6. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF EXTENSION SERVICE

6.1 Extension Roles of Different Institutions
6.2 Linkages Between Extension and Research Efforts

Organization and management play an important role in aquaculture development (Pollnac, 1985). The organizational structure of an extension service plays a large role in what types of extension activities are carried out, how they are carried out, and the recipient target groups and beneficiaries of extension. This chapter presents the different institutional roles in extension, and discusses linkages between institutions, and between extension and research. Annex II illustrates organizational structures of typical aquaculture extension programmes, and these are described further by Chakroff (1982).

There are two dominant approaches to the organization of extension services. The first identifies one particular institution devoted solely to extension, the second identifies an agricultural development organization with responsibilities for research, marketing, and extension (Axinn, 1988). A further policy issue for consideration is whether to separate organizations dealing with different sub-sectors involved in production, such as crops, livestock, fruit, vegetables, fisheries, and forestry, and even youth development and family life. It is known that the more specialized the individuals or groups, the higher the cost of effective communication and cooperation between them. However, agriculture is a highly technical multi-faceted field which often requires many kinds of specialized personnel in addition to generalists who comprehend whole farming systems (Axinn, 1988).

Regardless of the type of organizational structure, the principal factor which determines the success of any extension programme is the degree to which any specific project is adopted and supported by the target population. "Interventions which fail to sustain support and sponsorship within the national bureaucracy are destined to wither and dissipate. Production schemes which fail to win the confidence and enthusiasm of farmers will not generate food or revenue." (Molnar and Duncan, 1989).

6.1 Extension Roles of Different Institutions

The primary responsibility for aquaculture extension in most countries lies with some government agency. The particular agency concerned varies greatly from country to country, and invariably generates a certain amount of controversy and competition. In some countries different agencies operate aquaculture extension, and their services may or may not be coordinated.

The majority of countries for which information is available indicates that the Ministry of Agriculture is predominantly responsible for aquaculture extension. In the survey (see Table 10), seven respondents in Asia and Latin America (Bangladesh, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay) indicated that the primary agency for aquaculture extension was a ministry responsible for fisheries or a fisheries institute. Two African (Tanzania and Zimbabwe) and two Latin American respondents (Colombia and Honduras) indicated that it was a ministry of natural resources. Other countries (Kenya, Madagascar, Zaïre, and Singapore) had aquaculture extension services located in ministerial departments of rural or national development; environment, conservation and tourism; tourism and wildlife; or commerce and industry.

In a typical agricultural ministry aquaculture extension agents tend to be trained in agronomy, and may or may not have specific training in aquaculture. Extension personnel are more likely to combine activities in aquaculture with those in other types of agriculture. Farmers are therefore targeted for technology transfer of aquaculture as well as technologies of agriculture. Thus there is greater potential for extension work with farming systems, such as integrated livestock-fish production and management of water resources for other agricultural activities.

In cases where responsibility for aquaculture extension is within an agency for natural resources, there is a likelihood that the aquaculture extension agents are also used for functions such as game/fishing licensing, regulatory work, and enforcement. Agencies which have emphasis on natural resource management also produce and monitor restrictions on the introduction of exotic species, and promote proven cultured species, or focus research on development of culture methods for native species. Thus their overall emphasis is often on preserving natural resources, and not commercial production or exploitation for home consumption.

Countries which have important capture fisheries industries tend to place responsibilities for aquaculture extension in a fisheries agency. Combining aquaculture with fisheries often results in agents for extension work hired for their biological backgrounds, rather than agronomy, and the emphasis of their work tends to be biological processes rather than production. Moreover, target groups are more often fishermen than farmers, and extension efforts are directed at fishing cooperatives to encourage them to change from fishing to fish farming. The obvious advantage of this institutional approach is that the marketing structure and traditions for handling fish are in place. The disadvantage is that work habits of fishermen, accustomed to working only certain times of the year or certain times of day, conflict strongly with habits of successful farmers who continuously manage and monitor their farms or fish ponds all day long. The literature indicates that there have been few successful attempts to convert fishermen into fish farmers.

Table 10. Government Agency with Primary Responsibility for Aquaculture Extension

Region/ Country	Agriculture Ministry	Fisheries Ministry/Institute	Natural Resources	Other (*)
AFRICA
Cameroon	X	-	-	-
Kenya	-	-	-	X
Madagascar	-	-	-	X
Rwanda	X	-	-	-
Swaziland	X	-	-	-
Tanzania	-	-	X	-
Zaïre	-	-	-	X
Zimbabwe	X	-	X	-
Subtotal	4	-	2	3
ASIA
Bangladesh	-	X	-	-
Jordan	X	-	-	-
Korea	X	-	-	-
Malaysia	-	X	-	-
Nepal	X	-	-	-
Philippines	X	-	-	-
Singapore	-	-	-	X
Sri Lanka	-	X	-	-
Thailand	X	-	-	-
Subtotal	5	3	-	1
LATIN AMERICA
Chile	X	-	-	-
Colombia	-	-	X	-
Costa Rica	X	-	-	-
Ecuador	-	X	-	-
El Salvador	X	-	-	-
Guatemala	X	-	-	-
Guyana	X	-	-	-
Honduras	-	-	X	-
Mexico	-	X	-	-
Panama	X	-	-	-
Paraguay	X	-	-	-
Peru	-	X	-	-
Uruguay	-	X	-	-
Venezuela	X	-	-	-
Subtotal	8	4	2	-
TOTAL	17	7	4	4

(*) Includes Department of Rural or National Development, Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and Department of Environment, Conservation and Tourism.

SOURCES: Survey data & Chakroff (1982)

Mexico is a country where aquaculture extension is handled by a fisheries ministry. The General Directorate of Aquaculture of the Secretaría de Pesca has the following responsibilities:

- formulate policies and programmes of aquacultural production,

- promote the creation and organization of aquaculture production and distribution units,

- promote the construction and operation of laboratories and aquaculture units dedicated to aquaculture production,

- formulate programmes of financial support,

- formulate policies and programmes of repopulation of national waters,

- define techniques of aquaculture administration and management,

- generate employment,

- propose and promote national production of industrialized foods consumed by aquatic organisms,

- supervise and control the distribution of aquatic organisms,

- propose to the administrative units the construction, acquisition, conservation, and maintenance of facilities and equipment,

- propose scientific and technological research destined to support the development of aquaculture, and

- emit technical advice upon, and supervise the import and export of aquatic organisms.

Universities in many countries are involved in aquaculture extension. Generally their services are smaller and not as comprehensive as their government counterparts for lack of resources. University extension services may or may not coordinate their activities with government agencies. In cases where they do, universities play an extremely important role in training extension agents, "link workers", and producers. Universities may also have research activities in aquaculture which generate technologies which can be transferred to producers directly and quickly.

Peru is one example where a university is taking the lead in national aquaculture development. The Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, the Instituto Veterinario de Investigaciones Tropicales y de Altura (IVITA), the Facultad de Ciencias Biologicas, the Corporacion Departamental de Ucayali, and the Gerencia de Promocion, Desarrollo y Finanzas, developed an agreement to conduct a fish culture project in Peru (Gutierrez, 1986). The general objective of the project was to develop improved fish production systems in ponds which were appropriate to typical Amazon conditions, taking into consideration farmers' preferences and their limited resources, and the environment.

The project was established to (1) evaluate existing fish production systems, specifically water quantity and quality, soil characteristics, land use systems, technology, demand, incentives and constraints to technological changes, (2) develop technological alternatives for different components of fish production systems, (3) evaluate, under farm conditions, pond fish yield, (4) promote collaboration between research and extension officers to develop a continuous process of generation and transfer of technology, and (5) train Peruvian scientists in fish culture research methodology.

A demonstration module was established at IVITA. Production techniques concentrated on broodstock management and seed production for the "colonos", or tenant farmers. The approach was to establish a fish station at the university where fish stocks would be maintained, and which would be a focal point for training and demonstration. Later, a pilot extension programme would be developed based on establishing micro-demonstration units on farms. It would include training of farmers, demonstrating methods and techniques, and establishing production modules.

The project focused on small ponds, for ease of management, and Tilapia nilotica was selected as the principal fish species to be produced. Integrated aquaculture-agriculture modules were also included (Lovshin et al., 1986), with batteries of four ponds established with fish-pig and fish-duck systems.

For the design of the extension programme a survey was carried out to identify any social factors which would affect the project. The survey identified factors such as other enterprises on the farm, resources available for fish culture, levels of previous experience or interest in fish culture, and economic and financial limitations. The project evaluation indicated the need to have specific and well-defined goals for project participants. The survey indicated that fish culture for home consumption was most appropriate, but this could possibly lead to subsequent commercialization.

All farmers who had previous experience with IVITA projects (nonfish projects) indicated, when interviewed, that they would like to raise fish (Gutierrez, 1986). This positive previous experience with the implementing agency obviously pre-disposed the farmers to believe in the project and thus to work hard to ensure its success.

Military institutions in many countries can play roles in extension. In various Latin American countries, notably Panama and Nicaragua, the military has civic action programmes which actively participate in constructing fish ponds, as well as roads, bridges, and schools. In general extension provided by the military is not formally linked to other national extension activities, but often national extension agents request specific help from military institutions in the form of the loan of heavy equipment.

Private voluntary agencies and organizations are playing an increasingly important role in aquaculture extension in many countries. Such institutions are CARE, the International Confederation of Catholic Organizations for Charitable and Social Action (CARITAS Internationalis), Heifer Project, Winrock International, and many others. Their typical approach is small-scale and grass-roots oriented, with significant inputs from local producers at various stages of projects. In general, "promotores" are recruited and trained to work directly with a certain number of farmers.

Agencies of foreign governments, which provide bilateral technical assistance, also provide useful aquaculture extension services in many of their projects. These foreign government agencies generally train their own personnel who then work through a host country institution with host-country counterparts in extension activities. For example, United States of America has the Agency for International Development (US AID) and Peace Corps, and other countries, such as Norway (Norwegian Agency for International Development, or NORAD), Sweden (Swedish International Development Authority, or SIDA), France, Federal Republic of Germany (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH, or GTZ), Italy, Japan (Japan International Cooperation Agency, or JICA), United Kingdom (Overseas Development Administration, or ODA), among others, send technical advisors and volunteers who work in some type of extension-related activities. Invariably these individuals have high levels of education and/or important practical and technical skills useful in many countries. Problems arise, however, from language and cultural barriers, and sometimes through introducing technologies and institutional or organizational structures not well adapted to host-country conditions.

Foreign assistance agencies may also have different priorities and criteria for designing and implementing projects. The national goals for a particular project and those of the bilateral agency may be in conflict, and the policies of an agency may differ widely depending on the policies of its respective government in power. Thus, individual projects which overlap different political administrations may be designed under the first with certain goals and objectives but then evaluated under a second administration, with vastly different criteria, policies, and objectives.

Multilateral organizations, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), among others, include aquaculture extension in many of their projects. FAO, for example, through the financial support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and bilateral agencies, has established a number of regional and national training centres for aquaculture technicians. It also executes projects which provide technical assistance directly to host-country agencies involved in aquaculture extension, or projects which have a significant extension component. These activities have similar advantages and disadvantages to those of foreign country agencies, noted above.

Middle-level technical training programmes in aquaculture are conducted or supported financially by many international organizations (such as FAO); international and national agencies (such as the International Research and Development Centre, or IDRC; the Aquaculture Department of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, or SEAFDEC-AQD; and the National Inland Fisheries Institute of Thailand, or NIFI); non-governmental organizations (such as CARE, Lutheran World Service, Catholic Relief Services, and Heifer Project International); universities (such as Auburn University and the University of Rhode Island, in the USA); and aquaculture/fisheries institutes (such as the Freshwater Fisheries Research Centre, Wuxi, China, and the Leetown Center of the Fish and Wildlife Service, USA), (Engle, 1987b).

6.2 Linkages Between Extension and Research Efforts

Effective technology transfer requires firm linkages between research and extension. Technology is developed through research, and extensionists must have access to researchers to know and understand the latest technology to ensure its successful transmittal to farmers.

Many countries, however, do not have resources to engage in research. In those countries which do, institutional and professional linkages may not exist to provide effective communication between researchers and extensionists. Often inter-institutional rivalry, competition for funding, and communication difficulties impede their development.

Research personnel often view themselves as being above extensionists, as they have more formal education and postgraduate degrees. Usually they are willing to provide information to extension personnel, but rarely willing to receive information back from extension personnel and adjust the problems they study accordingly. This causes a breakdown in communication and coordination (Axinn, 1988).

The classic picture of extension is one where the researcher communicates his research information to the extensionist for transmittal to producers. One factor, however, is often overlooked. The researcher invariably has a professional stake in the quality of the research, and the extension worker has a personal one. Consequently an individual farmer, who has built up a personal relationship with the agent, may try a new practice based simply on faith in that particular agent. If the research was of poor quality, or erroneous, then the farmer pays the price, and the extension agent receives the blame. The researcher is removed from these personal ties. Many researchers, in fact, do not have sufficient regard for the implications of their research, or hasty publication and pronouncement of results. Consequently it is important for extension workers to know researchers and trust their abilities, and for researchers to understand that farmers need practical solutions and research in their problems.

The survey indicated that there were no institutional vehicles in most countries for linking research and extension activities (see Table 11). The Philippines and Panama were exceptions. In the Philippines there is apparently a great deal of effort expended to coordinate research and extension efforts. Conventions, conferences, meetings with researchers and extension agents, and task forces of researchers and extension agents seem to be institutionalized and developed. The National Aquaculture Directorate in Panama performs both extension and research functions so that there is an organic link between them.

Other respondents indicated few linkages between research and extension activities. In the Cameroons, the respondent indicated that there was no need for research because the technology being extended was already well developed. In Zaïre there was recognition of the important role of research but, as there was little or no research in aquaculture, there were no results to pass on to the extension agents. The situation in Jordan was similar. In Colombia the activities were almost totally in research, with little or no extension work. In Ecuador there was research but little extension in the Ministry of Fisheries, whereas agriculture extension in the Ministry of Agriculture was well developed.

In conclusion, there is a definite lack of good interchange between researchers and extension agents. In many cases this is exacerbated because the responsibilities for these two functions are vested in different ministries or ministerial departments, and rarely is any effort made to provide formal connection between them. In other cases aquaculture programmes only have either a research or an extension function, and the other simply does not exist, or is so modest to be virtually nonexistent.

Table 11. Channels for Communication between Research and Extension Personnel

Region/Country	Channels		Comments
	Formal Informal	Formal Informal
AFRICA
Cameroon	X	-	Research not needed
Rwanda	-	X	Extensionists contact researchers
Tanzania	-	X
Zaïre	-	X	Few researchers
Zimbabwe	-	-	Separate ministries
ASIA
Jordan	-	X	No research
Philippines	X	X	Variety of mechanisms (*)
Thailand	-	X
LATIN AMERICA
Colombia	-	X	No extension work
Ecuador	-	X	Sporadic efforts
Guatemala	-	X
Mexico	-	X	Very little
Panama	X	-	Both in same institution
Peru	-	X	Very little
Uruguay	X	-	Researchers do a little extension

(*) Conventions, conferences, meetings, task forces