farmer participation, greater flexibility in terms of budget allocations and better
linkage-building between the different extension actors. Moreover, traditionally
neglected topics such as sustainable resource use and transparency in extension
funding are likely to be strongly recognized in the third decree (GSRV 2010), which
was released just as work on this chapter began. So far, it is too early to provide an
assessment of this new decree, but its content and pace of implementation give a
rather visionary impression of what can be expected. For example, among other
measures, the decree introduces a new bidding system for extension funds, and this
might lead to even stronger plurification or even privatization of the state extension
system in the future (Minh 2012). The decree also has an ambitious aim to complete
the transition from a top-down to a bottom-up oriented system.
11.2.1 State Actors
The state agricultural extension service – most often referred to as ‘official extension’, or OE, is in itself differentiated and is comprised of three organizationally
independent units: the plant protection unit, the veterinary service and the so-called
agricultural extension service. These units have a somewhat privileged role in the
wider extension system, as a result of their mandate to control, coordinate and
implement socio-economic development programs and therefore, their direct access
to state subsidies. Methodologically, the three units follow a top-down technology
transfer approach, implemented mainly through performance demonstration models
and the technical training of farmers, mostly in conjunction with subsidies for new
seeds, animal breeds, inputs such as mineral fertilizer, the materials needed to set up
demonstration models, and per diem payments to farmers for attending technical
training. State extension is implemented in line with national development policies,
and emphasizes commercial farm production and large-scale commodity production
aimed at the market (Beckman 2001) (see Table 11.1).
The extension units have departments in each of the 61 provinces throughout the
country, with offices at the district level, and are strictly organized on a vertical
hierarchical basis – a structure which reflects the prevailing characteristics of the
socialist command and control programming structure. The units are marked by an
almost complete coverage of representatives from the provincial to the district
levels, and further down to the communes (through the Communal Extension
Worker, or CEW), and in the case of the Department of Animal Husbandry, even
down to the village level (through the Animal Health Worker, or AHW).
The official role of the CEW is to act as a deliverer of knowledge and to
propagate government policies, organize training activities for farmers and transfer
technology in conjunction with the local authorities and mass organizations. However, despite the outreach of the extension service and the coverage of the CEWs,
assessing the actual impact of this system is difficult, because although public
extension reaches into almost all communes, it would be wrong to conclude that
all farmers receive the support they require. Farmers may receive no, very limited
438
I. Schad et al.
linkage-building between the different extension actors. Moreover, traditionally
neglected topics such as sustainable resource use and transparency in extension
funding are likely to be strongly recognized in the third decree (GSRV 2010), which
was released just as work on this chapter began. So far, it is too early to provide an
assessment of this new decree, but its content and pace of implementation give a
rather visionary impression of what can be expected. For example, among other
measures, the decree introduces a new bidding system for extension funds, and this
might lead to even stronger plurification or even privatization of the state extension
system in the future (Minh 2012). The decree also has an ambitious aim to complete
the transition from a top-down to a bottom-up oriented system.
11.2.1 State Actors
The state agricultural extension service – most often referred to as ‘official extension’, or OE, is in itself differentiated and is comprised of three organizationally
independent units: the plant protection unit, the veterinary service and the so-called
agricultural extension service. These units have a somewhat privileged role in the
wider extension system, as a result of their mandate to control, coordinate and
implement socio-economic development programs and therefore, their direct access
to state subsidies. Methodologically, the three units follow a top-down technology
transfer approach, implemented mainly through performance demonstration models
and the technical training of farmers, mostly in conjunction with subsidies for new
seeds, animal breeds, inputs such as mineral fertilizer, the materials needed to set up
demonstration models, and per diem payments to farmers for attending technical
training. State extension is implemented in line with national development policies,
and emphasizes commercial farm production and large-scale commodity production
aimed at the market (Beckman 2001) (see Table 11.1).
The extension units have departments in each of the 61 provinces throughout the
country, with offices at the district level, and are strictly organized on a vertical
hierarchical basis – a structure which reflects the prevailing characteristics of the
socialist command and control programming structure. The units are marked by an
almost complete coverage of representatives from the provincial to the district
levels, and further down to the communes (through the Communal Extension
Worker, or CEW), and in the case of the Department of Animal Husbandry, even
down to the village level (through the Animal Health Worker, or AHW).
The official role of the CEW is to act as a deliverer of knowledge and to
propagate government policies, organize training activities for farmers and transfer
technology in conjunction with the local authorities and mass organizations. However, despite the outreach of the extension service and the coverage of the CEWs,
assessing the actual impact of this system is difficult, because although public
extension reaches into almost all communes, it would be wrong to conclude that
all farmers receive the support they require. Farmers may receive no, very limited
438
I. Schad et al.