusted for messages to the producers on new
technologies, relaying success stories of agricultural entrepreneurs and related news
services. At the regional level, there is a dearth of trained human resource on
information and communication services as this task is carried out normally by JT/JTA
with little guidance from the AICC in Kathmandu. The communication is generally in
Nepali language as the JT/JTA is not versed in the local dialects which often happen to
36
be many even within the region.

9 Farmer Organizations

From 1988, the government promoted farmers group (FG) methods at the grassroots
which was widely accepted by the producers as well as by the extension system as an
approach to improve farming systems in a cost effective manner by reaching out to
agricultural producers especially where there existed a limited number of extension
workers stationed at the ASCs. Farmers, on their part, saw the benefit of working
together for decision making and accessing public services from a definite location. In
some cases, resolution was passed to penalize extension workers for his/her absence
as extension workers were required to participate at monthly meetings of the FGs. This
was accepted by the extension system which moved to popularize the approach. By
2008, there were 30 339 FGs (DOA with 17 074 and the DLS with 13265 FGs) having a
membership of 5 03 668 members at the grassroots. Through such, the coverage of
public extension reached a level of about 15 percent of the 3.4 million agricultural
holdings in Nepal.

Under DOA, about 30 percent of the FGs are organized around the production of
vegetables. Commercial pockets developed by 9 174 FGs covers 3 75 324 ha involving
4 93 561 agricultural households (DAE, n. d.). Of the total membership, women
constitute 49 percent in the farmers groups.

Since smallholders find it particularly important to express their special needs and to
negotiate with the extension system to cater to their demands, the producers when
organized into FGs are advised to: 1) Hold meetings regularly, 2) Raise welfare funds to
mobilize for agriculture as well as for the social needs on terms mutually agreed upon,
3) Demand for public support for the benefit of the group and the community, 4) Achieve
efficiency in inputs procurement and output marketing, 5) Access services as formal
institutions from government line agencies and others, 6) Act as pressure or lobby
groups. Small farmers benefit from the group approach by producing commercial goods
for distant markets and raise incomes which they were unable to as individuals.

FGs have raised about NRs 382 million (US$ 5.22 million), from members’ contributions
since their establishments in various years. Under DOA, about 50 percent of the group
welfare funds have been mobilized, of which 79 percent of loans from group funds have
been invested for agricultural purposes (Table 4). About 50 percent (NRs 19 05 24 000)
of the group funds raised is lying idle with the FGs suggesting that the fund is available
for investment in need-based agricultural enterprises.

37
 Table 4. Group Welfare Funds Utilization

Particulars No. of FGs welfare Investment (NRs’000) Unused FGs

FGs fund (NRs welfare fund
‘000) (NRs ‘000)
Agriculture Non- Total
agriculture
DOA 17,074 25,63,88 10, 05,32 2,70,83 12, 76,15 12,87,73

DLS 13,265 12,52,00 NA 6,34,49 6,17,51

Total 30,339 38,15,88 NA 19,10,64 19,05,24
Source: DOA/DOAE (n.d.) and DLS (2009).

Experience in Nepal confirms that farmers’ organizations need to be developed for

advancement of agriculture and rural development. As of now the producers’
organizations have developed on their own product lines as cooperatives of milk
producers, honey producers, coffee producers, or of other commodities. The district
level organizations are still weak and awaiting developmental initiatives. DOA and DLS
should emphasize the development of producers’ organizations and enable them to
demand for enterprises of their priority and to participate in extension services delivery.
Farmers’ forums were initiated by the National Agricultural Research and Development
Fund (NARDF) as viable alternative for producers’ empowerment and establishing them
for their own cause. This initiative needs furtherance for the causes of strengthening the
extension system.

10 Some Experiences in Nepal with Piloted Extension Systems

The experiences in the country in an attempt to reform extension system suggest that
farmers are willing to pay for services to improve their economic efficiency for enhanced
livelihoods (IDE/Nepal, 2004). The prevalence of free public extension service in limited
scale has not been able to cater to the needs of about 3.4 million agricultural holdings in
improving their livelihoods. Hence, alternative ways of financing extension service has
been the call of the day.

10.1 Private Extension Service Providers

In 2004, the DOA reduced the number of ASCs in the districts from 932 to 378 so as to
right-size the extension organization in the country. This would mean that farmers and
farmer groups served earlier through the ASCs needed to find alternative ways of
accessing the agricultural support services. To this end, the Crop Diversification Project
(CDP) implemented with ADB assistance had employed partner NGOs as Private

38
Service Providers (PSPs) in the commercial production and marketing of high value
crops with the “pocket area8 approach” working through farmer groups (FGs). These
included a field team consisting of one male and one female social mobilizer from the
local community in each pocket area. The public extension service (DADO) staff
provided coordination and monitoring support to the PSP’s field team which also had a
district team supervisor of its own. Social mobilization, formation of groups and
empowering women and disadvantaged farmers with technical and managerial skills
and knowledge, interaction with traders for mutual benefit and ultimate increased sale of
products improved the living standards of the beneficiaries.

Farmers groups became federated into a coordination committee and some 25 percent
graduated into farmers cooperatives by mobilizing resources from their group savings.
The project developed collection and market centers, trained resource persons,
prepared manuals and guidelines for DADO and NGO partners, organized
demonstrations, conducted exposure visits to research farms, processing and marketing
units.

The collaborative PSPs model of extension became fully financed by the Nepalese
government but ceased functioning after the project ended as extension funding from
the public source was limited and was not provided to sustain the system.

Since extension programmes should be supported by quality inputs availability, the

concept of Community Agriculture and Livestock Service Centre (CALSC) should be
promoted to complement extension advice by integrating production and distribution by
local enterprises of crops and forage seeds, livestock breeds, horticulture/fodder plant
nurseries, fingerlings, fertilizers, and veterinary drugs. Inputs marketing enterprises
become sustainable with a ready market of materials available locally.

Village Animal Health Workers (VAHWs) and veterinarians can gainfully be self-
employed in areas where livestock production has attained commercial scale. As the
demand for livestock products has increased in urban areas and in neighboring
countries, high-value livestock warrant care even in rural areas; thus demand for
VAHWs has increased. GON is supporting programmes to privatize veterinary services.

8
Pocket area is an agricultural area with potential for marketable production covering up to 1 000 ha of
food crops, 150 ha of fruit trees and 100 ha of vegetables in the Terai flat lands. For hills, the pocket
area is up to 150 ha for food crops, 70 ha for fruit trees and 40 ha for vegetables.
39
10.2 Cofinancing for Extension Services

Extension programme planning is rigid and target-oriented with little room for
addressing farmers’ needs and priorities in a timely and flexible fashion. The notion of
public responsibility for extension has to be changed from the minds and deeds of
extension workers and farmers alike. The concept of cofinancing between the
government and the stakeholders should be encouraged in the extension system, at
least in part of the extension funding. The common form of cofinancing is found in
commercial agricultural enterprises like vegetable cultivation and herbal farming.
Cofinancing is best addressed when a commercially viable agricultural enterprise is
jointly formulated and implemented in partnership with the clients group. Participatory
funding in enterprise development will entail accountability among the partners involved.
Different forms of partnership among the collaborating agencies are possible, as:

a) Public-public partnership
b) Public-private partnership
c) Private-private partnership

There exists a dearth of evaluation studies on the various models of extension service
delivery that have been practiced in the country. There should be a continuum of
experimentation, reflection and learning in the extension science. The preoccupation
that NARC alone is entitled for all agricultural researches in the country has to be
revisited as part of the national agricultural technology system reform. NARC was
predominantly occupied with crop science research, and recent initiatives include social
science, but the research in extension service in collaboration with the departments has
yet to be included in the agenda.

Under the "One Village One Product” (OVOP) mode of partnership between the GON
and Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industries (FNCCI), there are
clear set of responsibilities identified with financial and management roles defined for
the development of certain products (like rainbow trout fish, sweet oranges, orchids,
wood apple (bel), and Nepalese hog plum/mombin) from production, processing, quality
control and ultimately their marketing.

10.3 Fee-for-Extension Services

Smallholders can produce commercial agricultural products to increase incomes

through marketing high-value commodities in domestic and international markets
(IDE/Nepal, 2004). Demand-driven micro-irrigation and agricultural technologies
40
integrated with market development in participation with the smallholders can reduce
rural poverty. Producers pay for embedded services in purchasing inputs, service
provision, processing and marketing of agricultural products. The constraint of access to
economic opportunity by smallholders, women and disadvantaged groups can be
overcome when equality in participation is ensured. They can as well mobilize local
resources to provide matching funds with public investment.

Farmers will be prepared to pay for reliable advisory services that contribute to
increased productivity and sustainability of production systems for improved livelihoods.
The Nepalese extension system is characterized by public funding and public extension
workers doing the routine work as fulfilling the targets set annually. This has resulted
into low performance of the agriculture sector. A pluralistic network of institutions is
preferred over a single public organization like in Nepal. Market-oriented production
system arising from farmers’ prioritized needs with sustainable extension funding can
uplift the living standards of the farmers. In Chitwan, the poultry capital of Nepal,
entrepreneurs have hired and paid for veterinary services on their own. There can be no
universally accepted efficient and effective service delivery mechanism as the nature of
enterprises, markets, innovations, production environments and technologies are
different. But the bottom line is that the ownership of financing the service and the
quality of service provision to satisfy the needs of the financer are closely correlated in
the fee-for-extension service.

11 Recommended Reform Measures for Relevant, Effective and

Efficient Agricultural Extension Services in Nepal

The extension system in Nepal includes a complex network of institutions and the
reform process should be expedited for a more viable extension system. There can be
no blue print for generalization in Nepal as the farming systems are diverse and micro-
enterprises potentials are many. Therefore, the process to address needed reform in
Nepal to ensure an efficient, effective and relevant extension system should give due
consideration to the following:

1) Frequent change of governments has shifted policy priorities in Nepal. Long-

term commitments in policy, strategy and funding are crucial for extension
services performance.

2) Monopolistic supply of public extension service has been criticized since long
by politicians and private sector alike. The capacity of the central level
extension agencies has not been fully utilized in monitoring and support of
41
 district field activities. Departmental programme directorates as disciplinary
specialized agencies should monitor extension programmes, help in
regulatory oversight of input suppliers, conduct diagnostic studies, and
facilitate linkage and coordination among service providers.

3) Extension should resort to independent evaluation by a neutral agency to

ascertain documented results of positive impacts, and weaknesses for future
reforms. Extension reforms need to be continuously experimented,
experiences learned and translated into action for improved delivery.

4) The traditional thinking of extension service as a state function has to change

and mutually reinforcing roles of private and public services have to be
emphasized. Private service providers should not be seen as competitors by
the public extension system but as partners. But total privatization is not
feasible in the Nepalese context as government responsibility for targeted
inclusive agricultural extension to small and marginal farmers, women,
caste/ethnic communities, disadvantaged groups and areas should largely
rest with the public service. Furthermore, pro-poor services, food security and
poverty alleviation should be the state responsibility.

Experiences show that private extension has comparative advantages in

some areas; for example, social mobilization in Nepalese extension service.
Initially, this will require MOAC initiatives and facilitation towards developing
working relationships with the private sector in partnership fashion. For this,
service delivery mechanisms and funding extension programmes through
private and public extension should be worked out.

5) The development of farmers’ organizations is limited to the formation of

farmers’ groups at the grassroots level and there is no central body to lobby
on behalf of the farmers in general. Extension services with clients’
participation will empower farmers’ organizations to negotiate with service
providing institutions and the Government by giving feed-back on the
currently implemented programmes and expressing clients’ needs, priorities
and demands for future programmes intervention. This will help reform the
policy and make the extension service efficient, effective and sustainable.
Thus, demand-driven local level food security needs and commercialization
can be addressed through participatory extension development. Participatory
extension service should also emphasize value-chain development for
achieving commercialization and competitiveness.

42
6) Public extension is free in Nepal but a reliable service is often not available to
the masses. Experiences have shown that agricultural producers are willing
to pay for commercial enterprises development services that increase their
incomes (for example, agricultural and micro-irrigation technologies for
market-oriented agricultural extension services experimented by IDE/Nepal).
Hence, some element of fee-for-extension by producers or farmers’
organizations should be implemented with embedded services.

7) An extension system suitable for Nepal to meet the needs of farmers and
farming communities in the twenty-first century should be conceived in the
broader sense, than it has been in the past of merely being a provider of
technical advice through lip service or word-of-mouth. It should coordinate
and facilitate networking among public and private stakeholder institutions for
research, education, inputs, credit, processing and marketing. Joint planning,
implementation monitoring, impact assessment, and sharing in a project
mode should be emphasized. This should be incorporated in the extension
policy and strategy by the policy making body, the GON and the MOAC.

8) District extension programmes are pre-occupied with input-output targets,

and activities are translated into number of demonstrations and trainings
conducted, farmers’ tours organized, FGs formed and seed minikits
distributed. If the program budget is increased, the number of activities tends
to increase too. These do not support agricultural development policy of
commercialization and competitiveness. Results-based extension
programme planning should identify objective outcomes of socio-economic
goals; for example, increasing dairy farmers’ income by 10 percent in two
years; reducing pesticide use in vegetables by 20 percent in 3 years, etc.

9) “Pocket production programmes” focused on investments for selected target

areas having greatest potential for impacts should be considered. It is argued
that the focus on high potential areas benefits the wealthier farmers and
raises the concern over equity issues. Experiences in Nepal show that small
and disadvantaged farmers can also participate in commercial production
and, therefore, should be carefully attended by extension for inclusive
development. Participatory district extension planning should minimize
political pressure to spread thinly the extension programs that cannot show
impacts.

10) Rural youth migration for foreign employment is happening at a pace

jeopardizing agricultural development. This work force should be attracted for

43
 gainful employment in agriculture and rural development through appropriate
policies and programmes to modernize the agriculture sector.

11) Women farmers work longer hours and contribute more to agriculture than
their male counterparts but the extension services provided to them are not
commensurate with their actual involvement and contribution. The
technological empowerment of women will improve the performance of the
agriculture sector in general and increase household incomes of farmers in
particular. Therefore, appropriate extension service delivery mechanism
should be designed and implemented, including the recruitment of more
women extensionists in the system.

12) The present extension service has reached more accessible areas and
resource-rich farmers. The extension system should design appropriate
mechanisms to cater to the needs and demands of resource-poor farmers,
remote area farmers, different ethnic groups and Dalits (so called
untouchables).

13) Extension service is primarily focused on increasing agricultural productivity,

and marketing and profitability analysis of innovations, crucial for agricultural
commercialization, are weak. The extension system is poorly equipped with
innovations in natural resources management and climate change. Soil
fertility management, water conservation technologies, agroforestry, quality
control and certification, climate change adaptation and mitigation measures
should form extension agenda in addition to agro-biodiversity conservation,
promotion and use. Capacity of research, education and training, and
extension should be enhanced pursuant to goals of agricultural development.
For this, agricultural human resources development, both in private and
public sector, should be urgently addressed.

14) Production inputs, agricultural credit and marketing are binding constraints
for agricultural development in Nepal. Input suppliers are relatively more
accessible in the Terai; hills and remote areas have paucity of input dealers.
Where present, they complement extension with technical advices. The
private input suppliers should be linked with research organisation (like
Agricultural Research Center) and local extension agencies (like DADO and
DLSO) to support effective extension services delivery.

Agricultural credit is not earmarked to support agriculture development

objectives. Micro-finance intermediaries are few in the rural areas, fewer in
44
 the remote places. Saving and credit cooperatives are mostly located in
urban areas, and working capital is a limiting factor in the rural setting.
Agriculture marketing is underdeveloped in Nepal. Rural markets provide
opportunity for producers to earn cash incomes. Access to inputs and credit,
and rural markets development are crucial for effective extension service
delivery.

15) Government has considered agriculture as a private sector initiative and

funding is not tuned to developmental goals. Due attention should be given in
allocation of public investment to the prioritized agriculture sector.

45
 References

APROSC and JMA Inc. (1995), Nepal Agriculture Perspective Plan.

Basnyat, B.B. 1990. Agricultural Extension System in Nepal, Development Pioneer Pvt
Ltd, Lalitpur, Nepal

CBS. 2004. National sample census of agriculture, Nepal 2001/02. Kathmandu.

CLDP. 2008. Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2007/08, Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur.

DAT/DOA. 2008 . Training Curriculum Handbook, Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur, Nepal.

DAT/DOA. 2009. Annual Agriculture Training Program and Progress at a Glance,

Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Dinar, Ariel and Keynan, Gabriel. 1998. The cost and performance of paid agricultural
extension services: the case of agricultural technology transfer in Nicaragua,
Volume 1; Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS 1931

DLS.2009. Annual Progress Report 2007/08, Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur.

DOAE. n.d. Varsik Karyakram tatha Pragati Tathyanka Pustika 2064/2065 (in Nepali).
Lalitpur, Nepal.

DOA/DOAE. 2007. Impact Study on Farmer's Group Approach Adopted in Agricultural

Extension System of Nepal, Lalitpur, Nepal

Dongol, B.B.S. 2004. Extension Education, Prativa S Dongol. Kathmandu, Nepal.

FAO and the World Bank. 2000. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems for
Rural Development: Strategic Vision and Guiding Principles (available at
www.fao.org).

GON/MOAC. 2004. National Agriculture Policy. Kathmandu.

GON/MOAC. 2007. Nepal Agricultural Extension Strategy, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu.

GON/MOAC.2008. Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture 2007/08. Kathmandu.

46
GON/NPC and UNICEF/Nepal. 1998. Service Delivery Survey: Health and Agriculture
Services, Nepal

Multiple Indicators Surveillance Sixth Cycle (November 1997-January 1998),

Kathmandu, Nepal.

Goraya, M. M. et.al. (Editors). 2001. Agricultural Research and Extension Systems in

SAARC Countries, SAIC, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

GON/NPC. Various Years. Five Year Plan, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu.

GON/NPC. 2007. Three Year Interim Plan (2007-2010). Singha Durbar, Kathmandu.

IDE/Nepal. 2004. IDE/Nepal: Unleashing Creative Forces for Rural Poverty Reduction
through Micro-Irrigation and Market Integration, Bakhundole, Lalitpur, Nepal.

K.C., Ganesh K. 2001. Agricultural Research and Extension Systems in Nepal. In

Goraya, M. M. et.al., eds. Dhaka, Bangladesh, SAIC.

National Cooperative Development Board (NCDB). 2008. Sahakari Sambad (in Nepali),
Annual Issue 2008, Lalitpur, Nepal.

NARC. 2002. Vision for 20 years agricultural research for sustainable livelihood
improvement. Kathmandu.

Swanson, B. E., Bentz, R.P. and Sofranko, A.J. (Editors). 1997. Improving Agricultural
Extension: A Reference Manual, FAO, Rome.

Suzuki, Shun. 2004. Agricultural Extension in Japan and Developing Countries, Revised
Edition, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan.

Van den Ban, A. W. and Samanta, R. K (Editors). 2006. Changing Roles of Agricultural
Extension in Asian Nations, B.R. Publishing Corporations, Delhi.

World Bank. 2007. Agriculture for Development, World Development Report 2008,
Washington, DC.

WFP. 2008. Passage to India: migration as a coping strategy in times of crisis in Nepal.
Kathmandu.

47
 ANNEXES

TERMS OF REFERENCE

(Agricultural Extension Services Delivery System)

Under the overall supervision of the FAO Representative in Nepal, and the technical supervision
of the concerned Policy Officer of the Policy Assistance Branch of the FAO Regional Office for
Asia and the Pacific (FAO-RAPP), and in close consultation with the Senior Extension,
Education and Communications Officer at FAO-RAPS as well as officials of the Government of
Nepal and the National Team Leader (NTL) of National Medium-Term Priority Framework
(NMTPF), the Consultant will be responsible for undertaking a study on Agricultural Extension
Services Delivery System. This study will form a part of the formulation of the NMTPF for
Nepal (which is a framework being prepared at the country level). The main objective of the
study is to enable an understanding of the major issues and challenges facing the agriculture
and rural development sectors from the perspective of technology transfer and support services
delivery for these sectors.

The Consultant will analyze strengths and weaknesses of the existing agricultural policies and
programmes and provide recommendations to address the gaps identified. The findings of the
study will serve as input for the situation analysis and the preparation of the programme
framework for the NMTPF. In undertaking this task, the Consultant will carry out, but not be
limited to, the following tasks:

! Assess existing situation of agricultural extension and support services including

agricultural communications/information (both public, private and others such as from
civil society);

! Identify gaps to be filled for enhanced productivity of different agricultural sub-sector

related activities;

! Assess existing capacities and limitations of the providers of agricultural extension

support services;

! Examine possibilities of reducing the cost of extension support services for the benefit of
smallholders including women and rural youth farmers;

! Review the contributions of agricultural extension related training programmes launched

for farmers, field trainers, extension staff and private sector stakeholders involved in the
supply of input and marketing of outputs;

! Examine possibilities for modernizing agriculture through the development of relevant

and efficient delivery of extension services;

! Examine the roles and linkage systems and opportunities of the public and private sector

1
 institutions supporting agricultural extension services;

! Examine ?roles and linkage systems and opportunities of farmer groups, associations
and unions in disseminating agricultural extension services;

! Suggest policy measures for improved delivery of agricultural extension services;

Deliverables:

! Prepare and submit a draft report for comments;

! Submit 2-3 pages summary of the draft report covering major findings and
recommendations;

! Present the report in a workshop organized for NMTPF; and

! Submit final report within 15 days incorporating comments and suggestions received on
the draft report.

Qualifications: Post-graduate degree in Agriculture especially those related to agricultural

extension, education, farming systems, economics or related fields, plus at least 15 years of
experience in the field of agriculture. Fluency in written and spoken English and Nepali are also
important requirements.

Input duration: Total input 1.5 months.

Duty station: Kathmandu, FAO country office; with limited field visit.

2
 Suggested Generic Content Outline for the NMTPF Related Study Reports

In order to maintain consistency in the presentation of results of various sectoral / thematic

studies related to the NMTPF, this guideline has been drawn. All consultants concerned with the
studies are suggested to follow these guidelines during preparation of their respective reports:

! What major issues concerning the thematic / sectoral subject area of study appear from
agriculture, rural development and food security perspectives?

! Which of these issues should be emphasized as near future priorities for greater
attention?

! What are the recently completed, ongoing and pipeline activities related to the subject
area covered by the study?

! What policies related to the topics covered under study are facilitating and constraining
development of agriculture and food security situation in the country at present?

! What policies are further desirable for the development of the sector?

! What are the major gaps requiring government’s immediate attention in relation to the
topics covered under study from agriculture and food security perspectives?

! What are the areas of comparative advantage for FAO, where it could contribute with its
technical assistance services?

! Which donors are likely to support collaboration with FAO for the identified subject area
of technical assistance?

! What priority items should be selected for a programming framework of medium-term (3-
5 years) in view of the possible technical assistance?

While seeking answers to the abovementioned questions potential reform areas representing
changes in the operational strategies and practices should be explored. The technical / non-
technical solutions relevant to the possible programme areas and priorities should be
determined accordingly.

3
 Annex Table 1. Issues, Priority Interventions and Potential Partnerships
Issues Priority Interventions Partnerships
Inadequate capacity of extension 1.1 Develop Human Resource GON agencies Potential
workers to advise farmers development plan for public International
and private sector to address Development
niche areas. Partners
MOAC, NPC, FNCCI GTZ, USAID, FAO,
1.2 Establish University of MOAC, NPC, MOE, ADB
Agriculture and Forestry TU/IAAS
1.3 Review curriculum involving MOAC, CTEVT,
stakeholders, and update TU/IAAS, FNCCI,
1.4 Institutionalize continuing HICAST, MOE ,
education and establish regular private sector
contact with specialists
Weak linkages of extension with 2.1 Joint planning of research, MOAC, MOE, WB, ADB, USAID,
research and education and vice extension and education with value TU/IAAS, NARC IFAD, SDC
versa chain stakeholders (producers,
processors and traders)
2.2 Define accountability of GON, TU, NARC
respective organizations
2.3 Allocate funds for respectively MOAC, NPC, MOF, WB, ADB, USAID,
identified functions and areas NARC, TU/IAAS IFAD, SDC
2.4 Develop Monitoring and MOAC, NPC, MOF,
Evaluation mechanism NARC, TU/IAAS
Limited coverage of the extension 3.1 Develop Community Agriculture MOAC, FNCCI GTZ, WB, ADB,
service and Livestock Service Centers DFID, JICA, SDC
(CALSC)in public-private
partnership mode
3.2 Institutionalize Private Service GON, MOAC
Providers (PSP) approach
3.3 Expand farmer-to-farmer MOAC FAO, Norway, SDC
extension, use local resource
persons, expand IPM coverage
Disadvantaged/marginalized 4.1 Implement targeted extension MOAC WB, ADB, DFID, EU,
farmers poorly served by the programs for disadvantaged (small, FAO
extension system marginal, women, ethnic groups,
Muslim, Madhesi, etc) farmers
through CALSC
4.2 Develop rural infrastructures MOAC, DOLIDAR WB, DFID, ADB,
(e.g. feeder roads and markets) in WFP
areas inhabited by disadvantaged
and ethnic groups
Slow pace of agricultural 5.1 Focus on few priority MOAC ADB, WB, IFAD
commercialization and weak commodities in each geographical
competitiveness due to higher cost areas
of production 5.2 Institute standardization and MOAC ADB, WB, IFAD,
quality certification system on SNV
priority commodities and organic
products (for example, tea, coffee,
honey, cheese, etc) to enhance
competitiveness in national and
international markets
5.3 Conduct national and MOAC
international market research
5.4 Formulate Agriculture Price MOAC, NPC, MOF FAO
Policy, review policies of neighbors
and harmonize.

1
Weak extension support services 6.1 Encourage private sector in GON,MOAC DFID, FAO, GTZ,
production and distribution of WB, ADB
production inputs (seeds, breeds,
saplings, feeds, fingerlings,
fertilizers, pesticides, veterinary
drugs, etc) with backup from the
government for sufficient source
materials and quality monitoring
mechanism.
6.2 Step up local resource centers, MOAC DFID, FAO, GTZ,
both public and private, for WB, ADB
demand based supply of inputs
6.3 Designate nodal agency with GON, MOF, NRB
allocated funds for agriculture
credit, review interest rates and
lending procedures
6.4 Strengthen local agriculture MOAC
price information system in
partnership with local FM radios

6.5 Focus on developing rural MOAC, DOLIDAR ADB, WB, WFP

infrastructures for marketing
efficiency in public-private
partnership mode.
Weak Farmers’ Organizations 7.1 Strengthen FOs at district and MOAC
(FOs) national levels to solicit in need
identification and prioritization of
agricultural research, extension
and education programs.
7.2 Empower FOs and involve in
partnership for program planning
(priority setting) and
implementation.
Limited focus & participation of 8.1 Design and implement youth- MOAC, MOLTM IOM
youth in agriculture in-agriculture program for
employment generation and
minimize unfair trade in out-
migration
Weak devolution of extension 9.1 Federal states should take care GON, MOAC, MLD
service to local bodies of this by:
-Establishment of extension cadre
in collaboration with research and
education.
Cooperatives are too profit 10.1 Rural cooperatives should MOAC
oriented rather than on serve members for technical
cooperative principles. information, production inputs and
marketing outputs.
10.2 Enhance managerial and MOAC FAO
technical capacity of cooperatives
10.3 Expand institutional coverage MOAC, GON
of Department of Cooperatives in
75 districts
National macro- policies and 11.1 Agriculture is considered a GON. NPC, MOAC
agriculture policies should be private sector business.
synchronized Underdeveloped state of producers
cannot compete with the industrial
sector. Thus, incentive
mechanisms, for inputs and
outputs, should be based on
different farmers’ categories

2
Inadequate funding for agriculture 12.1 Allocate program funds in GON, MOAC, MOF,
including for extension relation to outputs expected and NPC
contribution to GDP
12.2 Provide matching grants to MOAC, MOF
FGs funds in partnership mode
12.3 Partnership with private sector MOAC, MOF,
on OVOP mode FNCCI/DCCI
Lack of agricultural extension 13.1 Formulate comprehensive MOAC FAO
policies agricultural extension policy

3
 Annex Table 2. Completed, On-going and Pipeline Projects

S.N Project/Program Focus Areas Status(com Partners

o. pleted/on- hip
going/pipeli
ne)
1 Agriculture APP implementation support, effective Completed,2 DFID
Perspective Plan planning, implementation, monitoring 009
Support Program and evaluation, decentralized
(APPSP) extension services, mobilization of
District Extension Fund (DEF) and
Local Initiative Fund (LIF), integration
of agriculture/livestock production and
markets through local service
providers, inclusive service provision,
poverty alleviation, strengthening of
WTO/SPS enquiry point, policy reforms
2 Lease-hold Poverty alleviation, forest products and On-going, IFAD
Forestry and livestock enterprises 2005/013
Livestock Project
(LFLP)
3 Commercial Infrastructure/non-infrastructure On-going, ADB,
Agriculture investment, inclusive development of 2007-2012 Japan
Development stakeholders, market information,
Project (CADP) capacity enhancement, Marketing and
processing of high-value crops,
4 Crop Diversification Commercialization, diversification, Completed, ADB
Project (CDP) extension service, private service 2001-2007
provider, client-oriented research,
marketing of secondary crops
5 Project on Rural business development, sanitary 2009-2015 WB
Agricultural and phytosanitary facilities and food
Commercialization quality management, market
and Trade (PACT) infrastructure development.
6 Community Poverty alleviation, gender equity, On-going, ADB
Livestock community development and capacity 2005/010
Development building, partnership in services,
Project (CLDP) private service providers, micro-
finance, Intensive Livestock
Production, processing,
commercialization, marketing, private
entrepreneurs development,
livelihoods in high altitudes
7 High Value Smallholders high-value crops Pipeline IFAD
Agriculture Project commercialization, value-chain
(HVAP) in Hills and approach
Mountain Areas

1
8 High Mountain Integrated livestock, horticulture, Pipeline ADB
Agribusiness and NTFPs
Livelihoods
Improvement
Project (HIMALI)
9 Crop Diversification Under preparation Pipeline ADB
and
Commercialization
Project (CDCP)
10 Sustainable Soil Soil fertility management, use of local On-going, SDC
Management and improved technologies, NGOs 2007-2010
Project (SSMP) participation, organic fertilizer
11 Community Empowerment of Water Users’ On-going, ADB,
Managed Irrigated committees, irrigation development, 2006-2012 OPEC
Agriculture Sector agricultural extension, inclusive Fund
Project (CMIASP) development of ethnic and Dalit
communities
12 Irrigation and Irrigation infrastructure development, On-going, WB
Water Resource irrigation management transfer, water 2008-2013
Management management, institutional support for
Project (IWRMP) increasing agricultural productivity,
small and non-conventional irrigation,
community managed seed program,
soil management
13 Agriculture Training Effective training and extension, Completed JICA
and Extension capacity building, agriculture extension
Improvement model farmer
Project (ATEIP)
14 Integrated Pest Integrated pest management On-going, Norway
Management, 2008-2013
Phase II
15 Social Safety Net Food/cash for work program, transport On-going, WB
Project (SSNP) of seed and fertilizer to vulnerable 2008-2010

2
 Annex Table 3. Coverage by agricultural extension service in Nepal, 2007/08

S. No. Particulars Unit Extent of coverage

by extension service
1 Rural population per Agriculture Service Center Number 60,197
2 Total cultivated area per Agriculture Service Hectare 11,877
Center (ASC)
3 Village Development Committees (VDC) per ASC Number 10.4
4 VDCs per JT/JTA working in the district Number 2.5
5 Cultivated area per JT/JTA working in the district Hectare 2,858
Source: 1) MOAC. 2008. Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture 2007/08, and 2)
Computed from DOA data.

Annex Table 4. Coverage by livestock extension service in Nepal, 2007/08

S.No. Particulars Unit Extent of coverage by

livestock service
1 Rural population per Livestock Number 22,777
Service (Sub) Center (LSC)
2 Cattle population per LSC Number 7,088
3 Buffalo population per LSC Number 4,501
4 Goat population per LSC Number 8,144
5 Milk production per LSC MT 1,390
6 Meat production per LSC MT 234
7 VDCs per LSC Number 3.9
8 VDCs per livestock JT/JTA in the Number 2.7
district
Sources: 1) MOAC. 2008. Statistical information on Nepalese agriculture 2007/08, and
2) Computed from DLS data.

3
Annex Figure 1. Organizational chart of Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives