fundamental structure. As a district level extension manager commented: “EFREN
seems to be an economical and safe innovation that does not require adjustments
to financial norms and mechanisms from the extension system.”
11.5.2 Insights for Further Adoption and Expansion of EFREN
The degree to which the expansion of the EFREN initiative takes place, that it, its
adoption beyond the pilot commune and with the decreasing presence and support
from researchers, is still uncertain; however, some preliminary observations can be
made regarding its potential, the challenges it faces and the pathways such a process
of institutionalization might follow.
During the EFREN training workshops which were delivered in the district and
province centers, the most common reaction among extension staff was surprise
that farmers participated voluntarily in the extension planning and implementation
process. We consider this both an indication that EFREN-style extension was
perceived as an improvement on normal extension practice by the farmers in the
pilot commune, as well as an indication of the weakness of the existing extension
system, in which farmers participate in order to access per diem allowances, that is,
subsidies, rather than knowledge.
A frequently raised concern by extension workers participating in the training
workshops was their upwards accountability and their task to implement government development plans. Trainees, without exception, put official policy first, and
allocated a subordinate role to activities proposed by EFREN. This supports
EFREN’s strategizing approach to institutional change, rather than focusing on
rule changes which would be perceived as too confrontational.
Inspired by the pilot commune’s EFREN experiences, as presented in a training
workshop, two further CEWs in Yen Chau decided to adopt EFREN. Both
followed-up on the suggestion to organize farmers into EFREN-style groups and
to give them more say in choosing the extension activities carried out in their
communes, but also adapted EFREN to suit their requirements. In one case, the
CEW made changes to how EFREN accessed farmers’ demands by devising tables
into which she entered the extension activities being proposed, and then left space
for farmers to articulate their additional demands. Although this may be seen as an
undue limiting of farmers’ choices, the change made points to the importance of
recognizing that ‘demand’ is created not by farmers alone, but emerges out of the
interaction between what CEWs can offer and farmers’ interests.
In addition to grass-roots level support, however, EFREN initiatives also need to
find support among district and provincial extension managers and local authorities,
in order to be institutionalized formally, though the positive response to the EFREN
pilots from provincial extension managers is reflected in the coverage and praise it
twice received in the provincial extension journal during 2010. Senior extension
managers at the provincial level also stated that power has already been devolved
from the national to provincial level authorities (such as the Provincial People’s
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
457
seems to be an economical and safe innovation that does not require adjustments
to financial norms and mechanisms from the extension system.”
11.5.2 Insights for Further Adoption and Expansion of EFREN
The degree to which the expansion of the EFREN initiative takes place, that it, its
adoption beyond the pilot commune and with the decreasing presence and support
from researchers, is still uncertain; however, some preliminary observations can be
made regarding its potential, the challenges it faces and the pathways such a process
of institutionalization might follow.
During the EFREN training workshops which were delivered in the district and
province centers, the most common reaction among extension staff was surprise
that farmers participated voluntarily in the extension planning and implementation
process. We consider this both an indication that EFREN-style extension was
perceived as an improvement on normal extension practice by the farmers in the
pilot commune, as well as an indication of the weakness of the existing extension
system, in which farmers participate in order to access per diem allowances, that is,
subsidies, rather than knowledge.
A frequently raised concern by extension workers participating in the training
workshops was their upwards accountability and their task to implement government development plans. Trainees, without exception, put official policy first, and
allocated a subordinate role to activities proposed by EFREN. This supports
EFREN’s strategizing approach to institutional change, rather than focusing on
rule changes which would be perceived as too confrontational.
Inspired by the pilot commune’s EFREN experiences, as presented in a training
workshop, two further CEWs in Yen Chau decided to adopt EFREN. Both
followed-up on the suggestion to organize farmers into EFREN-style groups and
to give them more say in choosing the extension activities carried out in their
communes, but also adapted EFREN to suit their requirements. In one case, the
CEW made changes to how EFREN accessed farmers’ demands by devising tables
into which she entered the extension activities being proposed, and then left space
for farmers to articulate their additional demands. Although this may be seen as an
undue limiting of farmers’ choices, the change made points to the importance of
recognizing that ‘demand’ is created not by farmers alone, but emerges out of the
interaction between what CEWs can offer and farmers’ interests.
In addition to grass-roots level support, however, EFREN initiatives also need to
find support among district and provincial extension managers and local authorities,
in order to be institutionalized formally, though the positive response to the EFREN
pilots from provincial extension managers is reflected in the coverage and praise it
twice received in the provincial extension journal during 2010. Senior extension
managers at the provincial level also stated that power has already been devolved
from the national to provincial level authorities (such as the Provincial People’s
11 Rethinking Knowledge Provision for the Marginalized: Rural Networks. . .
457