Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor
A Documentation Review

Prepared by:
Hoang Xuan Thanh
Nguyen Viet Khoa

For the:
Sub-Group on Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor
Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Group
VUFO – NGO Resource Centre

Hanoi – 11/2003


Foreword
This review of Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor has been written on the
initiative of the sub-group on Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor. The sub-group
is part of the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Group of the
VUFO – NGO Resource Centre.
This documentation review is part of the INGO’s efforts to respond to and contribute to
the poverty reduction efforts of Vietnam expressed in the Comprehensive Poverty
Reduction & Growth Strategy (CPRGS). This review is carried out to support these
poverty reduction efforts of the Vietnamese government by focusing on feed back from
field experience in agricultural extension, related to the actual policy context in Vietnam.
In this review the INGO’s use their experiences in pro-poor agricultural extension in
Vietnam. The relationship between farmers and NGO’s actively involved in extension
service is generally understood to be of a different nature than that between farmers and
government extension services. With the contribution of this reveiw, we can look at
agricultural extension services from a different perspective and to bring this perspective
into a debate on policies as well as implementation practices for more pro-poor

2.3. Overview of understanding and practices among NGOs and Externally
supported projects on pro-poor extension ........................................................14
3. The gaps between current Government's extension policies/practices and the
pro-poor extension ..................................................................................................18
3.1. Targeting ........................................................................................................18
3.2. Technical training..........................................................................................21
3.3. Input supply and product promotion...........................................................23
3.4. Supporting farmers' organizations ..............................................................25
3.5. Extension socialization.................................................................................27
3.6. Market access and market information .......................................................29
4. Recommendations ...............................................................................................33
4.1. Key issues for which NGO field experiences should be collected and
documented ..........................................................................................................33
4.2. Relevant strategies and opportunities for policy dialogues on pro-poor
extension...............................................................................................................35
Key References.....................................................................................................39
Annex 1 Terms of reference of the AE sub-group ................................................40
Annex 2 Terms of Reference for Documentation Review ....................................46

2


Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADB
ASDP
Circular 56
CPRGS
DAFE
DARD
Decree 13

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Ministry of Finance
Ministry of Labor, Invalid and Social Affairs
Ministry of Planning and Investment
National Agricultural Extension Center
Non-Governmental Organization
Participatory Poverty Assessment
Participatory Rural Appraisal

ECO
FDG
FFS
HEPR
HYV
IDI
IPM
ISG
LMDG
M&E
MARD
MOFI
MOLISA
MPI
NAEC
NGO
PPA
PRA
Program 135

Program 661

1.1. Background
Although Vietnam has achieved significant economic development and poverty reduction
since doi moi, poverty in Vietnam remains high. Today, poverty is concentrated in rural
areas, and it will become increasingly concentrated in remote and ethnic minority areas.
There is no doubt that off-farm employment plays a very important role in poverty
reduction. However, farming activities in agriculture, forestry and fishery will still be the
main livelihood strategies of the poor in remote and ethnic minority areas in the years to
come. The coming years may be characterized by increasing inequality, too. Among
others, a key determinant of inequality is the unbalanced access to the basic services including agricultural extension services - between the poor and non-poor, men and
women, Kinh and ethnic minorities.
The extension system has been set up since 1993 in all provinces. However, for many
reasons the system can not meet the needs of farmers, especially the poor, women and
ethnic farmers. In order to help addressing this problem, MARD has reviewed the
agriculture extension system to make it more efficient. Some donors like Asian
Development Bank (ADB) also have fund to restructure the system. In order to support
the government and MARD to produce a more pro-poor policy for the development of
agriculture extension system, SANRM working group decided to formulate a sub-group
to work on agriculture extension which aims to bring good field experiences and
practices to policy dialogues. To guide this process, a documentation review on
extension services for the poor is necessary.

1.2. Objectives
This paper1 is to:
•
•
•
•

Review the current agriculture and forestry extension policies and practices at
national and provincial levels


disseminating advanced techniques, and experiences from successful
production models;
strengthening the production management knowledge and skills for farmers;
and
providing market information for farmers.

Formally, the government's agriculture extension system has three levels: national,
provincial, and district.
•

National level: By new Decree 86, the National Agricultural Extension Center
(NAEC) under the MARD is solely responsible for agricultural extension services.
This is an attempt to separate the 'state administration' from the 'public services'
in agriculture extension2. Currently, the NAEC has 25 professional staff with
different background. The detailed functions and tasks of the NAEC are being
revised.3

•

Provincial level: There are provincial agricultural extension centers under the
DARDs in all 61 provinces and cities over the country. On average, each
provincial extension center now has around 15-20 staff (70% of provincial
extension staff have university degrees).

•

District level: Around 420 districts out of the total 600 over the country have
established their agro-forestry extension stations with a total number of
approximately 2,000 permanent extension staff. Each district station has 3-5 staff


Figure 2.1: The vertical relations in agricultural
extension mechanism
Ministry of
Agriculture and
Rural Development

National level

National Agricultural
Extension Center
(NAEC)

Main responsibilities
(mandatory by Decree 13 - to be revised
by new Decree 86)
•
•
•
•
•
•

Provincial level

Department for
Agriculture and
Rural Development
Centers for Agricultural
and Forestry Extension

Provide market information to farmers
Provincial agri. extension policy making
Construction of demonstration models (in
collaboration with Dept. for Agri. and
Forestry Extension) under national agri.
extension programmes
Monitoring and assessment of extension
programmes

Division for
Agriculture & Rural
Development

Commune cluster level

Agricultural & Forestry
Extension Stations

•
•
•
•
•
•

Commune level
Contracted agri. extension
workers/collaborators or communal
agricultural officers working as agri.
extension workers

Source: Agriculture and Forestry Extension Agency, MARD

In addition to the allocated central budget,
the provinces also allocate their own
budgets
to
agro-forestry
extension
activities (mainly for recurrent costs plus
some provincial extension projects). The
locally allocated budgets vary among the
provinces, from several hundred million
dong to around 1 billion dong per year.
The provincial extension centers also
receive some small extension budget from
annual HEPR program (with some overlap
with provincial budget), and from other
agricultural programs and projects that
may have a component on extension.

Figure 2.2 – Examples of budget sources
for provincial extension centers (Tra Vinh,
Lao Cai)
from HEPR
program
10%

from Central
budget
30%

2.1.3. Current Extension Approaches
a. Technology promotion
This form of agricultural extension aims to promote the advanced techniques for nationwide farmers, often through the national agricultural extension programs (alternatively
called oriented agricultural extension approach). The NAEC under MARD supervises the
implementation of these programs through construction of demonstration models on a
large scale, with little room for flexibility on implementation or budgeting. The approach is
designed for rapid introduction of new varieties on large homogeneous land areas and
not for scattered mountainous cultivation areas. Provinces maintain their own agricultural
extension programs which are very similar to the national agricultural extension
programs in terms of methods and recommendations. Farmer’s acceptance of
recommendations is considered one of criterion for program success evaluation. Crop
productivity index is also another criterion for program monitoring.
b. Socio-Economic development
This form implies that a technique is only one of influencing factors on agriculture and
farmers' livelihoods. Therefore introduction of techniques is frequently attached with
support in terms of material supply, loan arrangement or infrastructure. Government
programs on promoting agriculture and poverty reduction at provincial levels normally
employ this form of agricultural extension. Examples are HEPR program, Program 135,
Program 661 and Decree 20. Operation of such programs was organized in projects run
by provincial People's Committee under the management of various concerned
department of MARD. However the financing rules of these programmes are made within
the set guidelines of using state budget, and leave little room for flexibility.
c. Risk mitigation
Risk mitigation in agriculture covers management of harmful insects and diseases to
livestock (stipulated in the Law for Protection of Vegetation and Veterinary Services).
This function is often fulfilled by the Plant Protection and Veterinary Service systems.
Typical activities are training on IPM models and providing communal and village
veterinary services. However the concern of how to mitigate risks for the poor farmers is
still hardly addressed by the government's extension system.
d. Commercial services promotion

Table 2.2 - Summary of agricultural extension approaches
Approach

1. Technology
promotion

2. Socio-Economic
development

3. Risk mitigation

Government's
agricultural extension
system, research
institutes

Programme135,
resettlement program,
HEPR program

IPM, veterinary
services, Plant
protection
mechanism

Key Policies

Decree 13

Objective

content

Advanced technology
available from
researchers
Demonstration

Small-scale
demonstrations, poor
farmers in mountainous
areas
Extension of proven
successful experience

Topics
Organization,
program, key
project

Promotion
methods

Demonstration, training,
inputs (seeds, fertilizer)

4. Commercial
services
promotion
Agricultural
material companies

materials

Farmers who
possess land

Techniques for risk
mitigation

Guidance on use of
materials supplied
by the companies
Site training,
literature

New technology for
export promotion

Site training

Training, inputs,
credit

10


2.2. Government’s Commitment on Pro-poor Extension
For its continued commitment for poverty reduction, until recently the Government has
adopted a number of policies, plans and programs on pro-poor agricultural extension.

2.2.1. Pro-poor Extension in HEPR program and Program 135

Cultivation and New Economic Zones no longer exists).
The Program 135 (and Program 661) also provides some policy instruments for
government's pro-poor extension, including the subsidization of key agricultural inputs in
poor areas (by Decree 20). Particularly, the section of "human resources development"
for the poor communes in Program 135 aims to training grass root extension workers that
can be selected from the 'good farmers' in the locality.

2.2.2. Pro-poor Extension in CPRGS
In CPRGS approved in May 2002, with a view to accomplish the poverty reduction
objectives in the Vietnam Development Targets (VDT) as localized from the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG), the Government issued a number of policy directions for propoor extension, namely (SRV.2002):
•

Focus agricultural extension expenditures on disadvantaged areas to ensure that
the poor and ethnic groups can benefit from extension services as much as others

5

By MOLISA’s proposal, the budget for the pro-poor extension projects in 2001-2005 HERP program is
estimated as of 100 billion dong, i.e. in average 20 billion dong per year.

11


•
•
•
•
•



•

Empowerment: the Cooperative Law, the Decree on Association (Decree
88/2003/ND-CP dated 30 July 2003) and the Civil Code (dated 28 Oct 1995) all
stipulated some framework for horizontal linkages among the farmers.

•

State management: the separation of service provision and state management
(e.g. Decree 86), the "equitisation" of state-owned enterprises, and the
decentralization process can make the providers of extension services better
respond to the demands of the local farmers.

These policies and regulations embed a possible environment for the provincial
authorities to develop their pro-poor extension services - if they really want to.

13


2.3. Overview of understanding and practices among NGOs and
Externally supported projects on pro-poor extension
This section will provide a general introduction to understanding and practices among
NGOs and externally-supported programs/projects in pro-poor agricultural extension in
Vietnam. Noted that this is nether a summary of the best practices, nor a detailed
analysis of possible strengths and weaknesses of any particular organization or program.

2.3.1. Framework of pro-poor agricultural extension
A simple framework of pro-poor agricultural extension is presented in Figure 2.3 below.
This framework accommodates various efforts of NGOs and externally-funded projects to

L
Village
Participatory Planning

SUPPLY
(information,
resources)

MULTI- LAYER
AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION
(SOCIALIZATION)

HORIZONTAL linkages

Farmers’ groups/clubs
Farmer–to-farmer

Pro-poor agricultural extension assist the farmers - typically in disadvantaged (poor,
remote, ethnic minority) areas - in enhancing horizontal linkages so that the small
producers can together better employ their own livelihood strategies, thus helping them
increase income, mitigate risks and gradually get out of poverty. Key words underlining all
pro-poor extension projects are 'participation' and 'empowerment' with a 'gender-sensitive'
manner. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) techniques are normally employed to
enhance participation of poor people in the whole cycle of extension program/project –
i.e. formulation (need assessment, planning, consultation), appraisal, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation. Community-based, small-scale and self-help farmers’
associations (groups, clubs) are established to give poor people opportunities to say and
to be heard (as the poor people have specific agricultural extension needs that may be
completely different from their wealthy neighbors). Core farmers, in the role of extension

•
•
•
•

Focus on supporting “soft” elements (hands-on training, field visits, information
supply, group formation and operations, etc.) in order to improve human and
social capitals for the poor; any supports in “hard” elements (seeds, materials,
construction) will require participatory management, close M&E…
Limit the subsidized and free supplies to motivate self-reliance of the poor and to
ensure sustainability of the impacts
Coordinate the efforts of agricultural, forestry and fishery extension, veterinary
services, plant protection… with other livelihood support activities such as credits,
vocational training, land allocation and management etc. in order to create
synergy among various services that would benefit the poor
Encourage diversification by introduce various technology packages (not a single
agricultural model) for self-selection by the farmers
Develop suitable (proven) technology that do not require up-front large capital
investment and can be employed by poor people; emphasis on risk mitigation in
planting and farming practices in combination with close, participatory M&E
Preserve and develop the indigenous knowledge of local residents, particularly
ethnic minority groups, in accordance with local climate, geography and traditions
Organize extension activities facilitating the participation of the poor and the
women (with regards to timing, venue, method, contribution level…)
Promote the good examples of the poor people who get out of poverty, become
agricultural extension workers or are elected as leaders of farmers' groups…)
Put emphasis on gender equity.

15


implementation and M&E of the agricultural extension plans are often connected
with the whole efforts of community development for poverty reduction.

b. Farmer-to-farmer agricultural extension
Farmer-to-farmer (or 'farmer-led') extension places the farmers at the center and
promotes them acting as the key change agents for improving agricultural production in
the community.
•

Farmers to become trainers: competent and voluntary farmers are trained and
supported to become extension workers (may be called 'core farmers' or 'interface
farmers'). The training often covers topics of production techniques, community
development, PRA, presentation skills… These village/commune extension
workers may serve as leaders of farmers' associations (interest groups, clubs),
and also members of the core team to carry out the participatory planning for
agricultural extension in the community.

•

Farmer field school (FFS): a group of farmers gathers together to learn, share and
experiment production techniques on the field from start to end of a certain crop.
The most popular classes are the integrated pest management (IPM) that can be
applied for various plants including rice, maize, peanut or tea…

•

Participatory technology development (PTD): through participatory studies and
experiments, new technologies are developed and proven by the local farmers,
often with the help of the technicians or researchers. Then these technologies can
be widely diffused among the farmers though formal and informal channels.

saving, servicing the members on inputs and outputs, sharing labor and ploughing
powers etc. Some groups/clubs may then sustain their operations for mutual
benefits of the members and may evolve into new-type co-operatives

•

Opportunities 'to say and to be heard' for the poor men and women: Participating
in the farmers associations appropriate to their conditions and circumstances, the
poor have opportunities to express their needs and concerns. Accordingly such
needs and concerns can be better addressed by the concerned agents.

17


3. The gaps between current Government's extension
policies/practices and the pro-poor extension
This section will discuss the gaps between the current government's extension
policies/practices (extension 'in general' and extension in HEPR program) and the NGO's
pro-poor extension practices in Vietnam.

3.1. Targeting
3.1.1. Current Government's extension policies and practices
In current government's policies on extension (Decree 13 and subsequent regulations),
there is no indication of 'poverty reduction' nor 'the poor' - just the 'farmers' in general.
Without a 'targeting the poor' mandate, it is not surprised that the 'normal' extension
services often promote the 'good farmers' who have 'necessary conditions' in terms of
land, labor and counterpart contribution, can bear risks, and normally have bigger voices
in the community. Until now, biases in favor of targeting the better-off come from the
argument that for the new technologies and resource-intensive models only the better-off
can apply (the reliance on 'successful demonstration models' for rapid technology

projects
(in
HEPR
program
and
Program 135) will focus on
the
poor
remote
communities. But literally

Box 3.1 - Contents of the project "guiding the poor on
business, agriculture extension"
(Circular 56/2003/TT-BNN dated 9 Apr. 2003 of MARD on the design of
projects within HEPR program)

a. Objectives: Equip the poor and hungry households with
knowledge so that they can plan for their production, apply
advanced techniques in business to improve productivity,
quality of trees and animal, at the same time can protect
environment and ecosystem; thus they can get out of poverty.
b. Targeting criteria: Households who are listed as poor under
the regulations in Decision 1143/2000/QD-LDTBXH dated 1
Jan 2000 of MOLISA, who have labor and cultivating land, and
live in extremely difficult communes (inside Program 135) or
poor communes (outside Program 135)
c.

Activities to be supported:
• support key seedlings and materials for building

in the provincial PPAs recently (see Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 - The Poor and Extension Services
The poor need….
To know what they can demand of the
extension services
Direct guidance from and interaction with the
extension workers

To deal with specific issues in production
To travel long distances, while living in areas
with undeveloped traffic
To get input support despite the fact that they
cannot make contributions
To be introduced to a range of options to fit their
own situation and which is highly responsive to
the diverse environment
To get simple materials with "attractive pictures
and big letters" for less educated people, or by
way of verbal culture in mountainous areas

The government extension service provides…
A reactive service demanded more by the
better-off (while the poor need more proactive
efforts)
Few extension workers, many of them do not
know ethnic minority language. Village
extension workers are not yet available.
Training is often one way and delivered
indirectly (through village leader)
Local extension workers who are weak in

of the poor - i.e. lack of confidence, hesitation to speak out in community events,
preoccupation with daily 'cash-and-mouth' work, frequent working as laborers far
from home, illiterate, or the prototype of 'women do, men study'…) and can
respond flexibly. Some community development skills are needed.

•

Developing pro-poor extension methodology, e.g. the suitable ways of working
with the poor, e.g. 'risk-mitigated' or 'well-researched/proven' advice, 'hands-on'
training … - to correspond with the limited livelihood capitals of the small landholders, illiterate farmers, ethnic minorities living in remote mountainous areas…

•

Allocating adequate budget to grass root extension network in remote and
mountainous communes and villages (more professional/qualified workers with
more women and ethnic minorities, better working conditions and remuneration)
with a more flexible budgeting/accounting so that a bigger portion of the (poor)
households can access to the designed extension activities

•

Stating a clear 'targeting the poor' mandate in current 'normal' extension,
subject to close monitoring and evaluation. It is very critical to prevent the drift
away from serving the poor men and women.

In fact, it is always easier to say than to do with the 'targeting the poor' message, as many
NGO's extension projects still find hard to sustain the focus on serving the poor after the
external (financial and technical) supports vanish. Here one key challenge is the financial
feasibility (afford-ability) of NGO's approach of targeting the poor in the 'normal'
operation of the government's extension system in Vietnam, especially in the poorlyintegrated (mountainous, remote, ethnic minority) areas. This issue should be further

3.2. Technical training
3.2.1. Current Government's extension policies and practices
Technical training is one core activity of the government's extension (the other 2 core
activities are information dissemination and demonstration models). Expenditures for
technical training normally account for 30% of total budget of the national extension
programs. By current policies (Circular 02-LB/TT dated on 2 March 1993 regulating the
implementation of Decree 13 on extension), training expenditures for short-term classes,
training on the field, workshops and seminars can only be of 3 categories: (i) allowance
for trainers by the regulated/fixed rates; (ii) costs of organizing training classes, like
materials, tools, classroom, accommodation etc.; and (iii) 'subsistence provision' for the
trainees at grass root levels (temporarily regulated as 15,000 dong, i.e. 1$ per day). In
fact, this 'subsistence support' for trainees is a rather controversy issue; as providing
some money for the training participants may create 'false demand', and may do harm for
the sustainability of training activities when there is no such money later.
Going to a classroom and lecturing on the 'standard techniques' for a certain crop is not
difficult for a district extension worker. Such 'technical' training can contribute to income
generation and food security, but many times it may create more vulnerability for the
poor. In fact, many messages by current extension workers are more suitable for lowland, homogenous, resource-intensive farming; but not so suitable for the poor's high-land
farming to cope with the small, scattered, sloping, poor-irrigated land conditions where
some indigenous knowledge are required. As observed by Beckman (2001) that
"extension messages often concentrate on strategies for income generation, which would
require more resources and knowledge than are currently available to the poor".
With the HEPR/135 program, there have been many efforts from government's extension
system to make technical training more beneficial to the poor. The positive signs are:
•

Less 'lecturing' style, with more hands-on training on the field ("cam tay chi viec").
For example, IPM training now is rather popular.
• More training classes at village levels for easier participation of the poor, often
upon request of local authorities (in the past training classes only at commune

'social development' skills like facilitation, community development, PRAs, and
some hands-on 'organization development' skills like group building.
The extension workers (full-time or part-time, locally sought) are still lacking
necessary conditions for practicing the required participatory approaches.
Remarkable reasons are rigid/fixed budgeting and accounting, no budget for
training need assessment as well as for monitoring and evaluation…

3.2.2. Pro-poor extension
Pro-poor extension as promoted by NGOs and externally supported projects uses some
key proven approaches in their trainings:
•

•

•

•

•

Household economy support (demand-led farming system support): Consider
training as one/first step in the whole household economy support strategy, taking
into account all limitations and choices of the poor. Never bring in pre-determined
and monotonous solutions/models, but a range of options for selection by the
farmers. Only introduce to the poor the proven options that do not require many
resources. In training, indigenous knowledge is recognized and further developed
in combination with advanced technologies, especially in mountainous areas
From changing awareness to changing behaviors: in many cases, the very
first contacts with the poor often result in a feeling that 'the poor do not want
training – just want grants', or 'the poor do not know what they want', or even 'the


3.3. Input supply and product promotion
3.3.1. Current government's extension policies and practices
In current system, the extension workers introduce new seeds, breeds, animal feed,
pesticides, and fertilizers in their training and demonstration models. Technical training of
government's extension often promotes new inputs (with 'standard' technologies)
produced by research institutes, certified by functional agencies within MARD, or
endorsed by national or provincial agriculture development programs – e.g. HYVs of
rice/maize. This promotion in deed has contributed much in poverty reduction and food
security (especially due to the increase of food crop yield) in the poor
remote/mountainous areas, as confirmed by the recent PPAs throughout the country.9
At the moment, providing inputs as free hand-outs or heavily subsidized supports is
considered as a main extension approach:
•

in government's 'normal' extension policies: 60% of total required inputs for a
demonstration model in mountainous areas is granted to participants. This
subsidy ratio in delta areas is only 40% (the remainder is contributed by farmers
themselves).

•

in government's pro-poor extension policies (in HEPR projects): 100 % of total
required inputs for demonstration models are granted to the poor participants.

In practice of NAEC's 'normal' national extension programs, often 60% of program
funding is for input support, 30% for training, and the remaining 10% for information &
communication.
According to Decree 20/1998/ND-CP dated 31 Jan 1998 on the trade promotion in
mountainous areas, the government continues its policy to subsidize transport costs of

including foreign-invested) who want to promote their seeds, breeds, fertilizers,
pesticides; or through 'contract farming' arrangements. Here the farmers are treated as
clients. Input promotion is often associated with technical training, some experiments,
printed materials, even some grants or credit. One problem here is the biased advices in
favor of certain technologies because the trainers or extensionists act as
agents/distributors/fund collectors and receive some 'commission' from the commercial
agencies. It is also not surprised that where government's extension extensionists involve
in input distribution, then the poor are easily forgotten because they are not the target
group of this 'business' approach.
There are some other key shortcomings in terms of input promotion in both government's
'normal' and 'pro-poor' extension:
•

The promotion of inputs bases on the assumption that the increased use of inputs
will lead to higher production. This assumption is often wrong in sloping land in
mountainous areas, and also wrong in terms of preserving (and improving)
indigenous knowledge. Here are the issues of sustainable agriculture and
environmental protection.

•

Poor coordination between 'cultivation', 'plant protection', 'veterinary' extension
agents also bring potential difficulties for the farmers in following different advices
on using different inputs and products from different extensionists (the poor with
limited technical knowledge are very simple-minded/innocent – they often believe
in anything the 'state' extensionists offered them).10

•

The extension services often introduce new varieties or crops to farmers on a trial

By the regulations implementing the new Decree 86, the departments of 'agriculture', 'plant protection' and
'veterinary' (at all levels) all have the function of 'managing and organizing' extension in their respective fields.

24