PARTICIPATORY EXTENSION PROGRAMMING:  

THE OECS EXPERIENCE

St. Clair P. Barker

 

THE PROBLEM

 

The majority of farms in the English-speaking Caribbean are less than 5 ha in size.  Small-scale farming consists mainly of multiple cropping systems (crops grown in a mixture) as well as a number of crops (mainly vegetables) grown in pure stands but in small plots of 900 square meters or less.  Whereas this approach by the farmer may be seen as a good strategy to reduce the risk of economic failure, it posed great difficulty to the frontline Extension Workers (FEWs) who are generally not trained beyond the farm college level and whose knowledge of the mixture of crop species is limited. Thus the quality of technical advice, which they can deliver, is limited. The involvement of researchers (agronomists in particular) to assist in the upgrading of extension officers’ skills, made some impact, though not significant. On evaluating the extension processes and programme impact, it was observed that certain vegetable production intensification efforts gave rise to substantially larger numbers of problems many of which were not related directly to technical agriculture but impacted significantly on the farmers’ efficiency of production.

 

An assessment of a member of agricultural community analysis reports revealed a list of problems, which the extension programme failed to address.  The traditional extension model(s) failed to recognize the role of credit institutions, marketing personnel, input suppliers, NGO’s, cooperatives, gender specialists, agro-processors, and public institutions such as the National Social Security and Medical Benefit Schemes in the provision of information through local training, farmers meetings, bulletins and farmer discussion and interaction.

 

As a consequence, small farmers have not been able to access the information/ knowledge and skill outside of that which is directly related to technical agriculture and which is so important for the improvement and sustainability of their farm production efforts and general improvement in their quality of life.

 

As a matter of fact, farm productivity has proven to be very erratic and unable to sustain reasonable levels of income and would not significantly support the efforts aimed at import reduction import substitution and foreign exchange saving which are some of the objectives mentioned in the agricultural-sector-papers throughout the OECS and indeed the wider CARICOM area.

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 

The objectives of the study were:

1.      To compare the strengths and weaknesses of the participatory approaches such as Farming Systems Extension (FSE) and the Farm and Home Management Extension (FHME) carried out in the OECS with the Traditional Approach used at some locations.

2.      To identify persistent constrains to farmer adoption behaviour and

3.      To modify existing extension models(s) to include important areas, which were not previously taken into consideration in extension programming.

 

METHODOLOGY

 

The research methodology involved:

1.      The conduct of a Sondeo in the analyses of the farming communities in Antigua and Barbuda and the other OECS to observe the problems, which constrain farmers’ adoption behaviour, 

2.      A field test of the FSE and FHME extension approached, and

3.      The replication of the model at the national level to ensure to applicability.

 

For this purpose the research study identified and worked with a group of for the purpose of testing the new extension initiatives, and was facilitated by the Ministry of Agriculture Lands and Fisheries in Antigua and Barbuda, the Central Marketing Corporation (CMC), Cooperating Farmers, other voluntary organizations (including Woodbury and Associates), the Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute (CARDI) and The University of The West Indies  (UWI) through its Food Production Department and Outreach Programme.

 

RESEARCH METHODS

 

The support of a number of technical and extension personnel was secured at all locations in the OECS.

            A survey of a sample of farmers was conducted on all the islands and other information was gathered from Farmer Consultation meetings and other on-farm interviews and observation as well as interviews with FEWs and other technical staff of the Ministries of Agriculture.  Other information was obtained through networking with the staff of the Department of Food Production, UWI, St. Augustine Campus; through focus group discussions with personnel of the Department of Gender Issues, volunteer agricultural teachers, the Central Marketing Corporations, farmer organizations, representatives of the different media houses; hoteliers and restaurateurs, financial institutions, the National Social Security schemes, and the National Medical Benefit schemes. Based on the findings, an extension model was developed and field tested.

 

The Farm and Home Management (FHME) ApproachHE FARM AND

 

Many programmes of change have not made the impact they were intended to make. Some reasons which were identified through a number of regional agricultural extension studies are:

•     lack of support for extension

•     inappropriateness of the technology

•     high cost of inputs

•     input unavailability

•     complexity of innovations

•     inadequate extension reinforcement

§       lack of commitment on the part of the clientele who see programmes as someone else’s programme. (Andrews 1975, Wiltshire 1976,  Campbell   1978, Henderson and Gomes 1979, CAEP 1980-1981, Barker 1981, Henderson and Patton 1985, Barker et al 1986, and Barker, 2002).

 

Many of these problems point to the inadequacies of the extension approaches pursued.  The CAEP - UWI extension methodology, (referred to as the farm and home management extension approach (FHME) uses farming systems concepts. It draws from the findings of many regional studies (Barker et al 1986, Campbell 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1978, Dolly 1990 and 1991) and the experiences of regional professional extension workers and farmers.  The methodology incorporates some features of the farming systems research and extension (FSR/E) approach and has five distinct phases.

•     Description phase

•     Analysis phase

•     Planning phase

•     Implementation phase

•     Evaluation phase.

These phases are subsequently divided into eight steps (Figure 1).

 

The following gives a more in depth description of the FHME approach.

 

Phase 1: Descriptive Phase

This phase is divided into two steps.  Step 1 deals with the gathering of background information on the extension constituency while Step 2, the situation analysis, deals with the needs assessment. Throughout the descriptive phase and indeed throughout the entire FHME methodology, the linkage between extension officers, farmers, researchers and the broader community is a key factor for the overall success of the process.

 

      •     Step 1 - Situation Analysis: A situation analysis is used to assist the FEW in understanding his constituency. The  information is assembled under the following categories:

            (a)  physical environment

            (b)  social environment

            (c)  agricultural environment

 

      •     Step 2 - Needs  Assessment: Needs assessment is the strategy used to target the extension efforts towards the clientele. The needs assessment is done in collaboration  with other  divisions in the Ministry of Agriculture and related  ministries, such as the Ministry of  Community Development, and other agricultural institutions operating in the particular country. This collaboration allows for the analysis of the problems to be addressed by a multidisciplinary team.  (Sergio, 1985; Shanner et al, 1982; Beebe, 1985). The multi-disciplinary approach provides  an opportunity for the analysis from different perspectives, thus ensuring greater soundness in problem identification and solution proposals.

 

      Conducting a needs assessment can be time consuming. The Sondeo is  the   technique used for the conduct of  the needs assessment. This exercise  can  be done  at  the  start  of  every programme cycle. In countries where the programme cycle is biennial, the exercise should be done biennially.

 

Phase 2:  Analysis Phase

 

The  analysis  phase consists  of  two  steps,  (3 and 4).

 

      •     Step 3 - Data  Analysis: Step 3 deals  with  the analysis of data collected during the  needs  assessment. The data are used to characterize farming systems and to identify constraints  (endogenous and exogenous) to the  farm as well  as  opportunities for extension and research to develop  their  work  programmes. Other constraints which do  not  relate  directly to  either extension  or  research are also  identified during the needs assessment. These are passed on to the divisions  or agencies that can best address them.

            It is important for  extension and  research to maintain  the team  approach. A conscious  effort is made to  involve  researchers in the  analysis of technology  used by farmers.

 

      •     Step 4 - Programme Planning: Step 4 deals with the  development of the  extension  work  plan. The  opportunities arrived at during Step 3 are combined with the overall goals of the Ministry to form the Ministry’s extension work plan. Normally, the overall goal of the Ministry reflects farmers’ concerns, and  programmes developed by this process reflect  those needs as identified  by the farmers based on  information  about  policy,  marketing and  price, technology, inputs and credit. The JFP could be used as a strategy to develop programmes, projects and plans of work. (Campbell 1992 and Seepersad 1985).

 

Phase 3: Farm Planning Phase

 

This is the phase in which extension helps the individual farmer plan his production, based on a number of alternative choices with respect to:

      (a)  available technology

      (b)  family preference

      (c)  family resources

      (d)  profitability

      (e)  market availability.

 

      •     Step 5 - Farm Planning: It is at this stage that farm management  principles are  introduced and the  farm and home  management business record book is used. The extension  officer in  planning with the individual farmer, develops crop and livestock production  schedules with cost of implementation. The home planning is also done. The cost and revenue for the home and farm operation is then  used to  develop a  projected cash flow for  the  farm family.

 

            The cooperating farmers using the farm and home management business record book form what is called, the extension research  laboratory. The farming situations, which make up  the  extension  research  laboratory, provide  feedback on the actual performance of technological packages used under different farmer situations. In fact, from the extension laboratory comes several farmer-generated tech packs,  which of necessity include indigenous knowledge systems.

 

Phase 4: Implementation Phase

 

      •     Step 6 - Programme Implementation: In this phase, extension creates the learning situation for farmers. These include one, or any combination of the following extension methods:      

      (a)  workshops

      (b)  farm and, or home visits (one-on-one)

      (c)  demonstrations (method and result)

      (d)  field tours

      (e)  farmer exchange

      (f)   meetings.

 

Extension workers and   researchers set up  on-farm  demonstrations  alongside  farmers’ efforts. Their efforts are monitored closely.  Farmers are taught how to use the farm and home management business record book. Quarterly  analyses,  are  done  to  help  FEWs  and  farmers  develop skills in  farm management. Farm management concepts are taught at periodic   meetings. The main objective in  this  phase  is  to  Ensure that the Farmer’s Effort Succeeds. Remember Success BREEDS Success!

 

Phase 5:  Evaluation Phase

 

This phase has two steps. Step 7 deals with evaluation, while step 8 deals with reporting.

 

      •     Step 7  -  Evaluation: All of the data entered into the farm record book is used in the evaluation process. The farmer is taught to analyze his business record book with help from the extension division (including agricultural economist or farm management specialist). The  results  of  the  analysis are to be used in the next year’s farmer planning schedule. In other words, the results aid  the decision-making process of farmers with respect to what, when and how  to grow  their  crops. Researchers can also use the  results as a means of  validating  the  technology  used by  farmers. The  individual farm  analysis  contributes to the  pool  of information generated by the extension research laboratory.

 

      •     Step 8  - Reporting: The final step is the end of year report to farmers. The report  focuses on procedures used and results  obtained. Attempts are made to classify farmers performance by farming  systems, for instance, the best and worst performances, and the technologies used. The report maintains a high level of confidentiality in order to secure the continued cooperation of the farmers.

 

            The final report, among other things, highlights the weaknesses and strengths in  the entire process, and makes suggestions for changes in the next  season’s  production effort. Finally, the report focuses on the calendar of activities for the next season.

 

            The model suggests that a small team should articulate the entire process from ‘selection of focus area’ to ‘evaluation’ (Figure 2) and that such a team should consist of persons with skills in crop production (agronomy), livestock husbandry (health and production), farm management and extension. Given the present structure of the departments of agriculture, there would be need for some degree of restructuring of the organization accompanied with the necessary staff redeployment.

 

            The interdisciplinary team is in constant contact with farmers, and personnel from agricultural stations, research and academic institutes. The interdisciplinary team gives leadership at all stages, but requests support from SMS for special tasks such as situation analysis, programme development, programme implementation and evaluation. The small team’s acquisition of information and its subsequent dissemination and use by farmers, including individual farmers, is a most critical issue to the success of the entire effort. The process is information pushed, and at all eight stages there is flow of information out of, and into the interdisciplinary small team.

 

            This constant flow of information requires the full support of the agricultural communication unit, which may function to sort and reorganize material in a form which can be used by FEWs in the training of farmers. This helps to maintain a certain degree of relevance between what the information unit puts out and what is actually needed for farmers’ use.

 

            The Sondeo report is a reference document from which farmers’ problems are identified. Extension would not be able to work on all the problems at once. Farmers should help prioritise these problems, based on the importance, and feasibility of projects which are designed to solve them. Similarly, extension does not have all the human and material resources needed to solve all farmers’ problems. Thus, there may be need to develop strategies that will focus on a manageable number of farmers without absolutely ignoring the majority of them.            

 

      The concept of extension by a team or group is encouraged by the FHME approach. which goes beyond the farm  and  includes  both farm  and  home  subsystems.

 

      Finally, the FHME uses the farming systems principles and specifically focuses on the  individual farm  family  and  the  effective and  efficient  use of  resources  available to the farm and home.

 

      The knowledge of extension approaches alone would not transform into high impact extension activities. Programmes, plans of work and calendars of work must be properly developed and made available to all persons who have to make an input into their successful implementation. This includes endorsement by administrators and provision of funds through the budgetary process as well as contributions for specific programme activities from the private sector. 

 

PARTICIPATION IN TARGETING THE CONSTRAINTS: AN IMPORTANT FUNCTRION IN THE NEW MODEL

 

Agricultural extension systems in the Third World and the Caribbean are generally committed to agricultural development, yet many constraints exist that prevent these systems from functioning effectively. Thus, the potential high impact which extension programmes should achieve, continues to be elusive, and may be more of a practitioner’s dream than reality.  The truth is, efforts must be made to address those constraints which hinder the conduct of successful extension programmes and thus restrict impact. Every effort should be made to make the environment in which extension work is to be carried out, hospitable, and as supportive as possible within the limits of available resources.

 

      The following are some problems which were identified by the CAEP and MOAs personnel who were actively engaged in extension work in the Caribbean (CAEP, 1980-1981) and which were similar to those identified in other Third World countries by Sigman and Swanson (1984) and many of which still exist.

 

Technology

Appropriate technology is not available to extend to farmers.

 

Linkage

A continuing two-way flow of information between national extension organizations and national agricultural research institutions is lacking. Successful extension production campaigns require the cooperation of credit and market institutions as well as that of NGOs, farmer organizations, community leaders and policy-makers who are top personnel, technical managers and administrators. Anything short of total coordination will not result in the accomplishment of sustainable high impact.

 

Technical Training

FEWs lack practical skills and training about improved agricultural technology. This is compounded by the great diversity of crop and livestock enterprises which are found in the farming systems of the Caribbean (Barker, Gomes and Rankine 1986), as well as the rapid turn over of FEWs.

 

Extension Training

Extension personnel lack training in extension methods and communication skills. Where training is provided, equipment and accompanying supplies may not be provided. Films, video cassettes, batteries, photocopying services, computers, and portable recorders are not necessarily provided to FEWs through the normal budgetary process.

 

Mobility

FEWs lack adequate transportation to reach farmers efficiently.

 

Equipment

Extension personnel lack essential teaching and communication equipment. Where they are provided, they may be housed at a central location far removed from the site where they are needed for use. Very often the problem to get such equipment to the rural area, and to have them returned on time is so great, that the FEW does not even bother to obtain them for use.

 

Teaching Aids

Extension personnel lack essential teaching aids, bulletins, and demonstration materials.

 

Organization               

Extension personnel are assigned many other tasks besides extension work. Where FEWs are involved in service and regulatory tasks very little extension or education work gets done.

 

Recognition and Rewards

FEWs are not motivated to perform at their best. This is attributed in part, to the fact that management of the extension systems does not put strategies in place to acknowledge and reward excellence.

 

 

Addressing the problems

 

Table 1 summarises some of the actions undertaken to reduce the problems and enable the extension systems to make a greater impact on the lives of the small farmers for whom the programme was intended.

 

      The resources available to the conduct of any extension programme would have limits, and problems will arise as the programming proceeds. It is important to observe that the extension effort focused above reduced the amount of duplication which was present in the agricultural sector. As a result, resources were released for furthering the extension work. It is also important to observe that the collaborative work undertaken by research and extension allowed for a quicker technology transfer among farmers. In many cases, such as the white potato production effort in Montserrat and St Kitts, there was somewhat of a ‘snow-balling effect’. The same is true about the use of irrigation and the production of onion and carrot in Antigua. It is important to note that unforseen problems (administrative, technical and climatic) arose in the programming period.

 

      The chief extension officers met annually to discuss their successes and failures, as well as seek solutions to the problems they face in their work. UWI experts established links with MOAs research and extension department and made frequent visits to monitor the success of farmers use of recommended technologies, as well as conduct on-site training for FEWs and farmers. 

 

      Extension workers including FEWs were supported in the formation of professional associations.  Among other things, the associations worked on the development of the members. The excellence in extension programme brought the best FEWs in the region together to highlight their successes and for them to select one of their peers as the regional extension officer of excellence. This award was regarded as being very prestigious and FEWs worked hard to become national nominees as a first step to reaching that goal.

 

            Table 1 highlights the problems, solutions and actions taken and remarks.

 

      The opportunity to conduct extension programmes which have significantly greater impact on the beneficiaries is enhanced with the attention given to the theory of extension, the training and preparation, the level of supervision, the support efforts from research and other SMS, NGOs, community development, the private sector and farmers.

 

            Figure 3 highlights the high impact extension effort and indicates that sustained  and  successful farm production requires the direct involvement of the farmer, extension and research and technology generation. The effort is supported by credit and marketing institutions, input suppliers and providers of specialized agricultural services, technology, and policy.  It is the pool of information provided by the support systems which informs and pushes the  researcher, extensionist  and  farmer to act jointly as a team  in  achieving  the highest level of impact. High impact was demonstrated in Antigua, St Kitts-Nevis (Barker, 1997), Montserrat, Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines. A team of external evaluators of the extension programme wrote the following under the caption:

 

“More Productive Farmers

            Extension officers in the demonstration districts were much more knowledgeable about farm management and ways of working with farmers that could enhance their well-being. Target farm families: (a) had increased enterprise receipts, farm and family earnings, and net worth compared to the previous year: (b) adopted a variety of new production and management practices;(c) had greater knowledge of production and marketing;(d) had improved attitudes toward farming and extension.

                  Target farms could be used as demonstration farms to show the effects of improved practices. Target families made changes in enterprises that resulted in more diversification, more vegetable production, and production more suited to market needs. Production on target farms helped fill seasonal deficiencies and thereby helped meet some of the nutritional needs of target families in the region.”

 

      Our opportunity for achieving greater impact, could be significantly enhanced if the quality of management of extension were significantly upgraded. Management styles could be autocratic or democratic with a number of variations occurring along the continuum.

 

      The management style practiced could determine whether, as managers, participation is encouraged from members of staff from different levels of the hierarchy, in discussions on what should, or should not be, in the organization. Similarly, management styles could emphasize the use of a team in the conduct of activities which produce results related to organizational objectives. Those styles may also determine whether we strive to maintain the status quos in which individualism is encouraged.

 

      The truth is, farming systems in the Caribbean and indeed the Third World, are now so complex that the individual FEW cannot competently teach such a diverse clientele. The diversity is not only found among commodities grown, but also among farmers themselves. The diversity transcends economic, socio-cultural, educational, religious and political lines. This diversity challenges, in no small measure, the capability of the individual FEW.  Efforts to stratify farmers along the lines of their level of commercialization can further focus the extension effort and probably add to programme success as was successfully demonstrated in Antigua and St Kitts.

 

      The farming communities in the Caribbean in their totality, could have all the resources needed for the conduct of successful agricultural programmes (Barker and Bishop 1992). There is evidence that the resources although present, are not coordinated and there is further evidence of duplication with the resultant effect of reduced impact at the client level (Antoine et al 1996).

 

      There is need for strong coordination of the resources at the agricultural supervisory as well as the national levels. A systems perspective of the agricultural sector and the environment in which production takes place, can aid in this coordinating function. The client, the technology generator, the disseminators of technology, NGOs, the private sector as well as those others who can influence the programme outcome, are legitimate partners and should be invited to participate. The CAEP in the conduct of what is now broadly accepted as the most successful extension programme implemented in the  English speaking Caribbean, got good results through the establishment of coordinating mechanisms or committees as illustrated in figure 3/4., below.

 

      Efforts should be made to have full client involvement as well as the participation of all others who work with the client group at the district level. These include the private sector: credit, marketing, input suppliers, providers of agricultural services; NGOs and representative(s) of research and academic institutions (technology generators), agricultural business management, human ecology and policy-makers. Representatives of all these are uniquely placed to bring current information from their discipline, to help upgrade knowledge and skill of the clientele, and therefore aid in the decision-making process. As a matter of fact, the production process is information pushed..

 

      It is only by full involvement of all, coupled with purposeful allocation of roles and responsibilities, and with full cooperation from the client group, that a high performing group of collaborators could be brought together to work as a single team in the conduct of extension programmes so that the programme objectives (greater cooperation, skilled farmers, better choices in the decision-making process, increased yield, better quality product, and sustained production could be realized (Figure 4)).

 

            Management must of consequence possess all those attributes which foster team building and productivity in order to ensure not only high impact but continued/sustained high impact.

 

TABLE 1.  SOLUTIONS TO IDENTIFIED EXTENSION RELATED PROBLEMS

 

 

Problems	Solutions/Action Taken	Remarks
1. Technology	·   Technical joint action committee formed to include research and extension professionals. ·   Fact sheets produce ·   Production guides produced ·   In-service training at national, sub-regional and regional levels ·   Scholarships to agricultural college made available to FEWs ·   Increased backstopping by UWI agricultural specialists ·   Extension manual produced. Subject areas included (crop and livestock husbandry) ·   Increased relationship with research institutions at the country level	·   Researchers were aware of the extension objectives and identified specific areas for collaboration ·   Research and SMS collaborated with extension in the production of fact sheets and production guides ·   UWI professionals became directly involved in the extension programme ·   Each FEW received a copy of the extension manual. More than 100 fact sheets were included ·   Joint planning was done at the national level by research and extension.
2. Linkage	·   Researchers were included in the regional agricultural extension coordinating committee (RAECC) ·   Other institutions doing extension type of work were included on RAECC. These included CARDI, CFNI and Women and Development. ·   At the national level, researchers were involved in the conduct of Sondeos, programme planning and implementation. ·   Researchers were used as resource persons in in-service training programmes for FEWs. ·   Researchers formed part of the implementation teams (task force in Montserrat; farming systems extension in St. Kitts and FGME in Antigua). ·   Market and credit agencies personnel were included in task forces in the Leewards and national extension committees. The same is true for farmer cooperatives. ·   Government extension services and that of commodity boards planned joint programmes and participated in joint training.	·   Researchers pledged their support for the extension effort. ·   Appropriate inputs were made concerning the extension effort, and areas of support, identified. ·   Researchers were an integral part of the multi-disciplinary teams at the national level. ·   Joint farm visits were conducted by research and extension personnel. ·   Research and extension were involved in the conduct of validation trials and agronomic demonstrations on farmers holdings. ·   Farmers became more knowledgeable about accessing credit and market information. ·   Areas of collaboration were identified to help make credit more accessible e.g. FEWs helped farmers develop projects for funding. ·   In the Windward Islands, the banana extension officers worked very closely with the Government extension services.
3. Technical      training	·   In-service training: -              country level -              sub-regional level -              regional level ·   Training at farm college level (ECIAF) ·   New degrees a the BSc level in agriculture (livestock, agronomy, agri-business), were offered at UWI ·   MSc in specific areas – agronomy, engineering, and extension (UWI) ·   Diploma in agricultural extension (UWI)	·   At least one two-week course was held for FEWs annually. A number of specific short courses were done at the national level.   ·   A number of scholarships were provided ·   UWI offered new degrees based on an expressed need of member countries ·   A limited number of scholarships were made available ·   A number of supervisors and experienced FEWs received specialized training in extension.
4. Extension     training	·   In-service (as above) ·   Diploma in extension programme ·   Coaching by UWI/MUCIA professionals at the field level Demonstration district (local extensions workers with support from UWI/MUCIA professionals demonstrated how an agricultural district is managed and extension work conducted,	·   UWI and MUCIA professional staff spent a high percentage of their time attending to individual weaknesses of the FEWs ·   Demonstration districts were operated in all territories ·   Montserrat, Nevis and St. Kitts were each regarded as a district
5. Mobility	·   Vehicle loan scheme/revolving fund was set up to help officers purchase field type vehicles ·   A limited number of units ere provided to help officers move tools, equipment and demonstration material ·   A communication vehicle was provided to help transport communication type equipment,	·   Local banking institution became engaged in a loan scheme operated in Dominica, St. Vincent, Antigua and Nevis ·   At least one transport unit was provided for each country ·   Generators were also provided for use in areas where electricity may not be accessible.
6. Equipment     and Tools	·   Each FEW was provided with a basic set of tools which would enable him or here to work effectively with farmers. These included abney levels, ph meters, soil testing kits, grafting and budding knives, pruning saws, measuring tapes, measuring cylinders and knapsack sprayers. ·   The communication unit in each country was provided with tape recorders, cameras, typewriters, duplicating machines, projectors, and flip charts all of which were important for use in print and radio communication.	·   The CEO was responsible to ensure that FEWs had a tool kit and to train them in using the various tools. ·   FEWs and farmer were able to mount skill-training activities as well as skits for radios, TV. ·   The communication officer was responsible for the equipment allocated to the communications unit. The units were monitored by the UWI communications specialists ·   Network between the local communications unit and the RECU facilitated.
7. Technical     Aids	·   Efforts were made to have items identified above, available for use by FEWs.	·   The communications officers coordinated the use of equipment with FEWs and supervisors.
8. Organization	·   A separation of regulatory from extension functions were instituted in countries where the problem existed. ·   Extension systems developed individual position descriptions ·   Organizational charts were made to help clarify decision-making points as well as identify staff positions.	·   Each national extension service had an updated organizational chart. Each FEW had a job description. ·   The roles of FEW were communicated to the major stakeholder in the extension partnership.
9. Recognition     and Rewards	·   Senior personnel were trained in management and supervision ·   An extension manual on supervision was developed and made available as a guide to good supervision ·   A system of performance evaluation/personnel development was put in place ·   An excellence in extension programme was put in place to recognize high performers.	·   Each country’s chief extension officer received management training ·   Copies were made available to each extension service in the participating countries. ·   Evaluation was conducted on a regular basis (quarterly, or semi-annually) ·   National nominees participated in a regional conference ·   National extension committee selected the country’s extension officer of excellence ·   The country representatives met and selected the regional extension officer of excellence.
10. Coordination	·   Coordination mechanisms/committees were put in place in the district, zone and at the national levels. ·   The regional extension coordinating committee (RAECC), provided a forum for research, extension, farmer, and representatives of other institutions to meet and interact.	·   The level of coordination was observable in all cooperating countries ·   RAECC met once in every 18 months ·   Reports included resolutions tabled at the conference ·   Actions taken were reported at the following RAECC and at the national coordinating committee meetings.

 

 

 

       

FIGURE 1.  PHASES AND STEPS OF THE FHME APPROACH

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES

 

ANDREWS, J.P. (1975), Factors Related to the Adoption Behaviour of Food Crop Farmers. Crown Lands Development Programme, Trinidad, WI. Unpublished MSc. Thesis, The University of  the  West  Indies

ANTOINE, Patrick, Errol Simms and St Clair Barker (1996). An Assessment of the St Vincent and the Grenadines Agricultural Diversification Programme.Ministry of Agriculture, Kingstown,St Vincent WI

BAILEY, E., AMEEN, I., ROSS, J., HOSEIN, A. and  CLARKE, B.  (1992).   An  Integrated   Approach  to  the Transfer of Agricultural Technology in the  OECS.  In:  Report of  the 8th  RARECC,  Department  of Agricultural Extension, UWI/CARDI, St Augustine, Trinidad

BARKER, St .C. (1981). Factors   Infuencing   the  Diffusion   and Adoption of   Recommended Cultural Practices Among Carrot Farmers in  St  Vincent. MSc.  Thesis, UWI,  Department  of   Agricultural  Extension, Trinidad and Tobago, WI unpublished

BARKER, St. C. et al eds. (1986). Farming Systems of North  Antigua: Report of a   Rapid  Reconnaissance  Survey. UWI, Department of  Agricultural  Extension, St  Augustine Campus,  Trinidad and Tobago, WI

BARKER, St C.P., P.I.  Gomes and L Rankine (1986). Report of a Rapid Reconnaisssance Survey in North Antigua. UWI Department of Agricultural Extension, St Augustine, Trinidad WI

BARKER, St C.P. and Clive Bishop (1992). A Situational Analysis of the Land Reform Programme in St Vincent with Emphasis on Rabacca Farms. Ministry of Agriculture, Kingstown, St Vincent WI.105 pages

BARKER, St.C. (1992). The  Task  Force  Approach.  St  John’s,  Antigua:  UWI.  Department  of     Agricultural Extension.  3pp typescript

BARKER, St C.P. (1994). Farm and Home Management Extension: A New Approach in Agricultural Extension. In: Tropical Agriculture Vol.71, No.4, pp.313-319. Tropical Agriculture, UWI, St Augustine Trinidad, WI

BARKER, St. C. (1994).  Farm    and   Home  Management   Extension:  A  New   Approach  in   Agricultural Extension in Tropical Agriculture, Vol.71, No.4. Trinidad and Tobago, WI pp. 313-319

BEEBE,  J.  (1985).  Rapid Appraisal:  “The  Critical  First  Step  in  a New Farming  System   Approach                  to Research” FSSP  Networking  Paper  No.5.  University  of Florida, Gainsville, Florida.

CAEP (1980-1981). Institutional Analysis of St Vincent, St Lucia, Dominica, Antigua, St Kitts-Nevis.Department of Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, UWI, St Augustine, Trinidad. WI

CAMPBELL, D.A.  (1978). An  Audience  Inventory: A  Guide to More Effective  Communication  Among  Banana  Farmers in  St.  Vincent.  Unpublished  MSc.  Thesis,  U.W.I., St. Augustine. pp.178

CAMPBELL, D.A.  (1987). Farming  Systems in the North West District of the  Commonwealth  of  Dominica.  Report of a Rapid  Reconnaissance  Survey. UWI  Department  of  Agricultural  Extension, St. Augustine  Trinidad

CAMPBELL, D.A.  (1987).  Farming   Systems  of   Region  One  of  St.  Lucia.  Report  of  aRapid Reconnaissance  Survey. UWI  Department  of  Agricultural  Extension,  St. Augustine, Trinidad

CAMPBELL, D.A.  (1992).  Farming  Systems of  District 6 North and South, and Districts 7 and 8. North and South of St. Vincent and the  Grenadines. Report  of  a  Rapid    Reconnaissance Survey.UWI Department of Agricultural Extension, St. Augustine. Trinidad

CAMPBELL, D.A.   (1986).   Farming   Systems   in   the  Eastern   District  of   Grenada.  Report  of   a   Rapid  Reconnaissance  Survey. UWI  Department  of  Agricultural  Extension,  St. Augustine, Trinidad

DOLLY, D. and Young, G. (1990). eds. A Rapid  Reconnaissance  Survey in County  St. Andrew/St. David.        Faculty of  Agriculture.  UWI,  St. Augustine:  Department of Agricultural  Extension. pp.224

DOLLY, D. and Young, G. (1990). eds. Report  of a Rapid Reconnaissance Survey in  County  Caroni. Faculty  of  Agriculture.  UWI,  St.  Augustine: Department  of  Agricultural  Extension. pp 25

DOLLY, D. and Young, G.  (1990).  eds.  Report of a Rapid Reconnaissance Survey  in  County  St.George. Faculty of Agriculture. UWI,  St.  Augustine: Department  of  Agricultural Extension. pp.202

DOLLY, D. and Young, G.  (1991).  eds.  Report of  a  Rapid  Reconnaissance  Survey  in  County  St.Patrick.  Faculty  of Agriculture. UWI, St. Augustine: Department of  Agricultural Extension. pp.315

DOLLY, D. and  Young,  G.  (1991).  eds.  Report  of  a  Rapid  Reconnaissance Survey  in  County  Nariva/Mayaro. Faculty  of  Agriculture.  UWI,  St. Augustine:  Department  of  Agricultural  Extension,  p.315

HENDERSON,  T.H  and Gomes P.I.  (1979). A  Profile of Small  Farming in  St. Vincent, Dominica  and St. Lucia. Faculty of Agriculture,UWI, St.Augustine: Department of Agriculture Extension

HENDERSON,  T.H. and  Patton M.Q  (1985).  Agricultural  Extension  for  Rural  Transformation: The CAEP Model  In Rural  Development in  the  Caribbean;  Ed:  P.I  Gomes. pp.194-211 C. Hurst and  Company  London

SEEPERSAD, J. (1985). Developing Extension Programmes in the Caribbean. UWI, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Extension. pp.54

SERGIO, R. and Poey, F. (1985). Organisation  of  the  Sondeo St.  Lucia: CARDI  Farming  Systems Workshop.  Mimeograph

SHANER, W.W. et al (1982).  Farming  Systems Research  and  Development: Guidelines  for  Developing  Countries.  Boulder,  Colorado:  Westview  Press

WILTSHIRE, Franklin, Delano  (1976).  Factors  Which  Motivate  Coffee  Farmers  to   Adopt  New Practices. Unpublished. MSc Thesis, UWI, St Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, WI

 

 

 

Other References Used

 

BERDEQUE, Julio, A. and Escobar Germain (1995).  New   Directions  of   the  Systems Approach  for the  Modernization of Latin American Peasant Agriculture.In: Journal for Farming Systems Research - Extension.  Vol.5, No1. pp.1-30

CERNEA, Michael, M.(1985).Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Oxford University  Press for the Work Bank

COHEN, John and Norman Uphoff, (1980). Participation’s  Place  in  Rural Development  Seeking Clarity through Specificity, “World Development” Vol.8. No.3, (March 190) pp. 213-236

FLORA, Cornelia, Butler (1984) ed.Proceedings of Kansas State University’s 1983.Farming Systems Symposium: Animals in  the   Farming   System. Paper  No.6.  Kansas  State  University, Manhattan, Kansas

LANDECK, Johnathon (1991). New Age   Extension   in  Farming  Systems  Research:   End of the Technical Message Era.In Journal For Farming Systems  Research-Extension. Vol. 2, No.2, 1991.  pp.17-27.

HELDERBRAND, Peter, E. (1986). Perspective on Farming Systems Research and Extension.Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado. 166 pp

KAIMOWITZ, David (1990). Making the Link Agricultural Research  and  Technology  Transfer in Developing Countries. International  Service  for  National  Agricultural  Research  (ISNAR). West View Press, San Francisco pp.278

LEAGANS, J. Paul (1961).“Extension Education in Community Development.” Directorate of Food and Agriculture; ed. M.C Kamath. Glasglow Priting Company, New Delhi

LEAGANS, J. Paul  (1985).  Adoption  of  Technology  by  Small   Farmers:  A  Model  for  Strategy Builders. In: Journal of Extension Systems. Vol.1. No.1. pp1-21

MOSHER, T.A. (1969). Creating a Perspective Rural Structure. Agricultural Development Council Incorporated. Sowers Printing Co. USA.