IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Research articleerd

Improving delivery of technical information to farmers inNorth - Western Cambodia
ROBERT J. MARTIN*
Agricultural Systems Research Cambodia Co. Ltd., Battambang, Cambodia
Email: bob@mjpasia.org

STUART BROWN
Camag Consulting, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

ROUJA JOHNSTONE
Boeung Keng Kang, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Received 15 December 2012

Accepted 30 January 2013(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This paper presents the results of a survey of farm households carried out inNorth-Western Cambodia in early 2012 to gather baseline data for a new agricultural
production and marketing research project. One of the objectives of the survey was torefine dissemination and communication strategies for project outputs and delivery ofplanned impacts. The survey gathered information about maize production issues, sourcesof information, training needs, as well seeking to identify ways to improve the delivery ofrelevant technical information and research findings to individual farmers. The survey
revealed that farmers rely almost completely on each other for information about maize
inputs especially seed for sowing and herbicides. The majority of training (68%) was
provided by Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) with Provincial Departments ofAgriculture (PDAs) providing 10% and input suppliers 7%. We put forward a conceptualcommunication and dissemination strategy that could be used to promote adoption ofproject results. It involves integrated roles based on comparative strengths for public,
private and non-government organizations to achieve adoption of new technologies andbetter practices by farmers.
Keywords dissemination, communication, impacts, adoption, pathways

INTRODUCTION
Historically, in developing countries, governments assumed responsibility for agriculturalextension but during the last 10-15 years, governments and international donors have reduced theirinvestment in agricultural extension. Filling the void, non-government organisations and the private
sector have become important alternatives to public agricultural extension (Swanson and Samy,
2002). This is also the case for agricultural extension in Cambodia.
In Cambodia, public sector agricultural extension is focused on the provision of an extension
system rather than an extension service with a system being put in place by the Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) down to the District level (Anon., 2000). Transfer of
information at the Commune and Village level is expected to occur through farmer to farmer links
with District extension staff acting as facilitators in the process. However, there is evidence tosuggest that this system is not functioning (Anon., 2010).
Such a system would require strong links between the extension department and otherproviders such as other government departments, private sector organizations, farmer organizations,international donors and NGOs (Anon., 2000).  According  to  Cambodia’s  Strategy  for  Agriculture  and Water (Anon., 2010), MAFF lacks the facilities and networks to disseminate technologies, andthe linkages between research, development and extension remain weak. Hence, extension servicesⒸ ISERD112

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

are weak overall, and farmers have limited awareness of and access to agricultural management
technologies, and poor skills in agricultural production.
OBJECTIVESThis paper presents the results of a survey of farm households carried out in North-Western
Cambodia in early 2012. One of the objectives of the survey was to refine dissemination andcommunication strategies for outputs and delivery of planned impacts in a new research project
funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
METHODOLOGY
The survey gathered information about maize production issues, sources of information, training
needs, as well as examining ways to improve the delivery of relevant technical information andresearch findings to individual farmers. The survey involved 832 farm households in Samlout
District in Battambang Province (455 households) and Sala Krau District in Pailin Province (377households). Three Communes were selected in each District on the basis of the density ofhouseholds growing maize. In Samlout the Communes selected were Mean Chey, Samlout andSung encompassing five Villages in each Commune. In Pailin the Communes selected were Sala
Krau, Stueng Kach, and Ou Andoung and five villages were surveyed in each Commune (Fig. 1).
The farmers were interviewed individually based on invitations referred to by the Commune
Chief in each Commune within each District and through collaboration with the previous ACIAR
project partners. The farmers were assembled at a common area each day and the interviews wereperformed by a team of two interviewers per farmer.

Fig. 1 Geographic location of communes and villages included in the survey
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Household profiles
On average in the study population, there were 5.25 people per household, of which 3.13 were
working age adults. The average area of cropped land per farm was 4.21 ha (4.04 ha in Sala Krauand 4.35 ha in Samlout). In terms of wealth ranking, only 11% of the interviewed households
considered   themselves   as   ‘better-off’,   64%   as   ‘average’   and   25%   ‘as   poor’.   Female-headedhouseholds tended to be marginally poorer and more economically vulnerable and among them
32% were poor, 60% average and 9% were better off. 65% of households have not had anyⒸ ISERD

113

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

technical training, while 33% said they have had some training in maize production.
Cropping practices
Samlout and Sala Krau had distinctly different cropping patterns. Both had a similar proportion of
the farm under maize (62-63%). However the crop diversity was much greater in Samlout with
25% of the cropped area planted to legumes (mungbean, soybean, peanut). In Sala Krau, thesedesirable rotation crops have been largely replaced by expansion of cassava (26%) since 2009. The
reasons behind the diverging cropping practices between the two Districts will be studied in thenew project.

Fig. 2 Area devoted to different crop species on the farm (%)
Source of information about maize production inputs
Close to 100% of the farming households in both Samlout and Sala Krau purchased both seed andherbicide for the main wet season (MWS) crop in 2011. Very few farmers used fertilizer, fungicide
or insecticide. In both Samlout and Sala Krau farmers are most likely to source their crop inputs
from   “Village   sellers”   or   “Outside   sellers”   with   seed   companies   registering   a   response   from   a  limited number of farmers. Seed companies provided 11.8% of farmers with seed directly.
The  choice  of  seed  (crop  species  or  variety)  is  an  important  ‘strategic’  decision  and  once  this  decision  has  been  made,  most  of  the  decisions  that  follow  in  growing  the  chosen  crop  are  ‘tactical’with   regard   to   the   farmer’s   demand   for   advice   and   information.   The   technical   advisor   needs   to  intervene  at  the  ‘strategic’  level  if  the  objective  of  the  intervention  is  a  change  in  farming  practices.
For maize production inputs (seed, fertilizer, pesticide) most farmers rely on their own
knowledge (45%) or seek information from neighbouring farmers (45%). Therefore 90% offarmers relied on their own knowledge or that of a neighbouring farmer to apply input technologies.
Six percent of farmers sought information from sellers of inputs. Advice on crop inputs soughtfrom the Provincial Department of Agriculture (PDA) or NGOs was negligible.
Farmer training and information needs
The survey participants were asked whether they had participated in any training in 2011, whoprovided the training, what the training was about, was it beneficial and what subjects they required
training in.
An average of 33% of farmers received training related to maize and this was provided byvarious institutions and sector actors. The majority of training was provided by NGOs (68%) with
PDA providing 10% only. Input suppliers provided maize training to 7% of farmers (Fig. 3). It
should be noted that the PDA provided more training in Sala Krau in Pailin Province (13%)Ⓒ ISERD114

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

compared to Samlout in Battambang Province (7%). In Pailin, the PDA provided training to 23% offarmers not affiliated with the previous ACIAR project. Pailin is a much smaller Province than
Battambang and the PDA office is in close proximity to the Communes and Villages targeted in thissurvey.
In Samlout and Sala Krau, 35% and 39% of survey respondents respectively said they wereparticipants in the previous ACIAR project. The previous project was active in formation of farmer
cooperatives and in the provision of training to farmers. This is reflected in the partner membershipof cooperatives (74-79%) compared to non-partners (35-45%). Similarly, project partners (53-65%)
were more likely to participate in training compared to non-partners (14-22%).

Fig. 3 Providers of training for maize farmers

Fig. 4 Farmer training needs in relation to training received
Ninety percent of farmers indicated that they needed more training in specified subject areas.
They ranked soil management, crop production and crop rotation as the top three priority training
needs (Fig. 4). Other priority subjects were crop residue management, fertilizer, harvesting andIntegrated Pest Management (IPM). Training needs for varieties and pesticides were ranked lower
than for training received in these subjects.
Farmers were also asked if they changed practices after the training and whether they shared
the information with other farmers. As a result of training 88% of farmers reported they hadⒸ ISERD115

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

changed their maize practices and 79% of those trained in new maize practices shared theiracquired knowledge and skills with their neighbours. However, results show that while in Samlout
76%  of  maize  farmers  shared  their  ‘know-how’;;  in  Sala  Krau  only  62%  did  the  same.  
Importance of factors in farmer adopting new practices
Farmers were asked to rank the importance of different factors for adopting new practices. The
three biggest constraints to adoption of new practices were lack of capital (89%), availability oflabour (68%) and knowledge (61%). Because of the capital constraint, new technologies requiring
additional input costs are not likely to be adopted unless the economics can be demonstrated.
Herbicides represent an input cost but result in a labour cost saving so have been readily adopted.
Farmers are aware of the economic advantage of using hybrid maize seed so hybrids have beenreadily adopted.
Discussion
Farmers claimed to know how to deal with biotic impacts on their maize crops such as from insect
pests, diseases and weeds but few said they had solutions to deal with abiotic impacts such as floodor drought. The survey revealed that farmers rely almost completely on each other for information
about crop inputs especially seed for sowing and herbicides. The sellers of the inputs accounted for
only 5% of information sourced. Similarly PDA and NGOs were not sources of information for useof crop inputs.
Decisions such as changing maize variety or replacing hand-weeding with herbicides is arelatively simple process (Pannell et al. 2006). Simple substitutions are often easily adopted if they
have   a   high   ‘relative   advantage’,   are   readily   ‘trialable’   or   easy   to   test   and   learn   about   before  adoption. Changing management practice to improve water-use efficiency as a droughtmanagement strategy for example is more complex and the farmer is likely to seek more
information to be certain about the consequences of adopting it (Pannell et al. 2006). A
participatory action research approach is more likely to be successful in achieving crop
management practice change.
Table 1 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for potential extension partners
Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Infrastructure at Districtlevel and staff available

Government Extension
Lack of funds to mobilise
Strengthen links withDistrict staff
NGOs and private sector

Integral part of the wider
government agenda

Lack of networks to delivertechnologies

Projects participatory andbased at community level

Narrowly focused shortterm agendas

Staff well resourced often
seconded from PDA

Insular, unwilling to sharewith other NGOs

Lack of long-term
objectives and followthroughInfrastructure and teachersat Village level

Lack of training andDevelop and implement
resources in rural subjects‘Life  Skills’  for  agriculture
Input Supply Network

Lack of government
investment  in  ‘Life  Skills’

Outlets at Village levelwith 1:1 contact with
farmers

Lack of training andpotential lack of credibility

Focus on sales and not on
information delivery

Become warehouse of
public good extension
information
Non Government Organisations
Rollout of research findings
to other communities

Provision of strategic
longer-term support toPDAs
Government Education

Trained to become Village
extension 'retailers'Ⓒ ISERD

116

Threats
Lack of credibility – nofarmer feedback
mechanism
Diversion of extension
staff to regulation

Conflicting missions andmessages

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-1

Swanson and Samy (2002) observed that in other developing countries, alternativeorganizations have emerged to fill the information and training void left by withdrawal ofgovernment extension services. Similarly, in this survey, NGOs were the most important actors in
the provision of training and delivered 68% of all training to farmers. However, NGO programs
can be short-term in nature and can cause confusion among farmers by inadvertently deliveringconflicting messages. If better resourced, the public sector extension service has an important
potential role as an independent broker and warehouse of information that can provide continuity as
well as a filter to reconcile conflicting messages being delivered by NGOs and the private sector.
Generally,  farmers’  training  needs  recorded  in  the  survey  were  in  line  with  the  subject  areas  in  which training was provided. However, farmer training needs in sustainable management practices
such as soil management, and crop rotation took precedence over needs for training on simple
inputs such as varieties, and pesticides. Input sellers were minor providers of training (7%) andmight also have concluded that farmer training would not increase product sales.
In an earlier study in the research target area, Martin et al., (2010) highlighted the importanceof primary schools as a fourth avenue of delivery of agricultural information into rural households.
As with input suppliers, primary schools are likely to reach almost all farm households. Based onstrengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (Table 1), we put forward a conceptual frameworkthat suggests roles based on comparative strengths for public, private and non-governmentorganizations to better integrate delivery of technology information to farmers.
CONCLUSION
This paper puts forward a conceptual framework that suggests roles based on comparative strengths
for public, private and non-government organizations to better integrate delivery of information ofnew technologies and better practices to farmers. We conclude that there are four main avenues forreaching farmers in NW Cambodia —through provincial government extension offices, NGOs, thelocal agricultural input sellers and the local primary schools. They all have different strengths andweaknesses but collectively, the four groups have all of the elements required for integrated
technology transfer. The challenge is to find a mutually beneficial or symbiotic framework for
integrated delivery of new technologies and better practices to farmers via these pathways.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research(ACIAR) for funding this research.
REFERENCESAnon. 2010. Program design document for strategy for agriculture and water 2010-2013. Ministry ofAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology. 216.
(http://www.gafspfund.org/gafsp/sites/gafspfund.org/files/Documents/Cambodia.)Martin, R.J., Matthews, W., Bognar, S., Ourm, N. and Keo, K. 2010. The 'Jorani Project': Incorporating
principles of sustainable rural development into the education system of Cambodia. InternationalJournal of Environment and Rural Development, 1, 181-187.
Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. and Wilkinson, R. 2006. Understanding andpromoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture, 46, 1407-1424.
Swanson, B.E. and Samy, M.M. 2002. Developing an extension partnership among public, private, andnongovernmental organizations. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 9, 5-10.

Ⓒ ISERD117