IMPACT OF DECENTRALISED MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ON 
EXTENSION DELIVERY: A CASE STUDY OF TEMA MUNICIPALITY IN THE 
GREATER ACCRA REGION OF GHANA
W " . - :
VICTORIA LILY TSEKPO
THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN 
PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE 
MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY (M.PHIL) DEGREE IN AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION
UNIVERSITY OF GHANA
LEGON
APRIL, 2004
W
DECLARATION
I declare that, this thesis with the exception of the identified quotations, is the product o f my 
own research, and written entirely by me. None o f the materials contained herein has been 
presented either in whole or in part for an award of a degree at any other university.
VICTORIA LILY TSEKPO 
(CANDIDATE)
DR. FELIX Y. M. FIADJOE 
(SUPERVISOR)
laotfr
ii
Dedicated to my family -  my mother, my husband, my children Mawuena, Elom and 
Mawutor and Akos my house help.
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to sincerely thank Dr. Felix Y.M Fiadjoe under whose supervision this thesis was 
prepared. His criticisms, suggestions and words o f encouragement carried me through my 
research work.
My sincere gratitude also goes to my second supervisor Dr. P.B Atengdem and all the other 
lecturers o f the department who offered useful suggestions and books towards the completion 
o f this thesis .
To my family friends and course mates who in diverse ways assisted me and encouraged me 
when the going was tough, I say a big thank you to them and wish them God’s blessings.
To God be the glory.
iv
ABSTRACT
The need to improve extension delivery to farmers in Ghana has led to several structural 
changes within the organisation of Ministry of Food and Agriculture. In addition the T&V 
approach to extension delivery and a Unified Extension System were introduced. However the 
need to reach farmers with technologies continues to persist because o f the important role 
agriculture plays in the economy. It is in the light of this that this research sought to find out 
what effects the decentralised administrative structure o f the Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
have made on extension delivery.
The study was conducted in the Tema municipality o f the Greater Accra region of Ghana. 
There is pressure on land in this area making the need for technologies very crucial in order to 
increase production. The design for the study follows the case study approach. The 
concentration was on the administrative processes that may be crucial to the success or failure 
of extension delivery in the decentralised administrative structure of Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture. The sample for the study was sixty-five respondents. These were made up o f 
farmers who are in contact with extension agents, agricultural extension agents of the 
Municipal Agricultural Development Unit who work with farmers by taking to them 
agricultural information as well as new technologies in agriculture and the Municipal Director 
of Agriculture. Others were the Municipal Chief Executive and members o f the development 
sub-committee of the municipal assembly. Apart from the forty farmers who were selected 
using purposive sampling, the total population in each target group was used because the 
numbers involved were small. The data was analysed using univariate and bivariate 
techniques such as frequencies, percentages and cross tabulation.
The main source o f technologies for delivery was found to be from research. However the 
technology generation process that involved both farmers and extension agents but did not 
cover all the departments that existed in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture before 
decentralisation was found to have deteriorated. A smaller number of both farmers and
I
extension agents were involved in technology generation in the decentralised structure. It was 
found that the provision of T&V training in the decentralised structure became irregular and 
less useful to agricultural extension agents compared to the old structure. While training in 
practical field experience was absent in both regimes. The methods used in disseminating 
information to farmers did not change in the decentralised structure. Field visits were also 
frequent in both regimes. However there was lack of new technologies for delivery in the 
decentralised structure and farmers found messages delivered not useful because the messages 
were not timely. The problem was more with farmers who practise inter-cropping. Thus the 
T&V extension was found to be unsuitable for multiple cropping systems.
It has been concluded from the study that extension delivery has not improved under the 
decentralised administrative structure, and it can be attributed to the current structural 
arrangements. It is thus recommended that steps be taken to improve the existing involvement 
of farmers and extension agents in the technology generation process, training of extension 
agents in extension education and rural sociology as part o f their in-service training and the 
T&V extension should be revisited to make it appropriate for meeting the requirements of 
current farmers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECLARATION...................................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION......................................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..................................................................................................................iv
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................xv
ACRONYMS......................................................................................................................................xvi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.0 Introduction..................................................  1
1.1 Background...............    1
1.2 Statement o f the problem .............................................................................................6
1.3 Research questions...............................    .7
1.4 Objectives o f the study..............................................................................................................8
1.5 Conceptual framework..............................................................................................................8
1.6 Significance o f the study.........................................................................................................10
1.7 Definition o f key concepts..................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 2: STRUCTURE AND APPROACHES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN GHANA.
2.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 The organisation and development o f Agricultural Extension in the colonial era 14
1:1 The organisation and development of agricultural extension in the
post independence era........................................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 The establishment of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (1957-
1986)...........................................................................................................................17
2.2.2 The establishment of the Department of Agricultural Extension
Services..............— ........................................................... 23
2.2.2 Decentralisation of Ministry of Food and Agriculture. ....................................29
2.3 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................32
CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW.
3.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 33
3.1 Agricultural extension........................................................................................................... 33
3.2 Extension delivery................................................................................................................. 35
3.2.1 Knowledge generation.............................................................................................. 35
3.2.2 Knowledge dissemination........................................................................................ 36
3.3 Organisational structure........................................................................................................ 38
3.3.1 Common goal............................................................................................................40
3.3.2 Division o f work........................................................................................................40
3.3.3 Co-ordination of effort..............................................................................................41
3.3.4 Authority structure.................................................................................................... 42
3.3.4.1 Decentralisation in organisations.............................................................42
3.3.5 Patterns of relations...................................................................................................43
3.3.6 Channels o f communication.....................................................................................45
3.3.7 Roles and responsibilities.........................................................................................47
3.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................50
CHAP i'ER 4: METHODOLOGY.
4.0 Introduction......................................... .....................................................................................52
4.1 Choice of methodology............................. ........................ ....................................................52
4.2 The study area ............................................................................................................53
4.3 Study populations.....................................................................................................................54
4.4 Sampling technique and sample size..................................................................  54
4.5 Instrumentation and pre-testing............................................................................................. 55
4.5.1 Developing the instrument.......................................................................................55
4.5.2 Pre-testing.................................................................................................................. 57
4.5.3 Developing the final questionnaire and interview schedule............................... 58
4.6 Data gathering.......................................................................................................................... 59
4.6.1 Research assistants....................................................................................................59
4.6.2 Data collection...........................................................................................................59
4.6.3 Administration o f data collection instruments......................................................59
4.6.3.1 Administering the questionnaires............................................................. 60
4.6.3.2 Administering the interview schedule....................................................60
4.6.3.3 Administering the interview checklist................................................... 61
4.7 Data management and analysis..............................................................................................61
4.7.1 Data summary...............................................................................  61
4.7.2 Data coding................................................................................................................ 62
4.7.3 Data storage and analysis.................................................................................•....... 62
4.8 Challenges encountered in the field............................................................................  62
4.9 Sources o f secondary data and administrative information.............................................. 63
4.10 Precautions and limitations....................................................................................................63
CHAPTERS: FINDINGS
5.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 64
5.1 Socio-economic characteristics o f farmers..........................................................................64
5.2 Organisational structure  .............................................................................................66
5.2.1 Division of w ork ...................................................................................................... 66
5.2.2 Chain o f command  ......................................................................................... 74
5.2.3 Co-ordination of effo rt.............................................................................................93
5.2.4 Extension delivery in the MOFA ........................................................................... 98
CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
6.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 123
6.1 The ability of Ministry of Food and Agriculture to have technologies that meet
the needs of farmers and solve their problems under its old and
decentralised structures....................................................................................................... 123
6.2 The ability of Ministry of Food and Agriculture to equip agricultural
extension agents with knowledge they require for the job under its old and 
decentralised structures...................................................................................................... 128
6.3 The ability o f Ministry of Food and Agriculture to ensure that farmers are
reached on a timely and regular basis with technologies that they need under
its old and decentralised structures....................................................................................130
CHAPER 7: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 137
7.1 Purpose o f research............................................................................................................... 137
7.2 Procedure .................................................................................................................138
7.3 Findings................................................................................................................................... 139
7.4 Implications o f findings....................................................................................................... 146
7.5 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 148
7.6 Suggestions for further studies..............................................................................................149
References............................................................................................  150
Appendix 1......................................................................................................................................... 154
Appendix 2 A ....................................  156
Appendix 2B......................................................  157
Appendix 3A......................................................................................................................................158
Appendix 3B................................ ....................................................................................................172
Appendix 3C................... 188
Appendix 3D...................................................................................................................................... 193
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Study issues, information required and sources................................................. ......... 56
Table 5.1: Age distribution o f farmers........................................................................................... 65
Table 5.2: Level of education of farmers....................................................................................... 65
Table 5.3: Type of farming practice by farmers............................................................................65
Table 5.4: Departments of Agricultural Extension Agents and the Municipal Director of
Agriculture........................................................................................................................67
Table 5.5: Stated positions of Agricultural Extension Agents and the Director of
Agriculture....................................................................................................................... 69
Table 5.6: Stated responsibilities of AEAs who held other positions in the old structure
o f MOFA.......................................................................................................................... 69
Table 5.7: Responsibilities o f frontline staff as stated by AEAs................................................70
Table 5.8: Views of agricultural extension agents on their responsibilities in
the decentralised structure..............................................................................................71
Table 5.9: Farmers’ views of responsibilities of agricultural extension agents
in the decentralised structure......................................................................................... 72
Table 5.10: Sources of goals and objectives of agricultural extension agents.......................... 75
Table 5.11: The views of farmers, extension agents and the Director of Agriculture
on farmers involvement in planning extension programmes.................................77
Table 5.12: Effects of planning with regards to work of the Municipal
Agricultural Development Unit..................................................................................79
Table 5.13: Activities of a supervisor indicated by agricultural extension agents
that facilitated their work in the old and decentralised structures.........................81
Table 5.14: The views of farmers on supervision in the decentralised structure...................... 84
Table 5.15: Sources of indicators for measuring performance as stated by
agricultural extension agents...................................................................................... 86
Table 5.16: The purpose of office meetings in the MOFA as stated by AEAs......................... 94
Table 5.17: List o f meetings attended by the Municipal Director of Agriculture for
the purpose of agricultural development...................................................................97
xii
Table 5.18: Views o f agricultural extension agents on their involvement in
technology generation....................................................................................................99
Table 5.19: Activities performed by agricultural extension agents involved in
technology generation....................................................................................................99
, Table 5.20: AEAs’ sources of technologies outside the MOFA.................................................102
Table 5.21: Agricultural extension agents’ reasons for not sourcing technologies
outside the MOFA.......................... 103
Table 5.22: Types o f training used by MOFA to provide agricultural extension
agents with new technologies...................................................................................105
Table 5.23: Frequency o f training for providing AEAs with new technologies...................... 105
Table 5.24: Usefulness of training to agricultural extension agents.......................................... 106
Table 5.25: Extension methods used by agricultural extension agents in delivery.................109
Table 5.26: Farmers’ views on the methods AEAs use in delivery........................................... I l l
Table 5.27: Agricultural extension agents’ Farmer interaction in MOFA................................ 112
Table 5.28: Farmers view of agricultural extension agents’ visits............................................. 113
Table 5.29: Distribution of farmers by timing and usefulness of extension messages............114
Table 5.30: Farmers’ problems identified by Agricultural Extension Agents and 
their ability to provide solutions to them in the old and
decentralised structures............................................................................................... 117
Table 5.31: Distribution of AEAs who involved farmers in problems and
needs assessment by AEAs who had their farmers accept solutions to
their problems...............................................................................................................118
Table 5.32: Problems that affect the performance of agricultural extension agents
in MOFA....................................................................................................................... 120
Table 5.33: Reasons from agricultural extension agents for lack o f job satisfaction..............121
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Organisational factors that influence extension delivery
xiii
10
ACRONYMS
AEA Agricultural Extension Agent
APD Animal Production Department
CSD Crops Services Department
DAES Department o f Agricultural Extension Services
MCE Municipal Chief Executive
MDA Municipal Director o f Agriculture
MOFA Ministry o f Food and Agriculture
MTADP Medium Term Agricultural Development Programme
PPMED Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department
T&V Training and Visit
URADEP Upper Regional Agricultural Development Programme
VORADEP Volta Regional Agricultural Development Project
VSD Veterinary Services Department
WIAD Women in Agricultural Development
xiv
CHAPTER ONE 
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.0. Introduction
Agriculture is a large and important sector in the Ghanaian economy in terms o f its share of 
GDP and foreign exchange earnings. The sector in 2002 contributed 39.5% to GDP and 
accounted for 35.5% o f foreign exchange (ISSER, 2003). As a result o f these major 
contributions o f the agricultural sector to the economy, MOFA (1992, 2001) stated that the 
growth o f the agricultural sector is closely linked to the economic development of the nation. 
The recognition o f the role agriculture plays in the national economy dates back to the 
colonial era when the government set up the Department o f Agriculture to facilitate the 
transfer o f new techniques of farming to farmers. The purpose was to increase production as 
well as productivity in the sector thereby promoting national economic growth.
1.1. Background
Agricultural extension is believed to be as old as agriculture. It perhaps started when man 
moved from the gathering stage and began to cultivate plants and rear animals for food. 
People informally learnt from each other new ways o f growing and rearing their animals. The 
formalization of agricultural extension as stated by the United States Peace Corps (1982) 
began with the advent of science and technology. Agricultural extension moved from the 
informal stage to a more systematic and institutionalized stage. In its’ organized form 
agricultural extension has been an active feature of agricultural development in Ghana. In the 
initial stages, interest in agricultural extension was with export crops (cocoa, oil palm, 
rubber). Both government and private organization had this interest but later on food crops 
and livestock were considered (Republic of Ghana, 1992).
1
To perform agricultural extension as an organized exchange o f information and the purposive 
transfer of skills and knowledge, the government of Ghana in the colonial era set up the 
Department of Agriculture and the Department o f Animal health for this purpose (Ghana 
Department o f Agriculture, 1957). The aim of government was to achieve increases in 
agricultural production through the transfer of technologies to farmers. The approach to 
delivering agricultural extension messages to farmers was the general agricultural extension 
approach with emphasis on specific crops and animals, for example cocoa, maize, pigs and 
poultry (Ghana Department o f Agriculture, 1957). The structure of the organization set up for 
delivering extension services conformed to the political and administrative structure of 
government as it existed in the civil service (Boateng, 1987). In addition other functions were 
considered for example there was establishment of a research department which did the initial 
investigations on the technologies to be delivered (Ghana Department of Agriculture, 1957).
At independence a new Ministry of Agriculture was created with four divisions and extension 
services for cocoa separated from those o f other crops. The research division was also 
separated to become the foundation of the current council for scientific and industrial 
research. Government adopted a new approach to agricultural extension services delivery, 
which was based on the group approach to implement government policy on collectivized 
agriculture aimed at increasing production in the sector. The groups that were set up by 
government were the State Farms, the Workers Brigade, the United Ghana Farmers’ 
Cooperative Council and the Young Farmers’ League (Republic of Ghana, 1992). The change 
achieved the highest ever in Ghanaian cocoa production in 1965 but it was not the same with 
the food crop sub-sector (Ninsin and Hansen, 1989). The delivery of extension services 
included the distribution of inputs as well as technology transfer. The government of the day
2
was overthrown in 1966 and in its place were various governments that came in after series o f 
coup-de-etats. The governments ruled for relatively short periods but made changes in the 
agricultural sector directed more at the food crop sub-sector. Among the changes in 
agricultural extension services was the introduction o f a pilot project known as the “focus and 
concentrate”. This approach to extension can be described as the project approach according 
to Axinn (1988). The project targeted specific farmers who were assisted by technical officers 
of the crop production department o f the Ministry o f Agriculture with inputs such as high 
yielding seeds, fertilizers and tractor services (Vercruijsse and Boyd, 1970).
Other more prominent and recent project approaches that had agricultural extension 
components were the Upper Region Agricultural Development Programme (URADEP, 1976- 
1984) and Volta Region Agricultural Development Project (VORADEP, 1982-1988) initiated 
under the World Bank assistance. Those on a smaller scale were the Agricultural Services 
Rehabilitation Project, Global 2000, Grains and Legumes Development project, and the 
Integrated Agricultural Development Project at Mampong in Ashanti, Ghanaian-German 
Agricultural Development Project and the Smallholder Rehabilitation and Development 
Project. These initiatives were designed independently of each other and were not integrated 
with the extension programmes of the various departments o f Ministry o f Agriculture.
All these changes had implications for the development and delivery o f extension services. 
The training and visit approach adopted by the URADEP and the VORADEP ensured regular 
visits by extension staff to farmers but farmers could not adopt extension recommendations as 
they did not have resources to purchase inputs particularly fertilizers (Republic of Ghana, 
1992). In essence the extension recommendation did not fit the conditions of the fanners.
3
The Agricultural Services Rehabilitation Project that also deployed the training and visit 
approach to extension experienced weaknesses in areas o f inadequate provision of subject 
matter specialists, irregular training o f frontline staff and lack o f formal linkages of the 
programme with input suppliers. The Global 2000 project lacked institutional building and 
saddled extension staff with non-extension functions like credit administration, input supply 
and produce marketing not sustainable on a national scale. A more serious problem 
encountered was that farmers who had the Global 2000 experience were expecting inputs 
from extension agents before adopting extension recommendations.
Grains and Legumes Development project demonstrated the value o f formally linking 
research and extension services as a means of improving the quality and relevance of 
research, by combining on-station research with on-farm research and extension. The 
extension staff o f the then Ministry o f Agriculture manage verification demonstration plots 
and the link between the research and extension staff helps to improve programming o f 
research to focus on practical problems of farmers (Republic of Ghana, 1992).
A new agricultural extension strategy was to be adopted by the Ministry o f Agriculture. The 
strategy was part o f the Medium Term Agricultural Development Programme in find ing 
solutions to the institutional problems facing agricultural extension in the country (MTADP, 
1990). As part o f the strategy, the Department of Agricultural Extension Services which was 
created in 1987 was to consolidate all non-cocoa public agricultural extension services and 
bring them under one umbrella (Republic of Ghana, 1992). The strategy also embodied the 
unified extension system and the training and visit approach to extension. To do this
4
successfully the World Bank’s assistance was sought for a National Agricultural Extension
Project, which implemented the new extension strategy o f the Ministry of Food and
Agriculture. There was a need for structural changes in the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture
to suit the unified extension system and the training and visit approach to extension.
According to Goold and Campbell (2002)
A comprehensive redesign of an organization is just too 
intimidating for most executives. For one it is immensely 
complicated involving an endless stream o f trade-offs and 
variables. For another, it’s divisive frequently disintegrating 
into personality conflicts and power plays. So when 
organization design problems arise, manager often focus on the 
glaring flaws and in the process make the overall structure even 
more unwieldy and even less strategic (p.l 17).
As cited in the quotation similar problems arose when Ministry o f Food and Agriculture
attempted to put up a new structure. In the end a ministerial directive was issued which
defined new roles and responsibilities for individuals as well as departments (Ministerial
Directive on Unified Agricultural Extension, 1992). This resolved the conflicts but the result
was parallel extension systems to that of the Department o f Agricultural Extension Services in
the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. According to Drucker (1989), a poor organizational
structure makes good performance impossible no matter how good the individual managers
may be. Thus, the decentralization of Ministry o f Food and Agriculture came as a welcome
intervention to correct the structural problems that existed with unified extension system. The
decentralization of Ministry o f Food and Agriculture involved the devolution of extension
services to the districts and the collapse of all departments o f Ministry o f Food and
Agriculture in the regions and districts into departments o f agriculture known as Regional
Agricultural Development Units and District Agricultural Development Units.
5
1.2. Statement of the problem
In an effort to increase and sustain increases in the agricultural sector in Ghana, governments 
of the day attempted using structural changes as well as changes in the extension approach 
sometimes as a means o f improving extension services delivery to farmers. The first structural 
change in Ghana was the creation of the Ministry o f Agriculture after independence to carry 
out a ministry-operated extension services. The ministry-operated extension service was 
characterised by a hierarchical arrangement that followed the territorial sub-divisions o f the 
general administration in the country. There were national, regional and district departments 
of agriculture. There was a parallel system o f extension in the Ministry o f Agriculture since 
each department had its own extension system. This was characteristic o f the general 
agricultural extension approach described by Axinn (1988).
In 1987 the department of agricultural extension services was established. It came with a 
national extension organizational structure, a training and visit approach to extension and a 
duty to co-ordinate all extension activities in the ministry that became known as the unified 
extension system (MTADP, 1990). Among the reasons for the structural change was to 
improve the links between research and extension to replace the informal and erratic links that 
existed (MTADP, 1990).
According to Moris (1991) simplistic technical and organizational solutions to extension 
problems in Africa rarely pay off. Thus the creation o f the Department o f Agricultural 
Extension Services and the T&V approach to extension delivery did not provide the needed 
solution to extension delivery.
6
The decentralization o f the Ministry of Food and Agriculture was yet another structural 
change that was introduced in 1997. It was the hope o f the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture 
that the decentralized structure would help to overcome the problems o f extension delivery 
that existed. According to Abudu (1998) a centralized structure is a hindrance to the T&V 
approach to extension because it makes it difficult to take account o f different circumstances 
of farmers. With the decentralized structure, extension services are localized to a district 
situation and district level departments o f Ministry o f Food and Agriculture have been 
incorporated into District Agricultural Development Unit thus making it impossible for 
parallel extension systems to operate in the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture. The question, 
which then has plagued the extension service in Ghana, has been how to organise extension 
delivery to effectively meet the needs of farmers.
1.3. Research questions
The main research question for the study is:
What effects have the decentralized administrative structure o f the Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture made on extension delivery?
The specific research questions are:
1. What effect has the decentralized administrative structure of the Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture made on having technologies that meet farmers’ needs and solve their 
problems?
2. What effect has the decentralized administrative structure o f the Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture made on equipping agricultural extension agents with knowledge and skills 
that they require for the job?
7
3. What effect has the decentralized administrative structure o f the Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture had on reaching its farmers with technologies that they need on a timely and 
regular basis?
1.4. Objectives of the study
The main objective o f the study is to find out the effect o f the decentralized administrative 
structure o f the MOFA on extension services delivery. The specific objectives are:
1. To determine how effectively the decentralized administrative structure of MOFA is 
adequately equipped with the technologies that farmers need.
2. To determine how effectively the decentralized administrative structure of MOFA is 
equipping agricultural extension agents with knowledge and skills that they require for the 
job.
3. To determine how effectively the decentralized administrative structure o f MOFA is 
ensuring that its agricultural extension agents reach out to farmers with technologies that 
they need on a timely and regular basis.
1.5. Conceptual framework
An organization is defined as any group of people working together to achieve a common 
purpose or goal that could not be attained by individuals working separately (Hess and 
Siciliano, 1996). From the definition it means that an organization is held together by a 
common goal or purpose. To achieve its common goal the organization has got to have some 
rules that would guide its actions. According to Hess and Siciliano (1996) rules that govern 
the organisation include policies, procedures and budget.
Policies are guidelines for decisions in an organisation. Thus policies can influence the 
structure o f the organisation because policy decisions determine the type of structure eg 
centralized or decentralized structure. Procedures are guidelines for how tasks in the 
organisation are to be performed (Rue and Byars, 1999 and Hess and Siciliano, 1996). 
Procedures therefore help to define the task of each job position. In essence the number of 
positions in the structure would depend on its procedures. Budgets are guidelines indicating 
how an organisation intends to allocate its financial resources. It can influence the structure of 
the organisation through the amount of money allocated to salaries or wages. The interplay of 
these rules would therefore determine how the structure o f the organisation would be 
designed.
In designing the organisation structure work would have to be shared. The result is a chain of 
command or authority structure that will give some individuals the right to supervise the work 
of others. To make supervision possible individuals as well as groups within the organization 
would have to be assigned specific roles and responsibilities. Specific roles and 
responsibilities will make it possible to require action both of individuals and o f groups as 
well as provide the needed supervision. It will also allow for the coordination o f activities 
within and between groups in the organization towards the attainment o f organizational 
objectives and goals.
The way in which the work of the organization is shared as described above gives rise to an 
organizational design or structure. The structure thus created then influences how the 
organization will perform with respect to achieving its common goal. However performance 
is not limited to structure. According to Drucker (1989) a good organisation structure does not
9
by itself produce good performance. An organisation structure may not produce good 
performance because decisions that have to be made by managers are guided by policies of 
the organisation eg promotions, rewards and opportunities for staff development. Depending 
on how favourable these policies are towards motivation o f staff to work, their performance 
can be affected. In addition poorly developed procedures can frustrate the efforts of 
individuals affecting their performance negatively while a well-developed set o f procedures 
can serve as a roadmap guiding the efforts o f individuals to success. If the budget fails to 
reflect the common goal o f the organisation, performance will equally be affected adversely.
Schematic Representation Of Conceptual Framework
The schematic representation o f the conceptual frame for the study is presented below.
Fig. 1. Organisational factors that influence extension delivery
Organisation
Policies 
Procedures 
Resources 
Common goal
Organisational structure
Chain of 
command
• Planning
• Supervision
• Management
control
Division of work
• Departments
• Roles/responsi 
bilities
Co-ordination of 
effort
meetings
Performance
MOFA’S ability to have technologies that 
meets the needs o f  its clients.
MOFA’S ability to equip its agricultural 
extension agents with knowledge and skills 
they require for their job.
MOFA’S ability to ensure that its 
agricultural extension agents are 
adequately reaching its clients with the 
technologies that they need.
1.6. Significance of the study
Although statistics indicate the agricultural sector having a growth rate of 4.0 percent and the 
population growth rate at 2.6 percent, there is still pressure on resources and consumption
10
items (The Budget Statement, 2002). This suggests that there is still a need to improve 
performance in the agricultural sector as a major contributor to GDP, to the projected 6% 
under the accelerated agricultural growth and development strategy (MOFA, 2001). Reaching 
the Ghanaian farmers with production technologies is one o f the sure ways towards increases 
in production o f the agricultural sector.
This study will help indicate how the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture is performing in terms 
of extension services delivery to farmers. It would also throw light on the contribution of the 
decentralized administrative structure to extension delivery. Furthermore weaknesses in the 
decentralized administrative structure in relation to extension delivery will be identified. Thus 
further research questions could be developed from the study.
1.7. Definition of key concepts
Agricultural extension. The concept of agricultural extension has several meanings. For this 
study agricultural extension means the process of extending scientific knowledge and skills to 
persons unable to avail themselves of them through formal education.
Extension delivery. For the purpose of this study, the concept o f extension delivery is specific 
to agricultural extension. It refers to the process o f doing extension work whereby an 
extension organization generates and equips its extension agents with technologies that 
farmers need which the agents impart to farmers in a reciprocal interaction which allows the 
transfer of technologies from the extension agent to the farmers.
11
Technology. According to Swanson (1997) technology is the application of knowledge for 
practical purposes. It is used to improve the human condition, the natural environment 
or carryout other socio-economic activities.
Orpanisatinn. As defined by Hess and Siciliano (1996) an organization is any group of people 
working together to achieve a common goal or purpose that could not be attained by 
individuals working separately.
Structure. It is defined as the design of organization. This design makes it possible for 
individuals in the organization to function together for the purpose of achieving the goals of 
the organization.
Decentralization. It refers to the transfer of responsibilities and resources for public 
administration from higher to lower levels within the central administration.
Chain o f command. It is the continuous line of authority extending from the person with 
ultimate authority down through the hierarchy to non-management employees (Wright and 
Noe, 1996). The chain of command defines lines of communication.
Planning. It encompasses defining the organisations goals and objectives and establishing and 
overall strategy for achieving the goals (Robbins and Stuart-Kotze, 1990).
Supervision. It is defined as the first level of management in the organisation and is concerned 
with encouraging the members of a work unit to contribute positively towards 
accomplishing the organisation’s goals and objectives (Rue and Byars, 1999).
12
Management control. Monitoring to ensure performance is consistent with the organization’s 
plan according to Rue and Byars (1995) has three requirements:
• Establishing performance standards
• Monitoring results and comparing to standards and
• Correcting deviations.
13
CHAPTER TWO 
STRUCTURES AND APPROACHES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF 
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN GHANA
2.0. Introduction
In the organization and development of extension services in Ghana, both the government and 
the private sector have been involved. The focus o f this thesis however will be on how 
government organized and developed extension services into what exist today under the 
Ministry o f Food and Agriculture. There are four major changes that are o f significance that 
would be discussed in this chapter. However several other minor changes have occurred in 
between these major changes and will be mentioned where appropriate.
2.1. The organization and development of agricultural extension in the colonial era
The organization o f extension services was carried out in the department o f Agriculture. The 
functions of the department o f Agriculture were:
• To advise minister and regional administration on all agricultural matters.
• To implement government’s agricultural policy within the framework o f the goals set for 
the department. These are :
- To ensure within the existing system of agriculture, the efficient distribution,
processing and maximum production of food crops, consistent with the preservation of 
the natural resources of the country, in order to raise the level of production and the 
standard o f living.
- To suppress all major diseases and pests and in particular to control at the earliest
possible date the swollen shoot disease of cocoa and rehabilitate the disease devastated
14
cocoa areas.
To encourage, with the cooperation of the department o f animal health, the adoption o f 
mix farming and improved animal husbandry practices wherever conditions are 
favourable.
- To stimulate the diversification of suitable primary products whether for export or for 
local manufacture.
- To cooperate with all other interest in schemes for conservation of our natural 
resources and the development of plans for optimum usage of under developed and 
over developed areas.
- To carry out agricultural, ecological, economic and other surveys in order to provide a 
guide for planning of future production and the introduction of improved techniques 
wherever appropriate.
- To undertake research and experimentation in all branches of agriculture and animal 
husbandry with the view o f improving local farming practices.
- To provide an agricultural advisory service and those facilities necessary to the 
development o f a health and progressive agricultural industry.
• To maintain and adequately staffed and equipped personnel needed to perform its 
functions.
• To provide professional advice, factual information and other assistance in connection 
with agricultural development, corporation projects and other large scale agricultural 
enterprises.
The structure put in place for performing these functions had a director o f agriculture at Accra
head office supported by two deputies; one for cocoa and the other for general agriculture.
These were in turn supported by three assistant directors o f agriculture, an assistant director
15
research, a chief accountant, an executive secretary, an economist, an editor librarian and a 
number o f other senior officers. This represented the central point that controlled all activities 
o f the department. There were regional structures that reflected the central structure but 
headed by an assistant director of agriculture. There were no district structures. In their place 
were eighteen (18) agricultural and seventeen (17) cocoa stations where implementation of 
policies was carried out. The agricultural and cocoa stations were set up to serve specific 
areas with similar agricultural climate. The stations performed the under listed functions:
•  Investigate local farming problems.
• Test new crops or varieties o f crops and new and improved methods o f cultivation and
management.
• Demonstrated new crops and new methods of farming.
• Investigated pest and disease problems and demonstrate effective control measures.
• Served as a base for extension work in the area.
•  Multiplied improved planting materials.
• Served
• As a center to teach young farmers and specialist farmers.
In this organization technology development, storage and dissemination were all under one 
roof. Coordination was with the regional offices while the activity area was at the agricultural 
stations where both research and extension work was being carried out. During this era 
extension was viewed more as technology transfer, whereby improved methods o f cultivation 
and new varieties o f crops and livestock were transferred or extended to farmers. The 
approaches to extension were similar to the commodity approach for cocoa extension and the 
general agricultural extension approach for other crops.
16
2.2. The organization and development of agricultural extension in the post 
independence era
This era covers the period after independence to date. In order to appreciate the organization 
and development o f extension within the era, the discussion will be under three broad 
headings:
1. The establishment o f the Ministry of Agriculture immediately after independence (1957- 
1986).
2. The creation o f the department of Agricultural Extension Services and the Unified 
Extension System (1987-1998).
3. The decentralization of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (1997- date)
2.2.1. The Establishment Of The Ministry Of Agriculture (1957-1986)
After independence there were some changes in the civil service as a result o f the civil service 
Act, (1960 CA5). This act set out the structure of the service to consist of ministries, 
departments and agencies (Ministry o f Local Government and Rural Development, 1996). 
The colonial department o f agriculture became the Ministry of Agriculture. The research 
aspect of the department of Agriculture was taken out and later developed into the present day 
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Cocoa extension was not integrated into the 
Ministry o f Agriculture. Agricultural extension as technology transfer began to suffer because 
the component that generated the technologies (research unit) for transfer was no longer 
present to perform this role. The establishment o f the ministry also required that it had 
national, regional and districts departments that conformed to the political boundaries existing 
at the time. The regional and district departments were to exist as constituent parts of the 
national departments. The national departments centrally controlled all activities in the 
regions and districts. This new structure unlike the one in the colonial era had its
17
implementation structure (the districts) to be defined by political administrative boundaries 
and not ecological zones.
During this period extension services were performed under the division o f general 
agriculture [Cassadey, Monnet and Dowswell, (1994) citing NAS and CSIR, (1971)]. In 1962 
field staff involved in extension under the division o f general agriculture were transferred to 
the United Ghana Farmers Cooperative Council [Cassadey, Monnet and Dowswell, (1994) 
citing Atsu, (1974)]. The function of extension as technology transfer was similarly affected 
and changed to the distribution of inputs.
In 1965 agricultural extension services was re-established to perform its function of 
technology transfer using the general agricultural extension approach. This change did not last 
because the 1966 coup brought about a change in government and the whole ministry was re­
organized. Agricultural extension services became a part of several departments that were 
created. These were crop production, livestock, veterinary, fisheries, agricultural 
mechanization and transport, plant protection and quarantine, home economics, seed 
multiplication and irrigation departments (A. Appiah, personal communication, July 8, 2002). 
In addition to the parallel extension systems running in the Ministry of Agriculture, 
government also introduced various agricultural projects and rural development projects.
2.2.1.1. Structural Organization And Functions O f The Departments
The various departments each had a national head, regional officers and district officers with 
field staff. The national office controlled the activities o f the regions and districts. The 
regional officers coordinated district activities in the region. Implementation of the
18
departmental programs was by district staff. Program planning and staff training were both 
centrally controlled. There were no formal links between the departments and research 
therefore each department had its own arrangements for accessing technologies for delivery to 
target groups. Each department provided extension services in their specific field of 
specialization (A. Appiah, Personal communication, July 8, 2002). For example crop 
production department did extension services in crops while veterinary services department 
provided extension services in animal health.
The various projects had their own operational structures that were limited to their areas of 
coverage. There were no formal links between projects and the Ministry of Agriculture 
(Geker, et al, 1990). There was no coordination in the way extension services was provided. 
Thus extension services that started as technology transfer and changed to input delivery 
immediately after independence became a mixture of the two activities (technology transfer 
and input delivery).
The projects that operated during this period include the Focus and Concentrate Project 
started in 1968, the Upper Region Agricultural Development Programme (URADEP-1976- 
1984) and the Volta Region Agricultural Development Project (VORADEP-1982-1988).
2.2.1.2. Focus And Concentrate Project
This was a pilot project lunched in 1968. It was government’s effort at a realistic policy 
for extension services. The project was implemented in areas with a potential for large-scale 
farming. Staff of the crop production department of the ministry of agriculture in the pilot 
areas was used for the project activities. The target group was farmers with a potential for
19
large-scale fanning. They were assisted with tractor services, high yielding seeds, fertilizers 
and technical knowledge of production. Technical officers visited such farmers to assist them 
and the farmers in turn sort assistance from the technical officers through visits (Vercruijsse 
& Boyd, 1970).
The Upper Region Agricultural Development Programme ('1976-1984')
This was an integrated rural development Programme with an agricultural extension 
component. Thus the project recruited it own staff and seconded the staff of the Ministry o f 
Agriculture in the region to it. The project was under the ministry of Finance and Economic 
Planning. Therefore it operated as an entity with no formal links with the Ministry of 
Agriculture. Agricultural extension was handled in the general extension division and the 
home extension unit. The structural arrangement for extension delivery was as follows:
The regional extension officer was the head of the division and responsible for all extension 
activities in the region supervised by the project manager. Below him/her were district 
officers responsible for all district extension activities. They were also responsible for all the 
other project divisions in the district. Thus they were titled district development officers and 
not district extension officers. A district was divided into sectors, farmer service centers and 
zones, which were managed by supervisors, development officers and development assistants 
respectively. The district staff was responsible for all the extension work in the district. It 
included organizing farmers, planning, giving extension advice and information
The approach to extension used was the training and visit (T &V). Each development assistant 
was to select 10-16 contact groups in an operational zone. Each group should consist of 10-14 
members and serve as the target for all extension work. These groups were later organized
20
into farmers’ service center committees and only one contact farmer was used. Methods of 
extension delivery were demonstrations and fortnightly visits to contact farmers. Training of 
development assistants was once a week. Monthly meetings were scheduled at the district for 
all extension staff. The purpose was for reviews, planning and evaluation of the extension 
program.
The Home Extension Unit. The home extension unit ran parallel to the general extension 
division in carrying out extension activities. Its target group was women and youth while that 
o f general extension were men. In practice however the field level staff went beyond their 
target groups to assist who ever were in need (Personal experience, 1982). Four program areas 
guided the unit’s activities. These are:
•  Nutrition education and diet
•  Family food production
• Food processing, preservation and storage
• Management on the farm and in the home
Titles for staff corresponded to what existed in the ministry. The Home Extension Unit 
benefited from the in-service training facilities of IFCAT. Occasionally there were district 
levels training sessions. The unit did not use the T & V approach to extension delivery. 
Extension teaching methods used were home visits and result and method demonstrate
Volta Region Agricultural Development Project n982-19881
This project was similar to the URADEP but different in some aspects because it was suppose 
to learn from the weaknesses of URADEP and overcome them. Field extension workers used 
contact groups while training sessions were convened for them by the district extension
21
officer and attended by zonal subject matter specialists. At training sessions, messages were 
based on expected activities o f the farmer in the coming fortnight. During training subject 
matter specialist receive feedback from field extension officers on the needs and problems of 
farmers and provided solutions were possible. Field extension officers received fortnightly 
training and worked with 8 contact groups of 10 farmers each. Each group was visited once a 
week. In addition field extension officers visit farmers’ fields regularly to assess adoption of 
recommendations and give on-the-spot advice and take notes on the problems of the farmers.
World Rank Pilot Extension Project ('1987-1989')
This project was also known as the Agricultural Sector Rehabilitation Programme (ASRP). It 
was-implemented in four regions and in eight districts. The aim was to try to modify the 
training and visit approach to suit local conditions (korang-Amoakoh, Donkor & Amoah, 
1994). The regional extension officer in each region was the coordinator o f the project 
supported by district extension officers, senior technical officers, technical officers and 
technical assistants in the project districts. Field staff received regular training on monthly 
basis. The training depended on pre-selected priority crops and livestock. These crops and 
livestock were usually selected at the regional level programme planning stage. The extension 
methods used were result and method demonstrations. The World Bank provided vehicles, 
motor bikes, bicycles, working gear (Wellington boots, haversacks, raincoats, measuring 
tapes, diaries and pocket calculators) and funds for regular training and payment of transport 
and travelling allowance of field staff (personal communication, F. Donkor, July 24, 2002).
22
Smallholder Rehabilitation and Development Prorect (SRDP)
This was a rural development project on a small scale located in the Northern Region and 
covered three districts (Salaga, Savelugu Nanton and Gushiegu Karaga). The approach to 
extension was the training and visit approach and extension methods used were home and 
farm visits and method and result demonstrations. Extension activities involved technology 
transfer and credit administration. The project had its own staff and structure to facilitate its 
operations (personal experience, 1990).
Other projects worth noting that used existing structures in extension delivery include:
• Sasakawa global 2000 Project (1986 -  date). Support the dissemination of existing 
technologies, provide inputs, credit and attractive producer prices.
• Grain and Legumes Development Project (1979-1996). Helped to establish and strengthen 
research/ extension linkages.
• Integrated Agricultural Development Project (1986-89). Supported the development of 
cooperatives by providing a revolving fund for credit.
• Ghanaian-German Agricultural Extension Project (1970-1990). Started as a fertilizer use 
project but now offer various assistance in extension delivery.
• Smallholder Credit, Input and Marketing Project: provide inputs and inventory credit 
through the rural banking system.
• Land Conservation and Smallholder Rehabilitation Project: provide inputs, credit and 
dams (Republic of Ghana, 1992).
23
2.2.2. The Establishment Of The Department Of Agricultural Extension Services
In 1987 some changes were made in the Ministry of Agriculture that gave birth to the
Department o f  Agricultural Extension Services (F. Donkor, personal communication, July 24,
2002). This is significant and important to the development and organization of agricultural
extension in Ghana. First the Department of Agricultural Extension Services was to serve as a
point for coordinating all extension activities in the country. Secondly the department was to
be given the sole mandate for all extension activities in the country. However the
establishment of the department did not change things much in the way extension services
were carried out in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. From findings made by a team o f
consultants in the proposed Agricultural Extension Strategy under the Medium Term
Agricultural Development Plan, the situation on the ground was described as follows:
...there was no coherent extension system, properly assembled 
technological packages, qualified extension staff and material 
support. Offices where staff could plan and organize their 
programs were lacking and inadequate transport restricted the 
movement of extension workers thus limiting their contact to 
only few farmers in the most accessible areas.(Geker, et al,
1990).
The department operated extension services in crops and livestock alongside the already
existing parallel extension systems and the various project extension activities. According to
Geker, et al (1990) there was no standard extension system and each department implemented
its programmes independent of the policies and programs of the extension services of the
various departments of the Ministry of Agriculture. This necessitated a new form of
agricultural extension. As Korang-Amoako, Donkor and Amoah (1994) put it:
The government of Ghana being mindful of several factors (the 
multicommodity enterprise attitude of farmers, the
multidepartmental structure of the Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture, and the location of research institutes in other 
organizations) decided to establish a Unified Agricultural 
Extension system(p. 55).
24
The primary objective o f this system is stated thus: to achieve sustained increases in 
agricultural production and improve the nutrition and incomes o f smallholder households 
through enhanced adoption of technology, using one frontline agent who has been given 
multidisciplinary training (Korang-Amoako, Donkor and Amoah, 1994; Republic of Ghana, 
1992). The specific objectives of the unified extension system are:
• To improve efficiency in the management and delivery o f extension services.
• To improve the relevance of technologies available to farmers and in particular indigenous 
technologies developed by farmers themselves.
• To increase the involvement of farmers in the identification o f areas for further research.
• To organize farmers into groups and associations in order to improve their incomes 
through better access to agricultural inputs, credit and markets for their produce.
• To strengthen the existing framework for human resource development in the sector and 
forge linkages between research, teaching and extension services.
Organization O f The Unified Extension System
The structure of the unified extension system is described below (organizational chart in 
appendix 2A).
Within the chain of command the Minister of Food and Agriculture is the highest 
administrative, financial and technical authority of the ministry, served by three deputy 
ministers responsible for crops, livestock and fisheries. The chief director in the ministry also 
serves under the minister as superior to the directors of the technical departments. 
Administratively, the department of agricultural extension services is directly responsible to 
the deputy minister responsible for crops as well as the chief director. At the regional level the 
department o f agricultural extension services is the same as the other departments that provide
25
subject matter specialist. The regional department is directly responsible to the regional 
director o f agriculture both technically and administratively. The regional office relates to the 
head office on matters related to policy planning, monitoring and evaluation. The department 
of agricultural extension services is represented in all the districts with field staff
Relationship  With Other Departments O f The Ministry O f Food And Agriculture 
The technical departments that did some form o f extension services were to function as 
subject matter specialist departments. The subject matter departments are the Crop Services 
Department, Animal Production Department, Women in Agricultural Development 
Department, Plant Protection and Regulatory Services Department, Fisheries Department, 
Agricultural Engineering Services Department and Veterinary Services Department.
The relationship that existed between the Department o f Agricultural Extension Services and 
the other departments was in the form of providing subject matter specialist and also 
providing staff who will backstop the activities o f the subject matter specialist.(Korang- 
Amoako, Donkor & Amoah,1994).The functions of the remaining staff of the technical 
departments were not outlined in the ministerial directive on the unified extension system thus 
they continued to perform their functions as before. Thus the primary objective of the unified 
extension to use one frontline agent for all extension activities was not practically achieved on 
the field (Researcher personal experience, 1994-1996). The reality on the ground was several 
extension agents providing various forms of extension services to farmers.
Department O f Agricultural Extension Services Relationship With Research
This is an important area in which the department of agricultural extension services should
have forged direct linkage. However the arrangement put in place according to Korang-
Amoako, Donkor and Amoah (1994) is that:
Extension is linked to research through two intermediaries, 
namely, a group of technical departmental staff who are suppose
26
to backstop another set of technical departmental staff who have 
been seconded to extension as subject matter specialist (p.57).
In this arrangement the department of agricultural extension services could not control or 
influence the technology generation process since each department had its own chain of 
command and reporting relationships. For extension services delivery to be effective the 
process of technology generation is key. This is because if  it is done well, technologies that 
will be generated will meet the needs o f the target group. Problems associated with 
technologies can also be identified at an earlier stage and corrected before declaring a 
technology adequate for delivery. From personal experience as a subject matter specialist for 
women in agricultural development department in the Ho Subject Matter Specialist centre of 
the Volta region, technologies that were generated were purely crop bias. Most of the time 
frontline staff training was based on specialized knowledge of subject matter specialist and 
not technologies from research.
Roles And Responsibilities Of Staff
The regional extension officer was to coordinate all activities in the subject matter specialist 
centres in the region. He/ she was also to provide logistic support to subject matter specialist 
for adaptive research and monitoring of frontline staff. It was also the responsibility of the 
regional officer to supervise the regional training officer and ensure that training was carried 
out on schedule. He/ she also supervised the district officers and compiled the regional report 
on extension activities.
Subject Matter Specialists served two masters under the unified extension system, their 
departmental boss and the regional extension officer. This sometimes resulted in conflict of
27
interest when both departments make demands on the subject matter specialist. The conflict of 
interest also affected the provision of logistics for adaptive research and monitoring of 
frontline agents. This is because both departments had separate funds to take care of one 
individual (the subject matter specialist). In the end it was the Subject Matter Specialist’s job 
or task that suffered.
There were training officers, one in each region. Their responsibility was to ensure that 
adequate and appropriate training were organized for subject matter specialist and frontline 
agents. They also make materials available for frontline staff training and serve as secretaries 
to the research extension linkages committees.
A district is supposed to have a district officer, a supervisor and about fifteen (15) frontline 
staff. The district officer and the supervisor share supervision of the frontline staff. Frontline 
staff served to deliver technologies and other agricultural information to fanners. They also 
together with farmers identify farmer’s problems that they take to research through their 
subject matter specialist.
Approach To Extension
The approach to extension service delivery was based on a modified training and visit 
(T&V) amended to Ghana (Republic of Ghana, 1992). First frontline staff form farmers 
groups that are used for identifying problems of farmers as well as training them in new 
technologies. Visits to these groups would be on preannounced dates. Demonstrations formed 
the main method o f training farmers and demonstration plots were to be as large as half to one 
acre (Republic o f Ghana, 1992). Subject Matter Specialists would play a key role between
28
researchers, frontline staff and farmers. Subject Matter Specialists would be involved in the 
identification o f technological problems facing farmers and feed back this information to 
research scientist. Subject Matter Specialist would participate in on-farm adaptive testing of 
the relevance and appropriateness of technological solutions to farmers’ problems. Subject 
matter specialists receive bimonthly training from researchers. The country is divided into 
five agro-ecological zones for subject matter specialist bimonthly training and research 
extension linkage committee’s planning sessions.
Research scientists play an important role in generating and packaging improved 
technologies. The participation of researchers at diagnosing fanners’ problems and 
conducting research to solve them is ensured through the Research Extension Linkage 
Committees and the implementation of the adaptive research component of the National 
Agricultural Research. The Research Extension Linkage Committee planning sessions in 
which bimonthly training topics for subject matter specialist training were chosen based on 
priority resulted in a lot o f important areas of farmers’ needs left out (personal experience as a 
Subject Matter Specialist, 1994).
2.2.3. Decentralization Of The Ministry Of Food And Agriculture
The decentralization of the MOFA is as a result of a new civil service law PNDCL 327 in 
support of government policy on its local government reforms and decentralization of 
government administrative structures. In complying with this directive to change the structure 
of the MOFA, two key factors were considered. The lessons learnt from URADEP and 
VORADEP and the lapses in the unified extension system. The new decentralized structure
29
put in place was therefore to correct these lapses and in essence improve upon the 
performance o f extension services to the Ghanaian farmer.
The Decentralized Structure Of The Ministry O f Food And Agriculture 
The decentralized structure of the MOFA now has directors heading the various line and 
technical directorates (formally technical departments). The technical directorates will 
perform a new role of policy formulation, coordination, monitoring and provision of technical 
support to Regional Agricultural Development Units and District Agricultural Development 
Units. The line directorates are:
General administration and finance.
- Human resource development and management.
- Planning, budgeting, coordination, monitoring and evaluation.
The new administrative structure of the MOFA requires that all MOFA departments in a 
region be collapsed into a Regional Agricultural Development Unit (RADU) headed by a 
Regional Director o f Food and Agriculture of the status o f a deputy director. In a similar vein 
all departments o f MOFA in a district should be collapsed into a District Agricultural 
Development Unit (DADU) headed by a District Director o f Agriculture with status of 
assistant director o f agriculture. The formation of Regional Agricultural Development Units 
and District Agricultural Development Units put management and decision-making at the 
place of execution. In this arrangement there will not be technical departments existing in the 
regions and districts. Regional Development Officers (RDOs) from each technical directorate 
are appointed to assist the Regional Director of Food and Agriculture. All other staff of the 
professional grade in the region are designated Subject Matter Specialist (SMS). The number 
of subject matter specialist centers will be increased to handle two to three districts per center.
30
At the district level, all technical and production officers have been designated Agricultural 
Extension Agents (AEAs) carrying out extension services delivery of the entire MOFA 
establishment. They are supervised by District Development Officers who assist the District 
Director o f Food and Agriculture in the ratio of one supervisor to eight extension agents. A 
detailed organizational chart is shown in Appendix 2B.
Lines O f Communication
The Regional Directors o f Agriculture shall be answerable in the performance of their duties 
to the regional minister and the Regional Coordinating Director. They will at the same time 
report technically to the Chief Director at the head office. Hierarchically, they are at par with 
the Directors o f Technical Directorates and there is only a functional relationship between 
them. Communication between Regional Directors of Agriculture and Directors of Technical 
Directorates shall be through the Chief Director.
The Regional Development Officer shall report and be responsible to the Regional Director of 
Agriculture and maintain a technical relationship with the directors o f technical directorates at 
the head office. Their associates will be Subject Matter Specialist, researchers and District 
Directors o f Agriculture. Subject Matter Specialists shall report and be responsible to the 
Regional Director of Agriculture. Their associates will be District Directors o f Agriculture, 
researchers and subject matter specialist.
The District Director o f Agriculture shall report technically to the Regional Director of 
Agriculture and administratively to the District Chief Executive through the District 
Coordination Director.
District Development Officers shall report and be responsible to District Directors of 
Agriculture. Their associates will include Subject Matter Specialist and researchers. 
Agricultural extension agents will be their immediate subordinates.
Agricultural Extension Agents shall report and be responsible to the District Development 
Officer. Associates will include farmers, Subject Matter Specialist, NGOs, input and credit 
support agencies.
2.3. Conclusion
The discussion in this chapter centred round the historical development o f agricultural 
extension in Ghana as it existed and operated under the current Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture. An attempt was also made at indicating the approaches that were adopted at each 
period for extension delivery.
32
CHAPTER THREE 
LITERATURE REVIEW
3.0. Introduction
In this chapter the literature related to the study is reviewed. Emphasis is on the main concepts 
of the study, which are agricultural extension delivery and organizational structure. To 
understand agricultural extension delivery, the main concept, agricultural extension is 
discussed. Other sub-concepts discussed are knowledge generation, knowledge dissemination 
and training. Organizational structure is discussed through the components chain of 
command, division of work and co-ordination o f effort. The concepts are discussed into detail 
to assist the researcher in designing instruments for data that can be used to answer the 
research questions and objectives.
3.1. Agricultural Extension
Extension as the organised exchange of information and the purposive transfer of skills, is a 
rather recent phenomenon (Nagel, 1997). Obviously transfer of information and skills has 
existed since the emergence of permanent agriculture. Today’s practice is different in that the 
process is dominated by organisations. As an organised form of activity, Oakley and Garforth 
(1985) describe agricultural extension as any activity that works with farmers and their 
families in order to improve the economic and social conditions of their lives and to develop 
their ability to take responsibility for their own future development. A similar explanation of 
agricultural extension given by Bolliger, Reinhard and Zellweger (2001) is, finding ways of 
making the encounter between the extension worker and the farmer a human experience, 
through which people learn together to, build a future, created by their own effort and where
33
no already-made solutions will be presented. Thus the aim o f all extension work should be to
help farmers and their families find solutions to their problems. Maunder’s definition of
agricultural extension suggests that it is an educational process. Maunder (1972) defined
agricultural extension as:
A service or system which assist farm people through 
educational procedures in improving farming methods and 
techniques, increasing production efficiency and incomes, 
bettering their level of living and lifting the social and 
educational standards of rural life ( p. 3).
The term extension has several meanings. According to Van Den Ban and Hawkins (1988)
one of the common meanings of the term extension is that it involves the conscious use of
communication o f information to help people form sound opinions and make good decision.
Cleaver (1993) defines agricultural extension as the transfer o f agricultural techniques and
knowledge to farmers.
Looking at the definitions together, one can say that agricultural extension, as an organised 
activity is a service provided by an agricultural extension organisation. It aims at educating 
people by transferring to them agricultural techniques and knowledge derived from a 
collaborative effort between the knowledge generation institution, the extension 
organisation and the farmers for improving the agricultural enterprises of farmers and 
thereby bettering their standards o f living. For an agricultural extension organisation to be 
successful, it must be able to generate or contribute to generating the new agricultural 
techniques and knowledge, which are not already made solutions but those that meet the 
needs of the farmers concerned. In this regard Boone (1989) states that the educational 
programme of the extension organisation must create an interface between the world of new 
knowledge and the present world, physical and mental that the leaner can inhabit.
34
3.2. Extension delivery
Based on the definitions and explanation o f agricultural extension given above, what 
extension delivery stands for in this study is stated as follows:
Agricultural extension delivery comprises all the processes that an extension organisation 
goes through to come up with the desired technologies that it transfers to farmers. This is 
slightly different from the definition of extension delivery by Esponou (1996) which states 
that extension delivery is the process o f bringing research results in the form of new 
information to farmers and supplying research with information on farmers’ needs and 
production constraints. The difference between the definitions is that whereas the definition 
for the study focuses on delivering desired technologies for solving farmers’ problems and 
meeting their needs the other seems satisfied with delivering available research results to 
fanners. Sometimes solutions to farmer’s problems by researchers do not fit the fanners’ 
situation and therefore render them inapplicable or unsuitable. Therefore generating the 
right technologies or information is an important aspect of extension delivery.
3.2.1. Knowledge Generation
Extension is not directly concerned with generating knowledge, this is done in specialized 
institutions for extension to take the knowledge and make it available to farmers (Oakley and 
Garforth, 1985). Therefore the information generating institutions should maintain close 
contact with and be responsive to the users of agricultural technology that is farmers and 
technology transfer workers (Menill- Sands, Deborah, Kaimowitz, Sayce & Chater, 1989). 
Direct links with farmers and users of technology is necessary to ensure that research focuses 
on their priorities and problems.
35
3.2.2. Knowledge Dissemination
Knowledge dissemination is the main concern of agricultural extension and it is essentially a 
communication process. Knowledge dissemination in agricultural extension according to 
Whale (1989) starts by creating a message about a new technology received, then choosing a 
channel and sending the message to a receiver. There is feed back from the person who 
receives the message. This requires that the extension agent is knowledgeable in new 
technologies as well as in the communication process.
Knowledge In New Technologies
According to Swanson (1997) technology is the application of knowledge for practical 
purposes. It is used to improve the human condition, the natural environment or carryout other 
socio-economic activities. Technology is therefore the kind o f knowledge that farmers will 
require. Swanson (1997) categorises technology into two categories; material technology and 
knowledge-based technology.
Material technology. This is where knowledge is embodied into a technological product such 
as tools, equipment, agro-chemicals, improved plant varieties or hybrids, improved breeds of 
animals (eg semen from progeny tested sires used for artificial insemination) and vaccines.
Knowledge-based technology. This is considered as technical skills such as improved crop 
and livestock management practices, integrated pest management, soil and water management 
practices and technical knowledge on how to use material technology effectively (how to use 
agrochemical, how to grow new crop varieties etc).
36
Knowledge Required By The Agricultural Extension Agent To Be Able To Disseminate 
Technologies.
An extension agent who is equipped with knowledge in new technologies must be able to 
communicate these effectively to farmers as well as give feedback to research. This calls for 
knowledge in communication, rural life and adult education (Oakley and Garforth, 1985). To 
be knowledgeable for agricultural extension work, the extension agent would require some 
form of training.
Training
The job o f extension staff calls for technical skills as well as commitment and willingness to 
educate rural people. This calls for recruiting qualified personnel and to continue to improve 
and develop them through in-service training to ensure performance (Vijayaragavan & Singh, 
1997). According to Cristovao, Koehnen and Portela (1997) extension staff frequently lack 
the skills to work with rural people in an interactive manner. Their pre-training is often 
narrow and stresses the acquisition of technical knowledge and abilities. In-service training is 
required so that extension staff people can learn how to act as helpers and facilitators. The in- 
service training should emphasise actual field experience and emerging new farming 
technologies (Vijayaragavan & Singh, 1997). Hayward (1990) lists possible training needs o f 
extension staff to include human relations, problem solving, sensitivity towards disadvantaged 
groups and the basic concepts of management (cited in Vijayaragavan & Singh, 1997).
Motivation of extension agents
Extension organisations usually expect high standards o f extension staff under conditions of 
change. The manner in which the organisation directs the staff by motivating them to work for 
the development o f farmers is important. How to keep a well motivated staff could be part of
37
me organisation’s policy. For example creating opportunities for career development through 
promoting and recruiting from within for mid-level and top level positions (Hess & Siciliano, 
1996). Although training has been mentioned, it must be emphasised here that training based 
on actual field experience gives confidence to extension agents and serve as motivation to 
work (Van Den Ban & Hawkins, 1988). Furthermore providing rewards and improved 
working conditions such as providing adequate housing facilities, transport and medical and 
educational allowances for children of extension field staff motivates them to work 
(Vijayaragavan & Singh, 1997).
Studies of agricultural extension in Asia and Africa show that the work motivation and morale 
of extension staff in many countries are very poor. The major causes o f poor motivation from 
the studies include the bureaucratic structure of extension administration, lack of rewards and 
incentives, poor facilities, promotional avenues and low esteem given to extension 
(Vijayaragavan & Singh, 1997).
3.3. Organizational structure
Individuals cannot achieve extension delivery as an organised activity; it requires a group of 
people with a common purpose. An organisation according to Hess and Siciliano (1996) 
refers to a group o f people working together to achieve a common purpose or goal that could 
not be attained by individuals working separately. Kreitner and Kinicki, (1995) citing Barnard 
I. Chester (1991) give a similar definition of organisation as a system of consciously co­
ordinated activities or forces of two or more persons. As stated by Mullins (1993:301) “some 
structure is necessary to make possible the effective performance o f key activities of an 
organisation and to support the efforts of staff’. He further explains structure as follows:
38
Structure is the pattern of relationships among positions in the 
organisation and among members o f the organisation. The 
purpose o f structure is the division o f work among members of 
the organisation, and the co-ordination of their activities so they 
are directed towards achieving the goals and objectives o f the 
organisation. The structure defines tasks and responsibilities, 
work roles and relationships, and channels o f communication. 
Structure makes possible the application o f the process of 
management and creates a framework o f order and command 
through which the activities of the organisation can be planned, 
organised, directed and controlled (p.301).
The structure o f any organisation as explained above should be based on activities of the 
organisation. Every organisation whether it produces goods or services must perform certain 
basic functions. The need to develop the goods or services, the creation o f something of value, 
the distribution and or marketing of the product or service and finance to provide the 
resources required. These functions relate to the actual completion o f the productive process 
directed towards specific and definable end results. Other activities of the organization are 
supportive o f these functions. They include personnel function, planning, supervision, quality 
control and maintenance. These functions must necessarily be performed therefore any 
organizational design or structure should enhance their performance.
The structure of any organisation according to Hess and Siciliano (1996) quoting Edgar 
Schein (1980) a prominent organisation theorist, suggest that four essential elements must be 
present in any organisation for it to function effectively. These are common goals, division of 
work, co-ordination o f effort and authority structure or chain of command. Structure is a 
design adopted by an organisation for achieving the common goal and purpose for which the 
organisation exist. The structure embodies the division of work, the chain of command and 
the co-ordination of effort. Hess and Siciliano (1996:182) make an important point when they
39
state that “you have to know where you are going (mission and goals) and how you are going 
to get there (strategy) before you can design a structure to take you there.” In other words a 
structure is put in place to achieve an organisation’s goal. This means that knowing what the 
organisation wants and having a process to achieve that goal are key ingredients in designing 
an appropriate organisation structure.
3.3.1.Common Goals
Every organisation has a vision and purpose for its existence. The vision of an organisation 
should be shared by all in the organisation. Drucker (1973) suggests that the most effective 
means for communicating the organisation’s vision is through goals. Hess and Siciliano 
(1996) define a goal as a statement of specific, desired performance or result outcome with a 
time frame. Clearly defined goals provide people in an organisation with the focus, direction 
and understanding they need to perform effectively and contribute to achieving the purpose of 
the organisation. Thus the common goal of an organisation should influence the way work is 
divided and co-ordinated in the organisation because goals guide the operations of the 
organisation.
3.3.2. Division of work
The work of the organisation towards achieving its goals are divided and grouped for 
maximum productivity (Rue & Byars, 1995 and Robbins & Stuart-kotze, 1990). It is 
important that all the work required for achieving the goals of the organisation be carefully 
considered. This is to ensure that essential jobs are not eliminated to create problems in goal 
attainment at a later date (Hess & Siciliano, 1996).
40
Work can be divided either vertically or horizontally. Vertical division of work results in the 
authority structure o f the organisation while horizontal division o f work is based on the 
specialities of individuals in the organisation (Rue & Byars, 1995). According to Hess and 
Siciliano (1996) management has been struggling with how best to divide work for maximum 
productivity. Thus suggesting that the ability o f an organisation to divide is work 
appropriately has implications for performance.
3.3.3. Co-ordination Of Effort
This means the different parts of an organisation functioning together to achieve a common 
goal. Wright and Noe (1996) state that co-ordination in an organisation can be influenced by 
how well designed the organisation is in terms of departmentation, hierarchy, centralisation 
and decentralisation. Mintzberg (1979) identifies five basic elements of structure, which serve 
as co-ordinating mechanisms for the work of the organization. They are:
• Mutual adjustment. It involves the ability o f specialist in an organisation to adapt to each 
other.
• Direct supervision. An individual having responsibility for the work of others by the 
giving of instructions and the monitoring o f their performance achieves co-ordination 
through supervision.
• Standardisation of work processes. Co-ordination is achieved through the design o f the 
work organisation.
• Standardisation of work out. The end result of each work is specified for purposes of co­
ordination.
• Standardisation of worker skills. Co-ordination is achieved through standardisation o f the 
knowledge and skills of workers.
41
A comprehensive network o f goals and a steady flow o f communication among the various 
departments o f the organisation ensure effective co-ordination o f effort that in turn influence 
performance in the organisation. Without these co-ordination o f effort will likewise affect 
perfonnance negatively.
3.3.4. Authority Structure
Authority is often defined as the right to direct the action of others. An organisation is a 
collection of individuals with shared goals but not how to achieve them (Hess & Siciliano, 
1996). “For an organisation to succeed there must be a chain o f command (authority structure) 
to perform the following functions: define the goals, divide the work and to require co­
ordination to the extent that others will accept and follow this direction” (Hess & siciliano, 
1996: 183). An organisation without a chain of command may have its goals and plans in 
place, but without the ability to require action, not much is likely to get accomplished. 
Authority structure therefore ensures that individuals in an organisation work as required of 
them. Therefore authority is key in an organisation. Without it, there wouldn’t be order and 
control to ensure performance.
3.3.4.1. Decentralisation In Organisations
Decentralisation is the pattern o f distributing authority throughout the organisation (Hess
and Siciliano 1996). Authority was assumed to be most effective when it rested in the hands
of managers at the top of the executives. It was assumed that only people at the highest levels
of the organization’s hierarchy had the education and information necessary to exercise
authority responsibly. According to Hess and Siciliano (1996)
over the past twenty years, however there has been a variety 
of effort to move authority out across the organisation and to
42
distribute it among the managers of the various departments 
and divisions (p: 184).
In large organisations with several departments and divisions distributed in various locations, 
it was realised that centralised authority was less efficient. Authority to make decisions must 
be distributed throughout the organisation so that decisions can be made on a timely and 
focused basis. This helps in terms of achieving goals.
There can be problems associated with decentralisation. The more authority is distributed the 
more difficult it is to ensure co-ordination and consistency throughout the organisation. 
Therefore an organisation must determine the degree to which it wants to be decentralised in 
order to overcome this problem. A research by Peters and Waterman (1982) on American 
companies revealed that they were more centralised in terms of goals and how to measure 
performance and more decentralised in terms o f defining how
these goals should be achieved. They describe this as the loose/ tight principle of 
decentralisation.
3.3.5. Patterns Of Relationships
Relationships in an organisation are determined by the design principle of organisation 
structure. In any organisational structure certain formal relationships between individual 
positions will arise from the defined pattern of responsibilities. These include line 
relationships, functional relationships, staff relationships and lateral relationships.
Line Relationships
Line relationships are based on the chain of command (Mullins, 1993). Authority flows 
vertically down through the structure. There is a direct relationship between superior and
43
subordinate with each subordinate responsible to only one person [Fayol, (1949) cited in 
Fells, (2000)]. Line relationships are associated with functional or departmental division of 
work and organisational control. Line relationships are important because they ensure that 
each subordinate is responsible to only one superior. The problem o f confusion in the 
performance o f subordinate responsibilities is removed because instructions come from only 
one person. This arrangement therefore ensures good performance from subordinates. On the 
other hand when a subordinate is responsible to two or more superiors (absence of unity of 
command) he/she easily becomes confused by conflicting instructions given by superiors. 
This leads to poor performance of subordinates.
Functional Relationships
Apply to the relationship between people in specialist or advisory position and to the 
relationship between people in specialist or advisory position and line managers and their 
subordinates (Mullins, 1993). In some agricultural extension organisations, subject matter 
specialists are used to train agricultural extension agents. These specialists do not belong to 
the agricultural extension department and only have a functional relationship with the 
extension agents (Republic of Ghana, 1992). Effective co-ordination is required in this type of 
relationship. Functional relationships are necessary for performance because line managers 
and their subordinates require specialist information and assistance for achieving their goals. 
Without functional relationships each manager may be forced to provide their own specialist 
and that will not be good for an organization in terms of efficiency in goal attainment.
Lateral Relationships
Lateral relationships exist between individuals in different departments or sections, especially
44
individuals on the same level. These relationships are necessary to maintain co-ordination and 
effective organisational performance (Mullins, 1993). Lateral relationships may be specified 
formally but in practice they depend upon the co-operation o f staff and therefore are a kind of 
informal relationship (Mintzberg, 1979). Lateral relationships can easily be affected by 
departmental rivalry thus hindering performance. This problem should be looked out for and 
where there appears to be signs, steps should be taken to control it immediately or else 
performance will suffer negatively (Goold & Campbell, 2002).
3.3.6. Channels Of Communication
Communication is the foundation of control and co-ordination in an organisation and is 
important for organisational performance (Rue & Byars, 1995). The type of relationship 
patterns in an organisation dictates the channels of information flow. In most formal 
organisation communication channels are vertical and horizontal in direction.
Vertical Communication
Vertical communication is rooted in the principle of authority and hierarchy and includes both 
down-the-line and up-the-line communication (Rue & Byars, 1995). Down-the-line channels 
of communication are used to communicate job instructions, information about how one task 
relates to other tasks in the organisation, messages indicating the rules and regulations in the 
organisation, feedback on performance and messages about the overall organisational goals 
(Rue & Byars, 1995).
There are certain problems associated with downward communication.
- There is information loss as messages move from top to bottom.
45
Information acquisition is perceived differently by people leading to over-estimation 
about what subordinates already know.
Information changes in meaning as it moves down the hierarchy.
Information overload can lead to faltering of information.
- Power grabbing or not sharing messages can also frustrate downward communication. 
Up-the-line communication occurs when messages flow from subordinates to superiors. These 
messages are mainly to ask questions, offer suggestions or provide feedback. Up-the-line 
communication is important and must be fostered (Rue & Byars, 1995). Some of the reasons 
to foster up-the-line communication are:
It indicates the receptivity of the environment for downward communication.
- It facilitates acceptance o f decision by encouraging subordinate participation in the 
decision making process.
- It provides feedback on subordinate understanding of downward communication.
It encourages submission of valuable ideas.
In practice sometimes, vertical communication tends to be limited to only down- the-line 
communication, forgetting that it is characterised by problems that can only be identified and 
eliminated if  up-the-line communication is encouraged. Therefore efforts should always be 
made to encourage up-the-line communication as well as guide against the problems 
associated with down-the-line communication in order to promote performance.
Horizontal Or Lateral Communication
Horizontal communication refers to the exchange of messages between and among people and 
units at the same level in the organisation hierarchy (Rue & Byars, 1995). Horizontal 
communication is initiated in order to co-ordinate task, solve problems, share information
46
and/or resolve conflict. Horizontal communication may falter because o f rivalry and 
specialisation o f work (Wright & Noe, 1996). It is important to co-ordinate tasks in an 
organisation in order to ensure that all the different parts of the organisation are functioning 
together towards the achievement of organisational goals. Lack of co-ordination may result in 
the different parts working at cross-purpose with each other to the detriment of achieving 
goals, which determine organisational performance (Mullins, 1993 and Wright and Noe, 
1996).
3.3.7. Roles And Responsibilities
A role is defined by Mullins (1993) as the expected pattern of behaviours associated with 
members occupying a particular position within the structure o f the organisation. It also 
describes how a person perceives his/her own situation. The role or roles that an individual 
plays in an organisation is influenced by a combination of both situational and personal 
factors (Mullins, 1993). Examples of situational factors include requirements of tasks, the 
style of leadership and position in the communication network and'those of personal factors 
include values, attitudes, motivation ability and personality. There are various forms of role 
relationships. They are role-set, role in-congruence and role expectations.
Role-Set
The role-set comprises the range of associations or contacts with which the individual has 
meaningful interaction in connection with the performance of their roles (Kahn, 1996). In an 
extension organisation where the research component is located in another institution role-set 
relationships become very important concerning matters of knowledge generation and 
organisational performance in general (Merrill-Sands et al, 1989).
47
Role In-Congruence
Role in-congruence describes a person in an organisation who is in a high and responsible 
position and yet is perceived as one in low standing (Mullins, 1993). Role in-congruence can 
arise from the nature o f  formal relationships within the structure of the organisation (Mullins, 
1993). For example delegating junior staff to instruct senior staff, no clear definition of 
authority structure and line-staff relationships where instructions have to be passed from one 
department to another. Care must be taken to ensure that junior staff do not instruct senior 
staff because o f specialisation. Role in-congruence is more likely to result in refusal or 
overlooking instructions considered as coming from a junior staff resulting in problems and 
consequently affecting performance in the organisation. Avoiding or minimising role in­
congruence is a sure way o f enhancing performance.
Role Expectations
Role expectations are mostly formally prescribed forms of behaviour although some may not 
be formally prescribed (Mullins, 1993 and Kahn 1996). Role expectations that are formally 
prescribed take the form of written contract of employment, rules and regulations, standards, 
policy decisions, job descriptions or directives from superiors (Mullins, 1993). Some formal 
role expectations may also be derived clearly from the nature of the task. Informal role 
expectations have to do more with conforming to the group expectations and are often 
formally not communicated to a person (Kahn, 1996). The individual may observe it from the 
group or it may be communicated from individuals of the group. Examples of informal role 
expectations include general conduct, mutual support to members, attitudes towards superiors, 
means of communication, dress and appearance.
48
i o promote effective performance in an organisation, individuals must be made aware of 
what is expected o f them by the organisation. This will help them have a focus and also serve 
as a guide towards goal attainment. Without role expectations being prescribed, conflict in the 
performance o f task may arise creating problems thus hindering performance. In a similar 
vein, although informal role expectations are not formally communicated, it is important that 
managers are aware of these especially subordinates attitudes towards their superiors. Positive 
attitudes will contribute to performance, while negative attitudes will hinder performance.
Problems Associated With Role Expectations
In the performance of expected roles, conflicts may arise resulting in problems. Most of these 
problems take the form o f role incompatibility, role ambiguity, role overload and role 
underload (Mullins, 1993). When these conflicts arise they tend to create problems which 
hinder performance. Therefore in the design of organisation structure, role conflict should be 
anticipated and controlled as much as possible through the design structure (Wright & Noe, 
1996).
Role incompatibility. A situation of role incompatibility arises when an individual is 
confronted with two role expectations that are in conflict with each other (Mullins, 1993 and 
Kahn, 1996). For example a supervisor who faces opposing expectations from subordinates 
and from management. This problem is common with people placed between two levels in an 
organisation structure. Clearly defined standards and good communication in an organisation 
can help to alleviate this problem and thus promote good performance.
49
Role ambiguity. Role ambiguity occurs when there is lack o f clarity as to the precise 
requirements o f the role and the person is not sure of what to do. This could be a problem 
with poorly prescribed role expectations or poor communication of the prescribed role 
expected (Mullins, 1993). When this problem arises role expectations normally fall below 
expectations leading to poor performance.
Role overload. When a person faces too many separate roles or too great a variety of 
expectations the situation is described as role overload (Mullins 1993 and Kahn, 1996). This 
situation reduces efficiency and effectiveness leading to poor performance. Role overload can 
be overcome with correct design and functional organisational structure.
Role underload. When the prescribed role expectation falls short of a person’s own perception 
of their role the condition is referred to as role underload (Mullins, 1996). In situations like 
this people feel they are not challenged enough by their jobs and given the opportunity they 
can perform better. Role underload tends to affect moral of workers and consequently 
performance (Hess & Siciliano, 1996). Role underload can be overcome if  individuals are 
carefully placed on the job taking into consideration their qualification and capabilities.
3.4. Conclusion
The concepts reviewed in this chapter provide the basis from which the research was to be 
conducted. Extension delivery has been viewed as a service provided by an organisation 
designed or structured for the purposes of achieving performance. The literature reviewed on 
the concepts further explained how an organization structure could either assist or hinder the 
achievement o f organizational goals. An understanding o f the two main concepts helped in
50
uesigning instruments for data collection needed to address the research questions and the 
objectives of the study.
51
CHAPTER FOUR 
METHODOLOGY
4.0. Introduction
This chapter deals with the methodology of the study. It covers the choice of methodology 
used for the study, the study area, study population, sampling technique and sample size, 
instrumentation and pre-testing, data gathering, data management and analysis, sources o f 
secondary data and administrative information, challenges encountered and precautions and 
limitations to the study.
4.1. Choice of methodology
The design of the study follows the case study approach. The case study approach allows the 
researcher to concentrate on a specific event or situation for in-depth study (Blaxter, Huges 
and Tight, 1996). In this case the concentration is on the administrative processes which may 
be crucial to the success or failure of extension delivery in the decentralised administrative 
structure of the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture. Case study provides a better opportunity to 
take a closer look at these administrative processes than a large-scale survey (Bell, 1993).
Furthermore the choice o f case study was made because it permits the use o f a mixture o f data 
collection techniques (Cosley and Lury, 1987). Thus for the purpose of this study a range of 
data collection techniques were employed to collect both primary and secondary data. These 
include the administration of structured questionnaires to extension officers and farmers, 
informal interviews using unstructured interview guides with key informants from the 
ministry of Food and Agriculture listed in appendix 2, as well as administrative documents
52
and other published materials from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture also listed in 
Appendix 1. The informal interviews helped to throw more light on some of the results 
obtained from the analysis of the questionnaires. Similarly, the administrative documents and 
other materials reviewed informed and added value to the final outcome of the study. The 
techniques that were used allowed for triangulation in the validation of the results.
The scale and purpose of the research in addition to the limited resources at the disposal o f the 
researcher made the case study approach the ideal choice.
4.2.The study area
Tema municipality is an industrial town lying to the east of Accra on the Greenwich meridian. 
The Atlantic Ocean borders it to the south, to the east by Dangme East District, to the north 
by Dangme West District and to the west by Accra. Tema municipality has a population o f 
about 500,000 people with a maj ority in commerce and industry only a third o f the population 
is into farming and fishing (S. E Ashong-Narh, personal communication, July 31, 2002).
The farmers are located more in the northern part while the fishermen are in the southern part. 
There are also a few crop farmers mainly vegetable farmers in the south. Livestock rearing 
and poultry keeping is also practised. The problem with fanning in Tema municipality is that 
of land. The town is growing fast and with increases in population, land is being used more 
for estate development at the expense of farming. Most farms are smallholdings and the 
fanners practice intensive cultivation.
53
Most farmers use temporary farmlands (open spaces and lands awaiting estate development) 
and therefore are not interested in long-term land management practices. Farmers try to get 
the maximum  out of their temporary lands regardless o f the consequences on the 
environment. These conditions suggest that and effective extension service is required to 
make fanning a sustainable activity in Tema. This made the study area a suitable choice.
4.3. Study populations
The study populations included all agricultural extension staff o f the Municipal Agricultural 
Development Unit (MADU) who worked with farmers, by taking to them agricultural 
information as well as new technologies for agricultural activities. The population also 
included the Municipal Director of Agriculture, the Municipal Chief Executive, the Municipal 
Co-ordinating Director, members of the development sub-committee o f the municipal 
assembly and farmers. These populations were targeted because literature has revealed that a 
study of a population of this nature or a sample of it would provide answers to the research 
questions and objectives.
4.4. Sampling technique and sample size
Purposive sampling technique was used to select two farmers each from twenty operational 
areas in the municipality. The farmers selected were those regularly visited by the agricultural 
extension agent and were ready to respond to the questionnaire. This sampling technique was 
used due to the absence of a list of farmers. With the exceptions o f the Municipal Co­
ordinating Director who had traveled outside the country and therefore could not be reached 
and some of the members of the development sub-committee who failed to attend scheduled
54
interviews, the total population in each target group was used because the numbers involved 
were small.
Overall, sixty-five respondents from various categories o f respondents were interviewed.
The different categories include nineteen agricultural extension agents, one district director of 
agriculture, one municipal chief executive and the chairman and four members of the 
development sub-committee of the municipal assembly and forty farmers.
4.5. Instrumentation and pre-testing
This section describes how the data collection instruments were developed as well as the pre­
testing and development of the final instruments for collecting the data.
4.5.1. Developing The Instruments
The data collection instruments developed for the study were questionnaires for agricultural 
extension agents and the district director of agriculture, interview checklist for the municipal 
chief executive and development sub-committee members of the municipal assembly and an 
interview schedule for the farmers. The issues addressed, information required and sources o f 
information are shown in the Table 4.1. The main concepts of the study were extension 
delivery and structure. In Table 4.1 the issues that address the concept o f extension delivery
■ Technology generation or sourcing,
■ Problems and needs of farmers,
■ Job related problems of agricultural extension agents and
■ Farmer contact
55
Those that addressed the concept of structure are
■ Chain of command
■ Division o f work and
■ Co-ordination of effort
Table 4.1: Study issues, information required and sources
Issues Information required Sources
Technology 
generation or 
sourcing.
• Sourcing of technologies
• Generation of technologies
• Availability of technologies at 
MOFA.
Municipal Director of 
Agriculture (MDA) and 
agricultural extension 
agents (AEAs)
Problems and 
needs of fanners
• Farmers need for technologies
• Knowledge about farmers
• Farmers access to technologies
AEAs, FARMERS & 
members of the dev’t 
sub-committee
Job related 
problems of AEAs
• AEAs access to technologies
• Contact with farmers
• Access to material and equipment 
for work
• Morale of extension staff
MDA, AEAs & 
FARMERS
Farmer contact • Awareness / relationship with 
AEA
• Forms and frequency of contact
MDA, AEAs & 
FARMERS
Chain of command • Planning
• Supervision
• Management control
MDA ,AEAs, farmers 
& members of the dev’t 
sub-committee
Division of work • Responsibilities of DADU staff MDA & AEAs
Co-ordination of 
effort
• Meetings with other departments
• Office meetings with staff
• Meetings with district assembly
MDA, Municipal Chief 
Executive & AEAs
56
With this background information a draft questionnaire was developed for each category of the 
respondents. The draft instruments were refined through further reading and consultation with 
experts in the field and academics in the Department of Agricultural Extension including my 
supervisors. The nature of the subject is such that more open-ended questions were employed 
to allow for all possible responses to be provided.
4.5.2. Pre-Testing
The data collecting instruments except for the interview checklist were pre-tested in the 
Dangme-West District of the Greater Accra region. Pre-testing was undertaken to ensure 
reliability and validity. The interview checklist was carefully corrected to make it appropriate. 
The pre-testing lasted a period of three weeks from the 13 th -  31st May 2002. In all twenty-one 
people were involved, one district director of agriculture, ten agricultural extension agents and 
ten farmers.
The researcher met with the district director of agriculture for Dangme-west district to discuss 
her intention of wanting to pre-test her data collection instruments in the district. The request 
was accepted and a day arranged for meeting the agricultural extension agents. During the 
meeting the researcher explained her intention and asked for volunteers to answer the 
questionnaires. Those who volunteered were taken through the questions after which they 
were asked to fill the questionnaires. They suggested that they needed more time to properly 
answer the questions. Thus they were allowed to take the take the questionnaires away and 
return them after a week. With the farmers interview schedule the researcher asked the 
agricultural extension agent who was to administer them to study one and seek clarification 
before going to the farmers. The researcher then went with the agricultural extension agent to
57
the farmers to pre-test the interview schedule. The researcher did not understand the local 
dialect but used the opportunity to observe the body language o f both interviewer and 
interviewee for cordiality. Note was also taken of the time spent in administering a 
questionnaire.
During the pre-testing certain things came up. Among them was that some of the questions for 
the district director were very revealing. About 75% of the agricultural extension agents 
returned their questionnaires voluntarily. The rest only returned them after the district 
director’s intervention. Repeated questions, poorly constructed question, omissions and 
typographical errors also came to light and were noted for correction when developing the 
final instruments. Those involved in pre-testing the data collection instruments were asked for 
their comments and suggestions. Some of the suggestions were to clarify some ambiguous 
questions and to include “sometimes” as part of response options to some questions. All 
comments, suggestions and observations made during the pre-testing o f the instruments, were 
considered in developing the final data collection instruments.
4.5.3. Developing The Final Questionnaire And Interview Schedule
The pre-testing revealed that farmers could not adequately respond to questions on issues 
before decentralisation. Such questions were therefore eliminated from the final interview 
schedule for farmers. Other observations made and suggestions received from the pre-testing 
as well as problems arising from the analysis of the data, allowed the researcher, with support 
from her supervisors to make the necessary corrections on the questionnaire and interview 
schedule. The final instruments that were used in collecting the data are shown in Appendices 
3A-3D.
58
4.6. Data gathering
Data gathering is discussed in three parts. These are the selection and training of research 
assistants, data collection and the administration of the data collection instruments.
4.6.1. Research Assistants
There was a need to select and train two agricultural extension agents as research assistants. 
The research assistants were to administer the questionnaires to farmers because o f language 
barrier that made it impossible for the researcher to do it. The research assistants chosen were 
those fluent in Ga and Dangme the local dialects of the farmers. The research assistants were 
given a one-day training to make sure that questions were understood and could be translated 
appropriately. Thus the researcher allowed each question to be read and asked for its 
translation by both research assistants. From the various translations the most appropriate 
translation chosen was adopted by all in the administration of the interview guide. This was 
done to ensure inter-rater reliability.
4.6.2. Data Collection
Data collection started on June 18th and ended on August 2nd, 2002. Apart from the sample 
respondents, other sources of primary data were from some key informants in the Ministry of 
Food and Agriculture.
4.6.3. Administration Of Data Collection Instruments
There were three different instruments to be administered to four categories of respondents. 
Questionnaires to be administered to agricultural extension agents and the district director of
59
agriculture, interview schedule to farmers and interview checklist to the municipal chief 
executive and the assembly members in the development sub-committee.
4.6.3.1. Administering The Questionnaires
The questionnaires were administered to agricultural extension agents who did extension 
work with farmers and the district director of agriculture by the researcher. Earlier on the 
researcher had met with the director of the District Agricultural Development Unit of Tema 
municipality to explain her interest in using Tema municipality for her study. It was accepted 
and further meetings were arranged that helped to prepare the grounds for the administration 
of the instruments. Administration of the instruments started on June 18th and ended on 
August 2nd 2002. The agricultural extension agents were the first category o f respondents that 
the researcher started with. First, the questionnaire was discussed with the agricultural 
extension agents. From the earlier experience of difficulty in retrieving questionnaires from 
agricultural extension agents during the pre-testing, the researcher decided that the 
questionnaires should be completed at a sitting with the respondent. To do this successfully, 
the agricultural extension agents were divided into groups of four, one group had three 
members because their number was nineteen. Each group then chose a day in which to meet 
the researcher to administer the questionnaires. With this arrangement the researcher was able 
to supervise the filling of questionnaires by providing the needed assistance for properly 
completed questionnaires. The District Director of Agriculture equally filled the questionnaire 
in the presence of the researcher.
4.6.3.2. Administering The Interview Schedule
Administering the interview schedule required the use o f  research assistants as earlier stated.
60
The research assistants were trained and a common translation o f questions ensured before 
going to administer the interview schedule to the farmers. After collecting the completed 
instruments at the end of each day, the researcher discussed the recorded responses with the 
research assistants. In some cases, the research assistants were asked to translate some o f the 
responses into the local dialect and with the help of the other research assistant, the translated 
vision into English language was confirmed.
4.6.3.3 Administering The Interview Checklist
The interview checklist was administered to the municipal chief executive and the selected 
members of the municipal assembly. In addition to recording the responses in writing, a tape 
recorder was used to ensure that all aspects of the responses were captured. The researcher 
administered the interview checklist.
4.7. Data management and analysis
It covers activities carried out by the researcher such as data summary, data coding, data 
storage, and data analysis.
4.7.1. Data Summary
One of the requirements for successfully analysing open-ended questions is to do the data 
summary, leading to the imposition of structure that will permit coding. The data summary 
process was started in the field to help reduce the problem o f reformulating ambiguous 
responses long after leaving the field when knowledge of respondents’ insight into what was 
recorded would have faded from memory. In the course of checking answered questionnaires 
and interview schedules with respondents and research assistants respectively, similar
61
responses to open-ended questions as well as differences were noted. These differences later 
formed the basis for grouping and coding the responses of the open-ended questions. By the 
time the last questionnaire and interview schedule was collected, summary o f the responses to 
open-ended questions was almost ended. Responses from the interview checklist that were on 
tapes was transcribed and together with the written notes, summarised and coded. This was 
done after all the data was collected.
4.7.2. Data Coding
After collecting the data, the coding process that was started on the field was completed. The 
researcher completed the coding process by cross-checking responses and groupings before 
assigning codes.
4.7.3. Data Storage And Analysis
A coding frame was developed after coding. From the coding manual the data was transferred 
into the computer using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) facility for storage 
and analysis of the data. After entering the data into the computer, it was cleaned to ensure 
that the right entries were made. The data was then analysed using univariate and bivariate 
techniques such as frequencies and percentages and cross-tabulation.
4.8. Challenges encountered in the field
The challenges encountered in the study were associated with commuting between the 
operational areas to interview farmers as well as learning and adopting some aspects of the Ga 
culture necessary for establishing rapport between the researcher and the farmers necessary 
for the success o f the interviews. During the administration of the questionnaires it was
62
observed that some of the agricultural extension agents and the district director of agriculture 
were apprehensive with disclosure of information that could present each other as ineffective 
or inefficient. They were reassured that the research was purely an academic exercise and 
nobody would be victimised. Amiss the problems and challenges encountered, the researcher 
learnt someth ing  new about the organisation in which she works and also about how to 
research and it was fun to do the research.
4.9. Sources of secondary data and administrative information
Secondary data was obtained by tracing and studying relevant documents and reports from the 
Ministry of Food and Agriculture. A list of documents and reports consulted is in appendix 1.
4.10. Precautions and limitations
This research is a case study of the impact of the decentralised administrative structure o f the 
Ministry of food and Agriculture on extension delivery. Since purposive sampling was 
adopted in choosing the study area and the sample, results from the study cannot be 
generalised beyond the sample. Furthermore the researcher had to rely on the agricultural 
extension agents to collect data from the farmers and there is a likelihood o f the extension 
agents manipulating some of the responses to cover up for their lapses. For example how 
often does your extension agent visit you? If the response seems unfavourable to the 
extension agent, an attempt could be made to change it for a more favourable response. For 
these and other such reasons the findings cannot be all conclusive although nothing o f the sort 
was detected during the data collection because the researcher was always presented to cross 
check responses. In addition the responses from farmers were also available for crosschecking 
the responses from agricultural extension agents.
63
CHAPTER FIVE 
FINDINGS
5.0. Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the study on the old and decentralised structures o f 
Ministry o f Food and Agriculture and extension delivery. The old structure of Ministry of 
Food and Agriculture covers the period 1992-1997. This period is a unique one because it was 
during that period that the Ministry of Food and Agriculture introduced a unified extension 
system and a T&V approach to extension delivery. Limiting the study of the old regime to this 
period allows for comparison because the Ministry of Food and Agriculture continues to 
apply the unified extension system and the T&V approach to extension delivery under its 
decentralised structure.
The findings presented are in three parts, the socio-economic characteristics of farmer in the 
study, the structures of Ministry of Food and Agriculture studied and extension delivery.
5.1. Socio-economic characteristics of farmers under the decentralised structure
The socio-economic characteristics of farmers cover sex, age, marital status, level o f 
education and type o f farming system they operate.
Sex. Out of forty farmers studied, 60 % were males and 40 % females.
Age. The ages of the farmers studied are presented in Table 5.1. Majority (57.5 %) o f farmers 
studied were in the age category of 31-50 years, 32.5 % of farmers were between 51-60 and 
7.5% between 61-70 years. Only 2.5 % of farmers were below 31 years.
64
Table.5.1: Age distribution of farmers
Age distribution Frequency Percentages Cum %
Below 31 1 2.5 2.5
31-40 12 30 32.5
41-50 11 27.5 60
51-60 13 32.5 92.5
61-70 3 7.5 100
Total 40 100 100
Source: field data.
Marital status. Seventy-two percent of farmers studied were married, 17.5 % were single and 
10 % were widowed.
Level of education. The level of education of farmers studied is presented in Table 5.2. Fifty 
percent of the farmers studied had basic education, 15 % secondary education, 2.5 % 
university education and 32 % no formal education.
Table 5.2: Level of education of farmers
Level of education Frequency Percentage
No formal education 13 32.5
Junior secondary school / middle school education 20 50
Senior secondary school / secondary school education 6 15
University education 1 2.5
Total 40 100
Source: field data.
Socio- economic activities of farmers. Out of forty farmers studied, 95% were into farming 
while f i  were fish smokers. The type of farming practised by those into farming is presented 
in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Type of farming practised by farmers
Type of farming Frequency Percentage
Inter-cropping 30 78.9
Livestock / poultry rearing 7 18.4
Mixed farming (farm animals, fish and crop farming) 1 2.6
Total 38 100
Source: field data.
65
Among those who were into farming approximately 79 % practised inter-cropping, 18 % were 
into livestock and poultry farming and only 2.6 % practised mixed farming.
5.2 Organisational structure
The organisational structures that were studied are shown in appendix 2A and 2B as 
organisational charts. The findings made from the study on these structure covers:
• Division o f work 
Departments 
Positions or ranks 
Responsibilities
• Chain o f command 
Planning 
Supervision 
Management control
• Co-ordination of effort.
5.2.1 Division of work
The results o f findings on division of work covered departments and positions o f agricultural 
extension agents and the municipal director o f agriculture and their responsibilities. The 
results cover both the old and decentralised structures of Ministry o f Food and Agriculture.
Departments of MOFA
The old and decentralised structures show a clear distinction. In the old there were six 
departments while the decentralised has no departments. In the districts and regions there are
District Agricultural Development Units and Regional Agricultural Development Units. 
These are sometimes referred to as Departments of Agriculture. At the national level there are 
technical directorates responsible for policy formulation, development planning, co­
ordination, monitoring and evaluation.
The departments o f the respondents from the findings are presented in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4: Departments of agricultural extension agents and the Municipal Director of 
_______________________________Agriculture_______________ ______________
Departments of MOFA Old structure Decentralized
structure
No. % No. %
Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation. 2 10 - -
Women in Agricultural Development 3 15 - -
Department of Agricultural Extension Services. 5 25 - -
Animal Production Department 1 5 - -
Crop Services Department 4 20 - -
Veterinary Services Department 5 25 - -
Department of Agriculture - - 20 100
Total 20 100 20 100
Source: field data
Table 5.4 indicates that the nineteen agricultural extension agents and the municipal director 
of agriculture worked in six departments of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the old 
structure while in the new structure they all work in one department. The departments that 
they worked in, in the old structure were as follows: Policy Planning Monitoring and 
Evaluation, Women in Agricultural Development, Agricultural Extension Services, Animal 
Production, Crop Services and Veterinary Service Departments. The district director o f 
agriculture worked in the Crop services department.
Positions o f staff
Table 5.5 summarises the positions that agricultural extension agent and the district director 
of agriculture occupied in the old and decentralized structures of Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture.
67
Table 5.5: Stated positions of Agricultural Extension Agents and the Municipal Director 
_____________________________  of Agriculture. ________________________
Positions Old structure Decentralised structure
No. % No. %
District officer 2 10 - -
Supervisor 1 5 - -
Frontline staff 16 80 - -
Agricultural extension agent - - 19 95
Municipal Director o f Agriculture - - 1 5
Head office staff in-charge of crops
trials 1 5 -
Total 20 100 20 100
Source: field data.
The findings in Table 5.5 indicate that in the old structure there were two district officers 
representing 10 % o f the staff. Only one supervisor was among the staff while 80 % were 
frontline staff. The Municipal Director of Agriculture was at the head office of Crop Services 
Department in-charge o f crops trials. In the decentralised structure those interviewed were in 
only two positions, agricultural extension agent representing 95 % and the Municipal Director 
of Agriculture representing 5% of respondents respectively.
Responsibilities o f staff
The responsibilities o f staff from the findings are presented according to how they were 
performed in the old and decentralised structures of Ministry o f Food and Agriculture.
The Old Structure
Municipal Director of Agriculture. The Municipal Director of Agriculture was at the head 
office o f Crop Services Department in-charge of crops trials in the field.
District officers / supervivor. In the old structure three agricultural extension agents were not 
frontline staff. Two were district officers and one a supervisor. The responsibilities of these
extension agents according to the positions they occupied and their departments are presented 
in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6: Stated responsibilities of AEAs who held other positions in the old structure 
________________  of Ministry of Food and Agriculture________________
Position Responsibilities D epartm ent
Supervisor ■ Assist the district officer in supervision of field staff.
■ Write monthly, quarterly and annual reports. DAES.
District
officer
■ Supervise staff
■ Ensures that there are adaptive trial packages.
■ Write and submit monthly, quarterly and annual reports
■ Collaborate with NGOs in agro-forestry activities.
■ Draws a budget for the district
■ Manages resources allocated to the crop services 
department.
■ Manage and operate nurseries
CSD.
District
officer
■ Supervise staff
■ Manages resources allocated to the department
■ Ensures collection, early completion and submission of 
raw data to the regional office.
■ Confirm existence of enumeration area in district.
PPMED.
Source: field data.
The responsibilities for the position of district officer stated in Table 5.6 suggest that those 
who occupied them had authority over the staff in departments at the district level.
Table 5.7 describes the responsibilities of the agricultural extension agents who occupied 
frontline staff positions in the old administrative structure. Table 5.7 indicates that the Policy 
Planning Monitoring Evaluation Department had nothing to do directly with extension 
services delivery. The staff in the departments of Crops Services, Veterinary Services and 
Animal Production all performed extension duties, which were specific to their departments. 
The Departments of Agricultural Extension Services and Women in Agricultural 
Development also performed extension services but it seems to be on a general basis since no 
specifics in terms of technical areas were mentioned.
69
Table 5.7: Responsibilities o f  f r o n t l i n e  staff as stated by AEAs
Departments Responsibilities
Crop Services Department • Conduct on-farm adaptive trials in crops.
• Carryout extension in agro-forestry
• Collaborate with NGOs in agro-forestry activities
• Plan programmes to cover activities.
• Write monthly, quarterly and annual reports
Veterinary Services 
Department.*
• Organize quarterly seminars for farmers.
• Weekly surveillance on animal health and extension
• Daily clinical activities
• Inspection of inflow and outflow of animals under public 
health
• Post-mortem and anti-mortem inspection of carcasses.
• Anti-mortem inspection of animals before slaughter
• Revenue collection for services
• Write monthly, quarterly and annual reports
• Attend office meetings
Policy Planning Monitoring 
and Evaluation Department
• Sample farmers from enumeration areas
• Collect raw data on crop and livestock activities of 
peasant farmers
• Collect data on large scale farms and institutional farms
• Attend office meetings
Animal Production 
Department
• Carryout extension activities in and animal health and 
production eg breeding, feeding, housing and health and 
sanitation.
• Write monthly, quarterly and annual reports
• Attend office meetings
Department of Agricultural 
Extension Services and 
Women in Agricultural 
Development
• Conduct mini-demonstrations.
• Visit farmer groups and individual farmers to deliver 
technologies to them
• Attend monthly subject matter specialist training
• Give feedback on field problems to subject matter 
specialist during training sessions.
• Write monthly, quarterly and annual reports
• Attend office meetings
* Responsibilities were not general to all, depended on location o f  staff 
Source: field data
The Decentralised Structure
The findings on the responsibilities of agricultural extension agents and the municipal director 
of agriculture under the decentralised structure are presented in this section.
70
Agricultural extension agents. The views of the agricultural extension agents on their 
responsibilities are is presented in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8: Views of Agricultural Extension Agents on their responsibilities in the
decentralized structure_________________________
List of responsibilities Frequency Percentage
Transfer of technologies to farmers 19 100
Collect data 7 36.8
Treat farm animals 7 36.8
Give technical advice and solutions to farmers’ problems 19 100
Pick farmers problems and pass them on for solutions 1 5.3
Carryout adaptive research 3 15.8
Disseminate agricultural information 19 100
Write reports 19 100
Attend training 19 100
Attend office meetings 19 100
Attend short courses 3 15.8
Attend to office calls 6 31.6
Identify and assess farmers’ problems 7 36.8
Prepare monthly returns 5 26.3
N=19
Multiple responses 
Source: field data.
In Table 5.8 all the extension agents do not perform the same responsibilities though they all 
belong to the same department of agriculture which has specific responsibilities for all the 
extension agents. The transfer of technologies to farmers, give technical advice and solutions 
to farmers’ problems, disseminate agricultural information, write reports, attend training and 
office meetings are the only responsibilities performed by all the extension agents. 
Approximately 5% and 16% of the extension agents pick farmers problems and pass them on 
for solution and carry out adaptive research respectively. The situation was different in the old 
structure. Extension agents belonging to a specific department all performed the same 
responsibilities.
Farmers. The analysis of the farmers’ data on division of work gave their views on the 
responsibilities of agricultural extension agents as presented in Table 5.9.
71
Table 5. 9:Farmers’ views of responsibilities of Agricultural Extension Agents in the
decentralised structure_________________________
Responsibilities Frequency Percentage
Hold meetings to identify and assess farmers’ problems 15 37.5
Make farm visits 10 25
Make home visits 4 10
Introduce new technologies 8 20
Provide solutions to problems 3 7.5
Give advice 3 7.5
Multiple responses
N= 40 
Field data
The views of farmers on the responsibilities of agricultural extension agents indicate only 20 
% of farmers stating that the responsibility of an extension agent is to introduce new 
technologies while only 7.5% are of the view that the extension agent’s responsibility is to 
provide solutions to farmers’ problems. Approximately 38% of the farmers also view the 
identification and assessment of farmers’ problems as a responsibility o f the extension agent.
When the views of extension agents in Table 5.8 and that of farmers in Table 5.9 on the 
responsibilities o f extension agents are compared certain observation can be made. While 
20% of the farmers are of the view that the extension agent’s responsibility is to introduce 
new technologies to farmers, all the extension agents stated the introduction of new 
technologies to farmers as the responsibility. In addition only 5% o f the extension agents 
stated that they had the responsibility to pick farmers’ problems and pass them on for 
solutions. This is reflected in the views of farmers on the responsibilities of extension agents 
by an equally small percentage of farmers (22.5%) stating that extension agents hold meetings 
to discuss and assess farmers’ problems. Furthermore only 7.5% of the farmers are o f the 
view that the responsibilities of extension agents include providing solutions to farmers’ 
problems while all the extension agents stated the provision o f solutions to farmers’ problems
72
as their responsibilities. These observations suggest that extension delivery in the 
decentralised structure was perceived as not effective with many o f the farmers studied 
because their problems were not identified and therefore they did not receive any solution to 
them.
Municipal Director o f Agriculture. The Municipal Director o f Agriculture listed his 
responsibilities as stated below.
• Supervise technical and administrative staff.
Visit trial sites and demonstration sites.
• Participate in fields
• Organize farmers’ day celebrations.
• Represent Ministry o f Food and Agriculture at all municipal assembly meetings.
• Assist the assembly to draw up agricultural development programme
• Implement assembly’s agricultural development programmes.
• Manage the resources of the Municipal Agricultural Development Unit.
• Prepare and submit quarterly, mid-year and annual reports to my superiors.
• Facilitate promotion of staff through appraisal reports.
The responsibilities of the Municipal Director of Agriculture compared to the district officers 
in the old structure are more in the decentralised structure than in the old structure. The 
Municipal Director of Agriculture has some functions to perform at the municipal assembly, 
which were not performed by district officers because they had no formal relationship with 
the district assembly.
73
Findings on the division of work have revealed that changes have occurred. One of the 
changes identified is that the specialised approach to extension delivery in the old structure 
has changed to a generalised approach to extension delivery in the decentralised structure. 
The positions of some respondents as well as the responsibilities o f all respondents have 
changed. For example the Municipal Director of Agriculture moved from a supervisory role 
in Crop Services Department in the old structure to a managerial' role for agricultural 
extension activities in the decentralisd structure. Some extension agents also moved from 
supervisory roles in the old structure to become field staff in the decentralised structure.
5.2.2 Chain of command
The chain of command covered planning, supervision and management control. A review of 
these functions was performed to bring out the chain of command or authority structure that 
existed in Ministry o f Food and Agriculture. The planning, supervision and management 
control functions have been presented independently followed by a synthesis that permitted 
conclusions to be drawn on the chain of command.
Planning in Ministry of Food and Agriculture
An analysis o f responses provided by agricultural extension agents, the Municipal Director of 
Agriculture, respondents from the municipal assembly and farmers provided the findings on 
planning in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the old and decentralised structutres. 
Planning was studied at two levels, setting goals and objectives and farmer involvement in 
planning.
74
Setting Goals And Objectives In The Old Structure
Agricultural Extension Agents. Approximately 90% of agricultural extension agents in the 
old structure had goals and objectives that guided their work while 10%, had no goals and 
objectives to guide them in their work as shown in Table 5.10. Table 5.10 also shows that 
approximately 32% of the extension agents set their own goals and objectives based on 
problems and needs of farmers. Nearly 16% set their own goals and objectives while 42% 
depended on targets from head office to set their goals and objectives.
TABLE 5.10: SOURCES OF GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION AGENTS
Sources of goals and objectives Old
structure
Decentralised
structure
No. % No. %
I work without goals and objectives. 2 10.5 -
I set my own goals and objectives based on farmers’ 
problems and national objectives 6 31.6 -
I set my own goals and objectives. 3 15.8 2 10.5
I depend on targets from head office to set my goals 
and objectives. 8 42.1
I derive my objectives from farmers’ needs and 
problems _ 5 26.3
Objectives are derived from the municipal plan of 
work 12 63.2
Totals. 19 100 19 100
Source: field data
District officers. District officers whose departments existed and performed extension 
delivery in the municipality in the old regime gave their views on how they went about setting 
their goals and objectives. In the responses a district officer of the Department o f Agricultural 
Extension Services in the old structure, stated that district goals and objectives for the 
department were based on targets from the head office o f the Department o f Agricultural 
Extension Services. The district officer of Crop Services Department stated that the district 
officer set district goals and objectives for the department. There was no influence from a
75
higher authority while the district officer for Veterinary Services Department stated that 
district goals and objectives for the department were set based on national objectives and 
needs of farmers.
Setting Goals And Objectives In The Decentalised.Structure.
Agricultural extension agents. All agricultural extension agents in Table 5.10 stated that they 
had goals and objectives in the decentralised structure. Approximately 11 % stated that they 
set their own goals and objectives while 26% stated that their goals and objectives were 
derived from farmers’ needs and problems. Sixty-three percent stated that they derived their 
goals and objectives from the district plan of work.
Municipal Director of Agriculture. The Municipal Director o f Agriculture hinted that goals 
and objectives for the municipality in the decentralised structure were derived from the 
national goals and objectives of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Municipal assembly. All respondents of the municipal assembly were o f the view that the 
municipal assembly was not involved in planning programmes o f the Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture in the municipality in the old structure.
In the decentralised structure the Municipal Chief Executive has no direct role in planning
agricultural programmes for the municipality. He acts mainly as an approving officer, t h e
role of the Municipal Chief Executive is captured in this quotation
The district director of agriculture plans for agriculture in Tema 
municipality and shows the plans to the municipal chief 
executive for approval. If  I have areas o f interest in agriculture 
for the municipality, I seek assistance from the district director 
o f agriculture to work out the modalities (field data).
76
Members o f the development sub-committee of the municipal assembly stated that they were 
not involved in developing plans for agriculture in the municipality in the decentralised 
structure.
Farmers. The study found out that farmers were never involved in setting goals and objectives 
of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Farmers involvement in planning
To determine the involvement of farmers in planning extension programmes, questions were 
directed at three categories of respondents. The result from the analysis o f  these responses is 
the findings on farmer involvement in planning. These findings are presented in Table 5 .1 1 .
Table 5.11: The views of farmers, extension agents and Municipal Director of 
Agriculture on farmers involvement in planning extension programmes
Farmers involvement 
in planing
Old structure Decentralised structure
AEAs MDA Farmers AEAs MDA
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Attend MOFA planning 
sessions 6 31.6 2 5 4 21.1 1 100
Involved in needs 
/problems assessment. .8 42.1 13 32.5 6 31.6 1 100
Involved in fixing meeting 
days and times 15 78.9 40 100 19 100
N values 19 - - - 40 - 19 - 1
Multiple responses 
Source: field data
Farmer Involvement In Planning In The Old structure
Agricultural extension agents. Approximately 79 % of the agricultural extension agents in the 
old structure involved farmers in fixing meeting days and time, 42 % stated they involved 
farmers in needs/ problem assessment and 32%, said their farmers attend MoFA planning 
sessions.
77
District officers. The views of district officers whose departments were involved in extension 
delivery in the old structure were sought on farmer involvement in planning extension 
programmes.
District officer of Department of Agricultural Extension Services. The district officer stated 
that farmers were involved in planning through need assessment organised at various 
operational areas.
District officer of Crop Services Department. The district officer stated that farmers were 
never involved in planning. With assistance from extension agents o f the Department of 
Agricultural Extension Services farmers were selected for crop trials.
District officer of Veterinary Services Department. The district officer stated that farmers 
were not involved in planning but planning was done taking their needs into consideration.
Farmer Involvement In Planning In The Decentralized structure
Agricultural extension agents. In the Table 5.11 all the agricultural extension agents agreed 
that farmers were involved in fixing meeting days and times. Approximately 32 % o f 
agricultural extension agents were of the view that farmers were involved in needs / problem 
assessment. Only 21 i  of agricultural- extension agents stated that farmers’ involvement in 
planning was through attendance of MOFA planning sessions.
Municipal Director o f Agriculture. According to the Municipal Director o f Agriculture as 
presented in Table 5.11 farmers attend MOFA planning sessions and are also involved in 
needs and problem assessment.
Farmers. All the farmers in Table 5.11 stated that they are involved in fixing meeting days 
and times while 33% stated that they are involved in needs and problems assessment. Only 
5% stated that they have ever attended a MOFA planning session.
78
In Table 5.11 the nature of farmer involvement in planning has not changed in the two 
structures. Farmers are shown to be involved in planning through attending MOFA planning 
sessions, needs/ problem assessment and fixing meeting days and times with agricultural 
extension agents.
Effects of planning on extension delivery
In Table 5.12 the views of extension agents and the Municipal Director of Agriculture on the 
effect of planning on extension delivery are presented.
Table 5.12: Effects of planning with regards to work of the Municipal Agricultural 
____________________________ Development Unit___________________________
Description of planning AEAs MDA
No. % No. %
Planning  in the decentralised structure is better for 
my work than before. 2 10.5 . .
Planning for my work was better before the 
decentralization. 5 26.3
Planning  in the decentralised structure has not made 
any difference in my work. 12 63.2
Planning in the decentralised structure has not 
changed performance in extension delivery 1 100
Total 19 100 1 100
Source: field data
Majority (63.2%) of the agricultural extension agents are of the view that planning in the 
decentralized structure have no affect on the way they were working before the 
decentralization. However about 26 % of the agricultural extension agents indicated that they 
were better off with planning in the old structure than the decentralised structure while 10.5 % 
are of the opposite view. The Municipal director of agriculture stated that in his view planning 
in the decentralized structure has not changed work performance of district agricultural 
development unit.
79
Supervision in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture
Findings on supervision are presented on both the old and decentralised structures o f Ministry 
of Food and Agriculture.
The old structure
The findings indicated that all the agricultural extension agents had supervision in the old 
administrative structure. All the agricultural extension agents said their district officers 
supervised them while 68.4 % of them said their regional officers also supervised them. Fifty- 
eight percent of the agricultural extension agents stated that supervision was through field 
visits and office meetings while 42.1 % were of the view that it was only through field visits. 
On the frequency of field supervision, 42.1 % of the agricultural extension agents stated that 
they were visited once a week by their supervisors while 47.4 % stated once in two weeks and 
10.5 percent stated daily. The Table 5.13 below indicates the responses from the agricultural 
extension agents on the assistance received from their supervisors, which facilitated the 
performance of their duties. In Table 5.13, all agricultural extension agents in the study are o f 
the opinion that their supervisors made field visits and gave them instructions on their job  to 
assist them in doing their duties as well as providing encouragement to both farmers and 
extension agents.
A further revelation from Table 5.13, suggest that approximately 58 % indicated that 
supervisors provided them with materials and equipment for demonstrations, while 74 % said 
their supervisors ensured that their transport and traveling allowances were paid regularly.
80
Table 5.13: Activities of a supervisor as indicated AEAs that facilitated their work in the
old and decentralised structures ___________________
Old structure Decentralised
Structure
Frequency % Frequency %
Make visits to encourage farmers and 
agricultural extension agents. 19 100 _ _
Evaluate agricultural extension agents’ 
performance 10 52.6 _ _
Give instructions to assist agricultural 
extension agents in their jobs 19 100 15 78.9
Paid regular transport and travelling 
allowances to agricultural extension 
agents. 14 73.7 6 31.6
Arrange loans for farmers - - 4 21.1
Provided materials and equipment for 
demonstrations. 11 57.9 .
Assist in putting up work plan - - 10 52.6
Ensures subordinates are working - - 9 47.4
Ensured agricultural extension agents 
attended T&V monthly training sessions. 8 42.1 ..
Multiple responses 
N = 19
Source: field data.
District officers. Key informants who were district officers in the old structure in the study 
area were contacted for more relevant information on supervision because the position o f 
Municipal Director of Agriculture did not exist in the old structure. The district officers were 
from the departments of crop services, policy planning monitoring and evaluation, veterinary 
services and agricultural extension services. Their views on supervision in the various 
departments are presented below.
Department of agricultural extension services. The district officer stated that supervisory 
visits were carried out twice in a week to observe what agricultural extension agents were 
doing at their operational areas as well as interact with farmers for their opinions on the work 
of the agricultural extension agent. The district officer further stated that office meetings were
81
organized once in a month to discuss field situational reports, receive monthly reports from 
agricultural extension agents, give instructions and pass on new policy directives available 
and other matters concerning staff welfare.
Polir.v P lanning  Monitoring and Evaluation Department. The district officer stated that he 
carried out field visits daily to cross check data collection and ensure that the right data was 
collected. Office meetings were also organized with staff to plan programmes and share work. 
He further stated that the regional officer made five routine visits to the district in a year to 
supervise the district’s work. The purpose of the visits was for verification of data collected 
and work done. Thus the visits were scheduled to occur at the various stages o f the data 
collection process.
Veterinary Services Department. The district officer stated that as a supervisor he went on 
field visits once a week per sub-district for the purpose o f disease surveillance and to observe 
the performance o f staff. As a subordinate to the regional veterinary officer he sent reports to 
the region to keep it informed of the district’s activities.
Crop Services Department. The district officer stated that he carried out supervisory visits at 
the district level twice in a week to assist frontline staff in laying trials and also to collect data 
on the trials. The nursery was also visited once a week to ensure the production o f healthy 
seedlings. In addition the district was visited by the regional officer to offer assistance in the 
laying of trials and also data collection on the trials. The regional officer’s visits were made to 
coincide with the beginning of trials, the mid-period of trials and the harvesting period o f 
trials. Furthermore the district officer stated that agro-forestry existed as a separate unit at the
82
regional and national levels. The regional agro-forestry officer paid visits to the district to 
distribute inputs and lunch campaigns and visit demonstration sites.
Decentralised structure
Approximately 79 % of agricultural extension agents stated that they had a supervisor while 
21 % said they did not have a supervisor. Out of those who said they had a supervisor 60 % 
indicated the development officer as their supervisor while 40 % stated the Municipal 
Director of Agriculture. They listed various activities that their supervisors performed that 
helped them in their work. These are presented in Table 5.13. According to the agricultural 
extension agents their supervisor performed different activities in support o f their work. 
Approximately 21 % said the support came in the form o f arranging loans for farmers, while 
nearly 53% said they are- assisted in developing their work plans. Approximately 79% of the 
extension agents said that their supervisor gives them instructions about their work. 
Approximately 32% and 47% of the agricultural extension agents respectively stated that their 
supervisor provide resources for work and makes sure they are working.
Municipal Director of Agriculture. The views o f the Municipal Director o f Agriculture on 
supervision are that he played the roles o f supervisor and subordinate. As supervisor he 
supervised the work of development officers and sometimes agricultural extension agents. As 
a subordinate, the Regional Director of Agriculture, the Municipal Chief Executive and the 
Municipal Co-ordination Director supervised him. On what he did as a supervisor the 
Municipal Director of Agriculture listed providing resources, supervising work and giving 
instructions on policy directives to his staff. As a subordinate the district director of 
agriculture had to report on the activities of the municipality to his superiors and under any
other activities assign by them.
83
Municipal assembly. Respondents from the municipal assembly stated that the main form of 
supervision was to require reports from the Municipal Director o f Agriculture, which were 
submitted on a quarterly basis and on demand.
Farmers. Analysis of the farmers’ data on supervision revealed that 27.5 % were aware o f 
their agricultural extension agent’s supervisor while 72.5% said they were not aware o f a 
supervisor for their extension agent. As to what the supervisor did during visits, 15 % said he 
found out whether the extension agent was working, 12.5% said he organised meetings with 
farmers and another 15% said he arranged loans for them. These views are presented in Table
5.14. The responses from the farmers are consistent with the findings on supervision as stated 
by agricultural extension agents under the decentralised structure.
Table 5.14: The views of farmers on supervision in the decentralised structure
Views of farmers Frequency Percentage
Aware of extension agent’s supervisor 11 27.5
Not aware of extension agent’s supervisor 29 72.5
Supervisor ensures extension agent is working 6 15 .
Supervisor organises meetings with farmers 5 12.5
Supervisor arrange loans for farmers 15 15
Multiple responses.
Source: field data
Effect of supervision on extension delivery
In stating the effect of supervision on their work, 57.9 % of agricultural extension agents were 
of the view that supervision before decentralization was better than in the decentralized 
structure. The remaining 42.1 % thought otherwise. The response from the Municipal Director 
of Agriculture was consistent with the response from majority o f the agricultural extension 
agents that demands from the municipal assembly and the Regional Director o f Agriculture 
limited his ability to be very effective as a supervisor.
84
Management control in Ministry of Food and Agriculture
The findings on management control are discussed under three main sub-sections. These are 
the establishment of performance standards, monitoring results and comparing to standards 
and correcting deviations. This categorization is according to the three requirement o f the 
control function. The findings were based on analysis of responses from agricultural extension 
agents, the Municipal Director of Agriculture and respondents from the municipal assembly. 
Questions on management control were not applicable to farmers.
Establishing performance standards
Table 5.15 is presents the views of agricultural extension agents on their sources o f indicators 
in the old and the decentralised structures. Looking at the two structures together in Table
5.15, one can see that approximately 32% of agricultural extension agents did not have 
indicators in the decentralised structure while 11% did not have indicators in the old structure. 
In addition, approximately 47 % of agricultural extension agents used their own indicators in 
the old structure while 68 % use their own indicators in decentralised structure. According to 
42 % of the agricultural extension agents, their performance indicators were determined from 
Head office while under the decentralised structure agricultural extension agents either had no 
performance indicators or the used their own indicators.
Old Structure
Agricultural extension agents. Approximately 90% of the agricultural extension agents had 
indicators for measuring performance while 10.5 % had no established performance 
indicators. Out of those who had performance indicators as shown in Table 5.15 
approximately 47 % developed their indicators based on farmers’ ability to adopt an 
innovation while 42 % said their indicators are determined from head office.
85
Table 5.15: Sources of indicators for measuring performance as stated by Agricultural 
______________________________ Extension Agents________ ___________________
Sources of indicators
Old structure Decentralised
structure
No. % No. %
I use my own indicators based on 
farmers’ ability to adopt 9 47.4 13 68.4
My indicators are determined from my 
head office 8 42.1
I have no indicators 2 10.5 6 31.6
Total 19 100 19 100
Source: field data
District officers. Key informants who were district officers in the old structure gave their 
views on management control because the position of Municipal Director o f Agriculture did 
not exist in the old structure. Among the district officers interviewed those o f Crop Services 
Department and Veterinary Services Department stated that they were not aware o f 
performance indicators. The district officer of the Department o f Agricultural Extension 
Services stated that performance indicators were targets from the head office o f the 
Department of Agricultural Extension Services. The district officer for Policy Planning 
Monitoring and Evaluation Department gave a similar view that performance indicators were 
from the departments’ head office.
Decentralised Structure.
Approximately 68 i  of the agricultural extension agents stated that they had indicators for 
determining the achievements of their objectives while 32 % said they did not have any 
indicators. Those who stated they had indicators were all of the view that they used their own 
indicators based on their farmers’ ability to adopt technologies.
86
Municipal Director of Agriculture. The Municipal Director o f Agriculture stated that he had 
indicators for measuring the achievements of objectives o f the District Agricultural 
Development Unit. These were derived from national targets o f the Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture
Municipal assembly. The Municipal Chief Executive stated that in the old structure there was 
no formal relationship with Ministry of Food and Agriculture but in the decentralised 
structure performance of the Department of Agriculture was measured based on the planned 
agricultural programme submitted to his office.
Monitoring of performance and comparing to standards.
Old Structure.
All the agricultural extension agents indicated that monitoring was done on departmental 
basis and it was by district and regional officers. They also stated that monitoring was by 
direct observation from monitors and also through reports that they submitted. A further 
analysis of the data revealed that the regional WIAD officer and Subject Matter Specialist 
(SMS) monitored the activities of agricultural extension agents from the Departments o f 
Agricultural Extension Services and Women in Agricultural Department.
District officers. Two district officers one of Crop Services Department and another 
Veterinary Services Department stated that district activities were monitored to ensure that 
work was going on but not to collect data and analyse to determine performance. They added 
that the policy planning monitoring and evaluation department did monitoring with regards to 
performance.
87
The response from the district officer for Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation 
Department was consistent with the two other district officers that monitoring of the 
ministry’s performance was by Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department. He 
further added that raw data on market prices, production trends, yields data, farm sizes and 
population demographic features of the rural population was collect at the district level and 
sent to the regional office. When asked whether any feedback was given to the district from 
the raw data sent, the response was no. In a similar interview with staff o f  the Monitoring and 
Evaluation Unit of the Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department at the head 
office they confirmed the functions of the district office and stated that o f  the regional office 
as follows:
• Monitor field activities of the districts
• Collate data from the districts
• Verification o f all staff at post in the ministry and
• Budget monitoring to ensure that money is used for its intended purpose in the ministry.
A report on what has been accomplished is written and sent to the national office. There was 
no feedback to the districts. At the national office all reports from the regions are collated to 
give a national picture of the agricultural sector. A report is written but no copy is sent to the 
regions and districts.
The district officer of the Department of Agricultural Extension Services stated that the 
department had a monitoring unit at the head office, which did monitoring of all extension 
activities. No feedback was given after monitoring.
Decentralised Structure
All the agricultural extension agents were of the view that their activities were monitored. 
They indicated their monitors as development officers (42.1%) and Municipal Director of 
Agriculture (57.9%). They stated their involvement in monitoring as collecting data and 
writing reports on their activities.
Municipal Director o f Agriculture. The Municipal Director o f Agriculture stated that 
monitoring o f the activities of Municipal Agricultural Development Unit was by the Regional 
Director of Agriculture, the Municipal Chief Executive and the Policy Planning Monitoring 
and Evaluation Department (PPMED). The Municipal Director o f Agriculture monitored 
individual field staff and indicated his involvement in monitoring to include direct 
observation and verification of reports and data submitted by agricultural extension agents. In 
a similar vein reports were submitted to the Regional Director o f Agriculture and the 
Municipal Chief Executive for monitoring and for their records. The monitoring by PPMED 
involved collecting data on targets, achievements, planned expenditure, actual expenditure 
and number of beneficiaries to determine performance.
Municipal assembly. The Municipal Chief Executive stated that he requests for situational and 
progress reports from the Municipal Director of Agriculture to make sure that planned 
programmes were implemented. Members of the development sub-committee interviewed 
stated that assembly members make sure that agricultural activities planned for their areas are 
implemented.
89
Correcting deviations
Old Structure.
Agricultural Extension Agents. Approximately 58 % of the agricultural extension agents said 
they received feedback while 42% said they did not receive feedback after monitoring.
District officers. All the district officers interviewed on monitoring in the old structure 
indicated that no feedback was given after monitoring.
Decentralised Structure.
Agricultural Extension Agents. Approximately 74 % of agricultural extension agents were of 
the view that no feedback was given after monitoring their activities while 26 % said they 
received feedback in the decentralised structure.
Municipal Director of Agriculture. The Municipal Director o f Agriculture stated that no 
feedback was given after monitoring the district’s activities. Feedback provides the basis for 
correcting deviations. Without feedback the deviations from standards may not be known and 
therefore it would be impossible to correct them.
Effects O f Management Control On Extension Delivery.
Both the agricultural extension agents and the district director o f agriculture stated that 
management control in the decentralized structure did not make any difference in their work 
compared to what existed before decentralisation.
Summary of findings on the chain of command
The summary of findings on the chain of command is to help bring out clearly from the 
findings on planning, supervision and management control what the chain o f command was in
90
the old and decentralized structures.
Findings on planning in the old structure indicated that the sources of goals and objectives for 
approximately 74% of the extension agents were based on national or head office targets and 
objectives. In the decentralised structure 63% of the extension agents indicated that their 
sources of goals and objectives was the district plan of work while the Municipal Director of 
Agriculture maintained that goals and objectives of the Municipal Agricultural Development 
Unit was derived from national goals and objectives. This suggests that the Municipal 
Agricultural Development Unit have been relieved of national level planning. With this 
difference in the planning process 63% of the extension agents stated that their performance 
was not affected while approximately 26% thought that planning in the old structure had a 
better effect on performance compared to decentralised structure. Only approximately 11% 
thought that planning in the decentralised structure had a better effect on performance 
compared to the old regime.
Supervision in the old regime as indicated by all the extension agents was that district officers 
supervised them but in addition regional officers also supervised them. In the decentralised 
structure 21% of the extension agents did not have a supervisor. Those who had supervisors 
indicated development officers and the Municipal Director of Agriculture. Supervision in the 
decentralised structure was through field visits and office meetings the same as in the old 
structure. Frequency of supervision varied with the supervisor the decentralised structure. 
Development officers made weekly field visits while that o f  the Municipal Director o f 
Agriculture was once in a while. In the old structure supervision was at least once in two 
weeks as indicated by approximately 90% of the extension agents. Extension agents indicated 
varying activities that the supervisors performed to assist them in their duties in the old
91
structure. All the extension agents agreed that supervisors make visits to encourage farmers 
and also give instructions to assist extension agents in their duties. Approximately 74% said 
their supervisors paid regularly their transport and travelling allowance. Approximately 53% 
and 58% of the extension agents respectively stated that supervisors evaluate their 
performance and provide materials and equipment for demonstrations. In the decentralised 
structure approximately 79% of the extension agents stated that their supervisors give them 
instructions. Nearly 52% stated that they are assisted in putting up a work plan. 
Approximately 47% of the extension agents stated that supervisors ensure that they are 
working while nearly 32% stated that they provide resources for their work.
Supervisors in the old structure did more to assist agricultural extension agents in the 
performance o f their duties than in the decentralised structure. In addition supervisors in the 
old structure include regional officers while in the decentralised structure supervision o f 
agricultural extension agents is only limited to development officers and the Municipal 
Director of Agriculture at the Municipal Agricultural Development Unit. Thus approximately 
58% of extension agents thought that the changes in supervision have affected their 
performance negatively.
In the old structure approximately 47% of the extension agents used their own indicators 
while 68% did so in the decentralised structure. Approximately 11% had no indicators in the 
old structure while 32% did not have indicators in the decentralised. Forty-two percent o f the 
extension agents had indicators determined from head office in the old structure. Monitoring 
of agricultural extension agents’ activities in the old structure was by regional and district 
officers for all the departments but in addition subject matter specialist and the regional
92
WIAD officer monitored the activities of extension agents o f the Department of Agricultural 
Extension Services. All the district officers interviewed stated that monitoring was through 
direct observation and reports from extension agents. Policy Planning Monitoring and 
Evaluation Directorate did collection of data to analyse and determine performance. The 
Department of Agricultural Extension Services also did monitoring o f performance. In the 
decentralised structure monitoring was also based on direct observation and verification o f 
reports and data collected by the extension agents. Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation 
Directorate analyzed the data to determine performance. While all the extension agents were 
involved in data collection in the decentralised structure only extension agents o f Policy 
Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate did data collection in the old structure. In 
both the old and decentralised structures, the views of majority o f the respondents are that no 
feedback was given after monitoring.
5.2.3 Co-ordination of effort
The findings on co-ordination of effort are based on the analysis of data on meetings between 
superiors and subordinates working in the same office. Meetings provide a forum for 
communication, which allows people in a group to flow together for a common purpose. The 
purposes of these meetings are presented in Table 5.16.
The old structure.
Agricultural extension agents. All the agricultural extension agents stated that their district 
officers organized office meetings. Apart from 26.3% o f agricultural extension agents o f the 
Department of Agricultural Extension Services who stated that office meetings were 
organized fortnightly, all the other agricultural extension agents (73.7%) o f the various
93
departments stated they had monthly office meetings. In table 5.16 that shows the purpose of 
office meetings, no extension agent under the old structure indicated that the purpose of office 
meetings was for giving specific information to extension agents for farmers. Approximately 
42 % stated that the purpose o f office meetings was for discussing request from head office 
while 68% stated that office meetings were for finding solutions to personal problems.
Table 5.16: The purpose of office meetings in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture as 
_______________________________stated by AEAs__________________ ___________
Purpose of 
meeting
Departments in old structure Decentrali
sed
structure
DAES WIAD APD VSD CSD PPME
D
Row
total
No. % No. %
To find 
solutions to 
personal 
problems
3 3 1 4 1 1 13 68.4
14 73.7
To submit field 
report to 
district officer 4 1 1 5 11 57.9 4 21.1
To receive
instructions
and
information 
.from superior
2 1 1 5 1 1 11 57.9 9 47.4
For training 
staff 5 3 2 10 52.6 7 36.8
To discuss 
request from 
the regional 
office
1 1 - 2 1 1 6 31.6 6 31.6
To discuss 
request from 
the national 
office
3 1 - 2 1 1 8 42.1 -
To give 
specific 
information to 
AEAs for 
farmers.
- - - - - - - 3 15.8
Multiple responses
Source: field data
94
District officers. District officers of Crop services Department, Veterinary Services 
Department, Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation and Department of Agricultural 
Extension Services in the old structure gave their views on office meetings as key informants. 
The district officer o f Crop services Department stated that the purpose o f meetings were to 
give information to staff and to find solutions to personal problems o f staff. The district 
officer for Veterinary Services Department stated that office meetings were for discussing 
work-related problems o f staff and for giving instructions to field staff and finding solutions 
to personal problems. The district officer for Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation 
stated that the purpose of office meetings was to share work and find solutions to personal 
problems and to receive directives and training from regional and national office. The district 
officer for the Department o f Agricultural Extension Services stated that office meetings were 
for discussing field reports and request from national and regional offices and for district 
officer to instruct field staff on their work and for training.
Decentralised structure. All the agricultural extension agents stated they attended office 
meetings and these were organised by the Municipal Director of Agriculture. In addition they 
stated that all staff o f the department attended office meetings. On the frequency o f office 
meetings, 31.6 % o f agricultural extension agents stated monthly while 68.4 % stated once in 
a while. In Table 5.16 approximately 16 % of agricultural extension agents stated that the 
purpose of office meetings was for the Municipal Director of Agriculture to give specific 
information to extension agents for farmers. None of the extension agents stated that the 
purpose of office meetings was for discussing national request. Approximately 74% o f the 
extension agents stated that the purpose of office meetings was for finding solutions to 
personal problems while 47.4% it was for receiving instructions from their superior.
95
In Table 5.16 certain similarities and differences can be observed between the old and 
decentralised structures. In the old structure the views of extension agents indicate that office 
meeting were never for giving specific information for farmers while in the decentralised 
structure approximately 16 % stated that specific information were given to extension agents 
for farmers. In the decentralised structure none of the agricultural extension agents stated that
the purpose of office meetings was to discuss request from national office while in the old
structure approximately 42 % stated it. Approximately 68% of agricultural extension agents in 
the old structure and 74 % in the decentralised structure were o f the view that office meetings 
were for the purpose o f finding solutions to personal problems. In addition nearly 58% of 
extension agents in the old structure and 47.4% in the decentralised structure thought that 
office meetings were for superiors to give instructions and information to subordinates. This 
suggests guidance from their superiors for subordinates to work well. Furthermore 
approximately 53% of agricultural extension agents in the old structure and nearly 37 % in the 
decentralised structure said meetings were for training.
Municipal Director o f Agriculture.
The Municipal Director stated he organized office meetings for staff scheduled on a monthly 
basis but sometimes when his schedule is too busy he is not able to keep to his meeting plan. 
The Municipal Director listed the purpose of office meetings as follows:
• To pass on new policy issues to staff
• To discuss financial management directives
• To review field reports with staff.
• To update staff with information and request from the Regional Agricultural Development 
Unit.
96
Apart from organizing office meetings, the Municipal Director o f Agriculture is involved in 
other meetings for the purpose of agricultural development in the municipality. Other types of 
meetings that the Municipal Director of Agriculture attends are listed in Table 5.17. The 
Municipal Director of Agriculture attends meetings such as the technical review with the 
municipal assembly and quest lecturers, assembly meetings with members of the municipal 
assembly, the presiding member, the Municipal Chief Executive, heads o f departments in the 
municipality and Municipal Co-ordinating Director.
TABLE 5.17: LIST OF MEETINGS ATTENDED BY THE MUNICIPAL DIRECTOR 
FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Meeting type Purpose of meeting Participating bodies.
Technical review meeting For discussing scientific 
and technical issues
Tema municipal 
assembly, MOFA and 
guest lecturers.
Assembly meeting General assembly meeting Assembly members, 
heads o f departments, 
municipal chief 
executive, municipal co­
ordinating director and 
presiding member of the 
assembly.
Development sub-committee 
meeting of the assembly
Discuss development 
issues in the municipality
Sub-committee members 
and selected heads of 
departments.
Farmers association meeting To discuss technical 
issues in farming
Farmers and other 
stakeholders
Stakeholders meeting. To discuss problems 
facing agricultural 
development in the 
municipality.
Tema municipal 
assembly, MOFA, Tema 
development corporation 
and service providers.
Source: field data.
In addition he attends development sub-committee meeting with members and farmers 
association meeting with farmers and stakeholders. Furthermore he attends stakeholders’ 
meeting with Tema Municipal Assembly, Tema Development Corporation and agricultural 
services providers. The information suggests that the position of Municipal Director o f
97
Agriculture in the decentralized structure involved several role relationships with other bodies 
interested in the development of agriculture in the municipality.
Differences in co-ordination of effort
In the views of the agricultural extension agents the difference in co-ordination of effort as a 
result of decentralization is that there is more interaction with staff who were formally outside 
ones own department in the old structure. In the view of the Municipal Director of Agriculture 
the decentralized structure has opened more avenues for co-ordination to ensure the 
successful development of agriculture in the municipality.
5.2.4 Extension delivery in the MOFA
Extension delivery covers technology generation and sourcing, training and contacting 
farmers with technologies as they occurred in the old and decentralised structure. Findings on 
extension delivery are presented under three main sub-headings. These are technology 
generation and sourcing, making technology accessible to extension agents and dissemination 
of knowledge to farmers. The presentations cover both the old and decentralised structures of 
the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Generation Of Technologies
The findings on generation of technologies revealed that approximately 58 % o f the 
agricultural extension agents were involved in technology generation with research in the old 
structure while 21% of the agricultural extension agents stated they were involved in 
technology generation with research in the decentralised structure. The agricultural extension 
agents who indicated they were involved in technology generation in the old structure are
98
from the Department o f Agricultural Extension Services, Crop Services Department and 
Women in Agricultural Development. Agricultural extension agents from Veterinary Services 
Department and Animals Production Department don’t know whether they are involved in 
technology generation or not. While those of PPMED stated that they were not involved in 
technology generation. These views are presented in Table 5.18.
Table 5.18: Views of Agricultural Extension Agents on their involvement in technology
generation
Issues Departments in the old structure Decentrali
sed
structure
DAES CSD WIAD APD VSD PPM
ED
Row
Total
No. No. No. No. No. No. % No. %
Involved in 
technology 
generation 5 3 3 57.9 4 21.1
Not Involved in
technology
generation 2 10.5 15 78.9
Don’t know - 1 5 31.6 -
Source: field data
Those agricultural extension agents who indicated they were involved in technology 
generation listed a number of activities that they performed in the technology generation 
process. These are presented in Table 5.19.
Table 5.19: Activities performed by Agricultural Extension Agents involved in
technology generation.
Activities Old structure Decentralised structure
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Identify farmers’ problems 7 63.6 3 75
Get ready materials for 
demonstration 4 36.4
Demarcate plots for trials 5 45.5 - -
Organise field days - - 4 100
Make suggestions to research 5 45.5 -
Establish demonstration plots 11 100 2 50
Multiple responses
Source field data
99
Old Structure.
Agricultural extension agents. In Table 5.19 all the agricultural extension agents who 
indicated they were involved in technology stated that they were involved in establishing 
demonstration plots. Approximately 64 % o f them stated they were involved in identifying 
farmers’ problems. Other aspects of the technology generation activities were indicated by 
nearly 46 % of agricultural extension agents in each case. These are demarcating plots for 
trials and making suggestions to research.
District officers. In all four-district officers from Crop Services Department, Department o f 
Agricultural Extension Services, Veterinary Services Department and Policy Planning 
Monitoring and Evaluation Department were interviewed. The district officers for Veterinary 
Services Department and Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department stated that 
they were not involved in technology generation, which is consistent with the response from 
agricultural extension agents of these departments (Table 5.18).
The district officer for Crop Services Department stated that the department was involved in 
technology generation by conducting adaptive trials. A further statement from the district 
officer indicated that the adaptive trial packages where from research and sent to the district 
through the Crop Services Department at head office. On procedure the district officer 
indicated how the adaptive trial packages were selected. The district officer stated that the 
selection of trial packages where based on farmers’ problems in the municipality. These 
problems were either observed or from the Department of Agricultural Extension Services 
through the Research Extension Liaison committee to research. Research works on the
100
problems and the solutions are tried for suitability and acceptance before the technology is 
approved for transfer to farmers.
The district officer for the Department of Agricultural Extension Services stated that the 
department was involved in technology generation through various activities. These are 
identification of farmers’ problems, conducting field trials and making suggestions to 
research. The district officer stated that the procedure for generating technologies was 
identifying farmers’ problems and through a Research Extension Liaison Committee planning 
session at a zonal level, the problems were prioritised. Research then works on the priority 
problems and when solutions are found Subject Matter Specialist from Ministry o f  Food and 
Agriculture are trained in the new technologies.
Decentralised Structure.
Agricultural Extension Agents. Approximately 79 % o f the agricultural extension agents were 
of the view that they were not involved in technology generation while 21 % stated that they 
were involved in technology generation. The 21% who stated they were involved in 
technology gave their involvement as identifying farmers problems, organizing field days and 
establishing demonstration plots. In table 5.19, all 21% of the extension agents organise field 
days, 75% out of the 21% stated identifying farmers problems while 50% out of the 21% said 
the establish demonstration plots.
Municipal Director o f Agriculture. The Municipal Director o f Agriculture stated that the 
Municipal Agricultural Development Unit was involved in technology generation and those 
involved were the agricultural extension agents and the district development officers. He
101
however could not tell what their involvement was. On procedure for generating technologies 
the Municipal Director of Agriculture stated that it was based on self-initiative through 
contacts with research.
Farmers. Farmers’ involvement in technology generation in the decentralised structure 
revealed that 95 % o f farmers discuss their problems with agricultural extension agents before 
solutions are offered. Another 37.5% stated that they were sometimes involved in testing new 
technologies while 62.5% indicated that they were never involved in testing new 
technologies.
Sourcing Of Technologies For Delivery
External Sources O f Technologies In The Old Structure.
Agricultural Extension Agents. Approximately 10 % o f agricultural extension agents said they 
source for new technologies outside the Ministry of Food and Agriculture for delivery in the 
old structure while 89.5 % said no. The agricultural extension agents’ external sources o f 
technologies for delivery are presented in Table 5.20. The external sources o f technologies 
that extension agents indicated in Table 5.20 under the old structure are books.
TABLE 5.20: AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENTS’ SOURCES OF 
TECHNOLOGIES OUTSIDE THE MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Outside sources of 
technologies
Old structure Decentralised structure
Frequency Percentage Frequency percentage
Books 2 10.5 3 15.8
Crops research institute 0 0 2 10.5
Universities 0 0 2 10.5
Friends 0 0 1 5.3
NGOs training 0 0 1 5.3
Farmers 0 0 2 10.5
Multiple responses
Source: field data.
102
External Sources Of Technologies in the Decentralised structure.
Agricultural Extension Agents. Forty-two percent of agricultural extension agents stated that 
in the decentralised structure they source for technologies outside Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture for delivery while 58 % were of the view that they did not. Those who source for 
technologies outside Ministry of Food and Agriculture indicated their sources as presented in 
Table 5.20. Under the decentralised structure the sources include books, Crops Research 
Institute, universities, friends and farmers.
Municipal Director of Agriculture. The Municipal Director of Agriculture stated that in the 
decentralised structure the Municipal Agricultural Development Unit source for technologies 
outside the ministry and the Animal Research Institute was the place for sourcing the 
technologies for animal’s extension.
Reasons for not sourcing technologies outside Ministry o f Food and Agriculture.
Agricultural extension agents who did not source for technologies outside the Ministry of 
Food and Agriculture stated their reasons as indicated in Table 5.21.
Table 5.21: Agricultural Extension Agents’ reasons for not sourcing technologies outside 
______________________ the Ministry of Food and Agriculture___________________
Reasons Decentralised
structure
Old
structure
No. % No. %
Don’t  know outside sources 3 27.2 -
Funds are not available for sourcing 
technologies 4 36.4
Technologies within the ministry satisfy 
my field needs 4 36.4 10 59
Monthly training provided the needed 
technologies. 7 41
Total 11 100 17 100
Source: field data.
103
Old structure. Forty-one percent of respondents in the table 5.21 under the old structure stated 
the reason that monthly training provided the needed technologies for their work while 59 % 
thought that the technologies provided by the Ministry of Food and Agriculture satisfied their 
field needs.
District officers. In the old structure, district officers o f the Department of Agricultural 
Extension Services, Crop Serviced Department, and Veterinary Services Department 
interviewed stated that their departments did not source for technologies outside the 
organisation. They all gave a similar response that indicates that training was used to provide 
the needed technologies of field staff.
Decentralised structure. In table 5.21, 36.4 % o f agricultural extension agents who do not 
source for technologies outside Ministry of Food and Agriculture in the decentralised 
structure gave a reason that technologies within the Ministry o f food and Agriculture satisfy 
their field needs. The reasons given by the others were that 27.2% did not know outside 
sources while 36.4% said funds were not available for sourcing for technologies outside the 
Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Internal sources of technologies for delivery.
In addition to the external sources of technologies stated by respondents, they also mentioned 
that the Ministry of Food Agriculture provided its agricultural extension agents with 
technologies through training while some of the extension agents used the previous 
knowledge they acquired in addition. Approximately 26% of the agricultural extension agents 
used previous knowledge in the old structure while 47 i  used previous knowledge in the 
decentralised structure.
104
Training. In Table 5.22 is presented the types o f training used by MOFA to provide 
agricultural extension agents with new technologies. The views o f the agricultural extension 
agents on internal sources of technologies in the old structure suggest that nearly 58% of them 
were provided with technologies through in-service while 42% were provided with 
technologies through T&V training. On the other hand all the extension agents in the 
decentralised were provided with T&V training.
Table 5.22: Types of training used by MOFA to provide Agricultural Extension Agents
with new technologies
Types of 
training
Departments of MOFA  in the old structure Decentralised
structure
DAES WIAD CSD APD PPME
D
VSD Row
total
Row
%
No. %
T&V
training
5 3 - 8 42.1 19 100
In-service
training
- 3 1 2 5 11 57.9 0 0
Multiple responses 
Source: field data
In Table 5.23 is presented the frequency of the training used by Ministry o f Food Agriculture 
to provide agricultural extension agents with new technologies. Approximately 58% o f the 
extension agents indicated that they had their training once in a year while 42% had their 
training on a monthly basis in the old structure. In the decentralised structure approximately 
21% of the extension agents stated that their training was orgainsed monthly while 78.9 % 
stated it was organised once in a while.
Table 5.23: Frequency of training for providing AEAs with new technologies
Type of training Frequency of training in %
Old structure Decentralised structure
Monthly Yearly Monthly Once in a while
Yearly in-service training 0 57.9 0 0
T&V training 42.1 0 21.1 78.9
Source: field data
When asked to state how training topics were selected, only 10.5% o f the extension agents 
could state a procedure in the old structure. The remaining 89.5% could not state how training
105
topics were selected. The procedure adopted in selecting training topics as described by the 
two extension agents were as follows:
“Trainers consider the kind of activities carried out by farmers 
at a particular period in selecting their training topics”(Field 
data).
“The topics are selected during review meetings where frontline 
staff, researchers, subject matter specialist and farmers 
participate"(Field data)
None of the extension agents could state a procedure for selecting training topics in the 
decentalised structure.
In Table 5.24 all the agricultural extension agents stated that the training provided was useful 
to them in the old structure. In the decentralised structure approximately 58 % o f the 
extension agents thought that the training was less useful because it was all theory without 
practical training. The views of the agricultural extension agents on the usefulness o f the 
training are presented in Table 5.24.
Table 5.24: Usefulness of training to AEAs
Usefulness of training Old structure Decentralised
structure
No. % No. %
It sharpens my skills and improves my 
performance. 6 31.6 8 42.1
Theory without practical makes the training less 
useful 11 57.9
Improve my skills and provide new 
technologies and solutions to farmers’ 
problems. 1 68.4 _
Total 19 100 19 100
Source: field data.
Training in the Old structure. In the old structure Ministry of Food and Agriculture provided 
two types of training to equip agricultural extension agents with technologies for delivery. 
Agricultural extension agents in the departments of Agricultural Extension Services and
106
Women in Agricultural Development had T&V training while the other departments provided 
in-service training (Table 5.22). The T&V training was organised monthly while the in- 
service training was once in a year. All the agricultural extension agents indicated that the 
training provided was useful to them. Approximately 32 % o f the agricultural extension 
agents stated that the training sharpens their skills and improves their performance while 68.4 
% stated that it improves their skills and provide new technologies and solutions to farmers’ 
problems.
District officers. Some district officers in the old structure whose departments were involved 
in extension delivery gave their views on training provided by the Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture.
District officer o f Department of Agricultural Extension Services. The district officer stated 
that the main source of technologies for delivery was through monthly training o f frontline 
staff by Subject Matter Specialists from the various technical departments o f  Ministry o f Food 
and Agriculture.
An example of the type of training given was obtained from the directorate o f agricultural 
extension services as presented below.
Training topics for the year 1996
♦ Extension in animal health
♦ Veterinary drugs and administration
♦ Signs and symptoms for identifying common livestock diseases (cattle , sheep, goats and 
poultry)
♦ Breeding management (mating, culling and castration)
♦ IPM of vegetables
♦ Tilapia culture
♦ Micro-nutrient deficiency
107
♦ Safe use of agro-chemicals.
Source: 1996 planner for south-eastern zone, Department of Agricultural Extension Services.
District officer of Crop Services Department. The district officer indicated that training on a 
yearly basis was organised by the department at the national level to provide field staff with 
the needed knowledge and skills for their work.
District officer of Veterinary Services Department. The district officer stated that yearly in- 
service training were organised at the national level for field staff to equip them with new 
technologies.
Training in the decentralised structure. In the decentralised structure the Ministry o f Food and 
Agriculture used only T&V training to provide agricultural extension agents with 
technologies for delivery. According to a 79 % majority view o f the extension agents the 
training was orgainsed once in a while. The training provided was considered less useful by 
approximately 58 % o f the agricultural extension agents because it was all theory without 
practice. The other 42% thought it sharpened their skills and improved their performance. 
Training topics treated in 2001 according to the extension agents are listed below.
List of training topics for year 2001
♦ Diseases and pests of vegetable crops
♦ Fish preservation
♦ Field measurements for yields
♦ Fish farming
♦ Silage preparation for dry season feeding of ruminants
♦ Data collection 
Source: field data
108
Municipal Director o f Agriculture. The Municipal Director of Agriculture stated that the 
Municipal Agricultural Development Unit provided T&V training to equip agricultural 
extension agents with new technologies 
Knowledge Dissemination
The findings on knowledge dissemination are based on the analysis of data from respondents 
on methods of contacting farmers, field visits, timeliness of information delivery to farmers, 
ability of agricultural extension agents to identify farmers’ problems and provide solutions, 
problems with delivery and morale of extension workers.
Methods Of Contacting Farmers
All the agricultural extension agents stated that the method o f contacting farmers were both 
through individual and group contacts. The extension methods used by agricultural extension 
agents in extension delivery are presented in Table 5.25.
Table 5.25: Extension methods used by AEAs in extension delivery.
Extension
Methods
Departments in the old structure Row
total
%
Decentral 
ised 
structure 
No. %
DAES WIAD CSD APD PPM
ED
VSD
Farm visits 5 3 3 1 0 5 89.5 17 89.5
Result and method 
demonstration 5 3 3 1 0 5 89.5 16 84.2
Home visits 5 3 0 1 0 0 47.4 10 52.6
Group meeting 5 3 3 1 0 3 78.9 19 100
Office call 2 0 0 0 0 0 10.5 4 21.1
Field trip 0 2 0 0 0 0 10.5 - -
N= 19
Multiple responses 
Source: field data
In Table 5.25 the extension methods used in delivery by agricultural extension agents in the 
old and decentralised structures are almost the same except for field trip, which is not used, in
109
the decentralised structure. The extension methods used are farm visits, method and result 
demonstrations, home visits, group meeting and office call.
Old Structure.
In Table 5.25 all the agricultural extension agents except those from Policy Planning 
Monitoring and Evaluation Department used demonstrations in delivering extension 
messages. Approximately 90% of all extension agents used method and result demonstrations 
to deliver their messages. A similar percentage used farm visits. Group meetings were the 
third significant method of extension delivery. It was employed by 79 % o f the extension 
agents. On the other hand only 5% more agricultural extension agents used group meeting, 
home visits and office call in the decentralised structure than in the old structure.
District officers. District officers in the old structure from departments o f Ministry o f Food 
and Agriculture in Tema municipality whose departments were involved in extension delivery 
were approached for their opinions on the use of extension methods. The district officer of 
Department of Agricultural Extension Services stated that the method o f contacting farmers 
was through the contact group approach. The main extension method used was method and 
result demonstrations although some individual methods such as home and farm visits were 
also used. The District officer of Crop Services Department was of the view that frontline 
staff used both individuals and groups in their work. Extension methods used in delivery were 
method and result demonstrations. For Veterinary Services Department, the District officer 
stated the method of contacting farmers was by individual and group contact and the 
extension methods used were farm and home visits, demonstrations and office calls.
110
Decentralised Structure.
Approximately 90% of agricultural extension agents in Table 5.25 used farm visits in both 
regimes while 5% more agricultural extension agents used result and method demonstrations 
in the old structure than in the decentralised structure (84.2%).
Farmers. The analysis of farmers’ data revealed that extension agents contacted them in-group 
and individually. Approximately 53 % indicated they were contacted individually and in­
group, nearly 23 % stated group contact only while 25 i  said individual contact only. These 
findings are consistent with that of agricultural extension agents on the same issue. 
Approximately 58 % stated that extension agents met them both at farm and home, 25 % 
indicated farm while 18 % said in the home. The farmers then indicated the various ways in 
which information was passed onto them as presented in Table 5.26.
Table 5.26: Farmers’ views on the methods Agricultural Extension Agents use in
delivery
Methods used Frequency Percentage
Demonstration 17 42.5
Talking only 30 75.0
Talking with visuals 4 10.0
Multiple responses
Source: field data
In Table 5.26 approximately 43 % of the farmers are of the view that extension agents used 
demonstration to pass, on new information to them. Seventy-five percent were o f the view that 
extension agents only talk to them about the new information while 10 % indicated the 
extension agents use some visuals when talking to them about new information.
Field Visits
The findings on the interaction between agricultural extension agents and fanners have been 
grouped to facilitate comparison of the results from the study. The groupings are as follows: 
Daily to once a week -  very frequent.
I l l
Over a week to once in two weeks -  frequent.
Over two weeks to once in a month -  less frequent 
Over a month -  not frequent.
Table 5.27:Agricultural Extension Agents’ farmer interaction in the MOFA.
Frequency of 
agricultural 
extension agents 
farmer 
interaction.
Departments of MOFA in the old structure
Decentralised
Structure
No. %
DAES WIAD PPME
D
APD CSD VSD Row
Total
No. %
Once a month 1 - - - - - 1 5.3 2 10.5
Once in two 
weeks 3 1 4 21.1 8 42.1
Once a week - 1 - - 2 - 3 15.8 1 5.3
Two times in a 
week 2 3 5 26.3 4 21.1
Three times in a 
week 1 1 2 4 21.1 1 5.3
Four times in a 
week 1 1 2 10.5 3 15.8
Totals. 5 3 2 1 3 5 19 100 19 100
Source: field data
Old Structure.
According to the groupings, the responses in Table 5.27 indicate that approximately 74% o f 
agricultural extension agents had very frequent interaction with farmers. Twenty-one percent 
and 5% of agricultural extension agents had frequent and less frequent interaction with 
farmers respectively.
Decentralised Structure.
In the decentralised structure, the grouping of responses in Table 5.27 revealed that 47% o f 
the agricultural extension agents interacted very frequently with farmers which are 27% less 
than that o f the old structure. Forty-two percent had frequent interaction with farmers while
112
approximately 11% had less frequent interaction with farmers. The decentralised structure 
recorded higher percentages in frequent and less frequent field visits than in the old structure.
Farmers. Going by the response groupings the findings in table 5.28 suggest that 57.5% o f the 
farmers were of the view that their interaction with agricultural extension agents was very 
frequent. Thirty percent thought that the interaction with agricultural extension agents was 
frequent and 12.5% indicated that it was less frequent.
There is consistency when the results from farmers are compared with that o f the extension 
agents in the decentralised structure. In both cases majority indicated very frequent interaction 
likewise the other responses.
Table 5.28: Farmers view of Agricultural Extension Agents’ visits
Frequency of visits Frequency Percent
4 times a month 1 2.5
8 times a month 8 20.0
3 times a month 12 30.0
6 times a month 14 35.0
once a month 5 12.5
Total 40 100
Source: field data
Majority (70%) o f the farmers stated that they were satisfied with the frequency o f field visits 
from agricultural extension agents because their problems were well addressed. However 23 
i  o f the farmers stated that they would like more time with agricultural extension agents to 
discuss their problems while 7% of the farmers said frequency o f visits does not matter 
because they cannot adopt the few new ideas brought to them.
Timeliness of information delivery to farmers
The findings indicated that approximately 37 % of the farmers say that the messages are 
timely because the messages come when they need them. Fifty percent o f the farmers axe o f
113
the view that the messages are sometimes timely because the messages come before they are 
needed while nearly 13 % were of the view that they messages come after they had need for 
them and therefore were not timely.
In Table 5.29 a majority of approximately 62% of farmers practising inter-cropping who said 
the extension messages were useful also said they were timely. Likewise and approximately 
88% majority who said the messages were not useful also said they were not timely. A 75% 
majority o f livestock farmers who said the messages were useful also said they were timely. 
All the fish smokers thought the messages were timely and therefore useful to them. This 
suggests that messages that are delivered timely can be used by farmers and therefore are 
considered useful. It further suggests a possible difficulty in timing messages to meet the 
needs of farmers into different types of farming systems.
Table 5.29: Distribution of farmers by timing and usefulness of extension messages
Socio-economic activities 
of farmers
Usefulness of extension 
messages
Timeliness o f extension 
messages
Category
Timely Not timely
Freq. % Freq. %
Inter-cropping Useful 8 61.5 2 11.8
Not useful 5 38.5 15 88.2
Livestock/poultry rearing Useful 3 75 2 66.7
Not useful 1 25 1 33.3
Mixed farming (crops and 
animals)
Useful 0 0 0 0
Not useful 0 0 1 100
Fish smoking Useful 2 100 0 0
Not useful 0 0 0 0
Source: field data
Ability o f agricultural extension agents to identify farmers’ problems and provide solutions 
The farmers’ problems identified by extension agents and the extent to which they found 
solutions to them are presented in Table 5.30. The farmers’ problems identified are in the 
following areas:
114
PROBLEM AREAS PROBLEM IDENTIFIED
Agronomic problems Diseases in onion and poor yields
Inputs High cost of inputs, lack o f access to credit 
facilities and high interest rates on loans
Technical backstopping Difficulty in getting farmland and difficulty 
in accessing tractor services
Marketing Low prices for farm produce
Old Structure.
In Table 5.30 under the old structure approximately 32 % o f agricultural extension agents 
identified diseases in onion as a problem among their farmers, 26 i  provided solutions out o f 
which nearly 16% provided complete solutions and 10 % partial solutions. Five percent did 
not provide any solutions. The fanners of the extension agents concerned accepted the 
solutions. Approximately 42 % of extension agents identified the problem of high cost o f  
inputs among their farmers. Twenty-six percent could not provide solutions but nearly 16 % 
of the extension agents provided solutions to the problem and approximately 11 % o f the 
extension agents had their farmers accept the solutions while 5% did not have any acceptance 
from their farmers.
In the old structure approximately 47 % of extension agents identified the problem o f lack o f 
access to credit facilities and nearly 37 % provided partial solution to the problem while 10 i  
had no solutions. Ten percent of extension agents had their solutions accepted by the farmers.
Decentralised structure. Under the decentralised structure in Table 5.30 only 10% of 
extension agents identified and provided complete solutions to problems of diseases in onion
115
among their farmers. The solutions were found acceptable to their farmers. Nearly 37 % of 
extension agents identified the problem of high cost of inputs as being the problem o f their 
farmers. Twenty-one percent could not provide any solutions but approximately 16 % 
provided partial solutions to the problem with approximately 11 % o f the extension agents 
having the solutions accepted while 5% did not. In addition 42 i  o f agricultural extension 
agents identified the problem of lack of access to credit facilities and nearly 32 % provided 
partial solution to the problem while 10 % did not have a solution to provide. Ten percent o f 
extension agents had their solutions accepted for lack of access to credit facilities.
Difficulty in getting farmland, low prices for farm produce and high interest rates for loans 
are farmers’ problems identified by agricultural extension agents only in the decentralised 
structure. Difficulty in getting farmland was identified by approximately 68 % of extension 
agents with only 10 % being able to suggest temporary solution to the problem. Nearly 58 % 
had no solution to the problem. In the acceptance of the solutions provided, 5 % o f the 
extension agents had farmers accept their solution. Similarly 47 % and nearly 37 % o f 
extension agents identified low prices for farm produce and high interest rates respectively. 
Only 10% of the extension agents in each case had the farmers accept the partial solutions 
they provided.
A look at table 5.30 suggests that agricultural extension agents are better able to handle the 
agronomic problems of farmers than the other problems. For example the problem o f diseases 
in onion was identified by approximately 32 % of extension agents in the old regime with 26 
i  providing complete and partial solution to the problem, which was accepted by their 
farmers. Similarly, in the decentralized structure, 10 i nd  agricultural extension agents
116
TABLE 5.30:FARMERS’ PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED BY AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENTS AND THEIR
ABILITY TO PROVIDE SOLUTIOIV[S TO THEM IN THE OLD AND DECENTRALISED STR1LJCTURES
Problems of farmers identified by Solutions to problems Acceptance of solutions
agricultural extension agents Old structure Decentralised structure Old
structure
Decentralised
structure
Complete Partial None Complete Partial None Yes No Yes No
Diseases in onion 15.8 10.5 5.3 10.5 0 0 26.3 0 10.5 0
High cost o f inputs 5.3 10.5 26.3 0 15.8 21.1 10.5 5.3 10.5 5.3
Difficulty in accessing tractor services 0 10.5 26.3 - - - 10.5 0 - -
Lack o f access to credit facilities 0 36.8 10.5 0 31.6 10.5 10.5 26.3 10.5 21.1
Poor yields 5.3 15.8 21.1 - - - 15.8 5.3 - -
Difficulty in getting farmland - - - 0 10.5 57.9 - - 5.3 5.3
Low prices for farm produce - - - 10.5 5.3 42.1 - - 5.3 10.5
High interest rates on loans - - - 0 10.5 26.3 - - 5.3 5.3
N=19
Multiple response 
Source: field data
117
identified diseases in onion as a problem among their farmers and were able to provide 
complete solution to the problem, which was accepted by the farmers. Poor yields are also an 
agronomic problem and the figures in table 5.30 suggest that it was handled in the old 
structure and no extension agent identified it in the decentralised structure. Figures on 
difficulty in getting farmland, low prices for farm produce and high interest rates on loans 
show that most o f the extension agents at all times could not provide solutions or acceptable 
solutions to these problems.
Extension agents ability to solve farmers’ problems through needs and problems assessment. 
Table 5.31 shows a cross tabulation of agricultural extension agents who involve farmers in 
problems and needs assessment with the acceptance of their solution.
Table 5.31: Distribution of AEAs who involve farmers in problems and needs 
assessment by AEAs who had their farmers accept solutions to their problems.
Involvement of farmers 
by AEAs in problems 
and needs assessment
Acceptance of solutions in the 
old structure.
Acceptance o f solutions in 
the decentralised structure
Yes No Yes No
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Involve farmers 7 70 3 33.3 4 40 2 22.2
Don’t involve farmers 3 30 6 66.7 6 60 7 77.8
Total 10 100 9 100 10 100 9 100
Source: field data
The involvement o f farmers in problems and needs assessment can be helpful to extension 
agents when they have to provide solutions to farmers’ problems. In Table 5.31 it can be seen 
that 70% o f extension agents in the old structures who involved farmers in problems and 
needs assessment also had their farmers accept their solutions. Similarly approximately 
78%of extension agents in decentralised structure who this did not involve farmers in problem 
and needs assessment also did not have their farmers accept their solutions. These suggest a 
relationship between fanners’ involvement in problems and needs assessment and the
118
acceptance o f solutions. Thus it is more like those extension agents will address farmers 
problems and needs when the extension agents know them.
The Farmer Extension Agents Relationship. Findings revealed that 25% o f the farmers had 
very cordial relationships with the extension agents while 75 % had cordial relationship with 
the extension agents. As to whether they liked the way in which new information was passed 
onto them, 30 % of the farmers stated that they always liked the way in which it was done 
while 70 % indicated that sometimes they liked the manner in which new information was 
introduced. This suggests the manner in which information is passed on to farmers is 
important and does not depend only on how cordial a relationship is. Thus the use o f 
appropriate extension methods in delivering extension messages is important.
Problems with delivery
The agricultural extension agents listed various problems that they encounter that affect their 
ability to deliver messages to farmers as presented in Table 5.32.
Old Structure.
In Table 5.32 a majority of agricultural extension agents (63.2%) have indicated that they did 
not have any problems with their work in the old structure. Only approximately 37 % are o f 
the view that they face problems. Nearly 16 % had no means of transport while 21 % 
complained of inadequate and delayed transport and travelling allowance.
Decentralised Structure.
Approximately 79 i  of agricultural extension agents in Table 5.32 are of the view that in the 
decentralised structure they received inadequate training in new technologies. Another 42.1 %
119
also indicate problems with inadequate materials and equipment for demonstrations and 
transport and traveling allowance while nearly 32 % stated that they lack competencies in new 
areas and 21 % lack extension skills to transfer technologies to farmers.
Table 5.32: Problems that affect the performance of Agricultural Extension Agents in
MOFA ________________________
List of problems Old structure Decentralized
structure
No. % No. %
Inadequate materials and equipment for 
demonstrations 8 42.1
Delayed payment of transport and 
travelling allowance 4 21.1 . .
Inadequate transport and travelling 
allowance 4 21.1 8 42.1
Lack of competencies in new areas* - - 6 31.6
Inadequate training in new technologies 15 78.9
Lack o f extension skills to transfer 
technologies to farmers 4 21.1
No uniforms for identification - - 4 21.1
Inability to take risk without allowance or 
insurance cover. 4 21.1 4 21.1
Difficulty in meeting farmers in groups 2 10.5 - -
No means of transport 3 15.8 4 21.1
No free drugs and chemicals for 
demonstrations 1 5.3
Language barrier 1 5.3
Those who said they had no problems 12 63.2
*Technical areas outside ones technical area before decentralization. 
N = 19
Multiple responses 
Source: field data
Municipal Director o f Agriculture. The problems faced by the Municipal Director o f 
Agriculture in performing his duties were listed as:
• Lack of sufficient district development officers.
• Lack o f subject matter specialist backstopping.
• Formation of farmers’ groups is not acceptable to farmers.
• Some stakeholders do not attend planning sessions.
120
Morale of extension agents
Approximately 95 %of the agricultural extension agents stated that they were not satisfied 
with their job in the decentralised structure while nearly 74% stated they did not experience 
job satisfaction in the old structure. The reasons given for lack o f job satisfaction in Table 
5.33 are lack o f competence in general extension, poor working conditions, irregular and 
poorly done T&V training, lack of social respect for extension agents and their work and the 
use of extension agents for loan disbursement for which they lack skills and control. The 
figures in Table 5.33 suggest that lack of social respect for extension agent and their work is 
one of the most outstanding reasons for lack of job satisfaction among the extension agents. 
Nearly 68 % of the extension agents in the old structure and approximately 90% in the 
decentralised structure indicates it. The next most outstanding is poor working condition and 
nearly 58% of extension agents in the old regime and approximately 95% in the current 
regime state it.
Table 5.33: Reasons from Agricultural Extension Agents for lack of job satisfaction
Reasons Departments of MOFA in the old structure Decentralised
Structure
DAES CSD PPM
ED
WIAD APD VSD Row
total
%
No. %
Lack of competence for 
unified extension 
delivery
3 - - - - 15.8 11 57.9
Poor working 
conditions* 3 2 1 5 57.9 18 94.7
T&V training is not 
regular and poorly done _ . 17 89.5
Lack of social respect 
for extension agents and 
the work they do. 3 3 2 3 1 1 68.4 17 89.5
Extension agents are 
used in the disbursement 
of loans for which they 
lack skills and control 5 3 42.1 10 52.6
Source: field data 
* Poor working conditions include:
121
Lack of security in cases o f sickness on the j ob 
Low salaries
Delayed and inadequate transport and travelling allowance 
No properly defined job descriptions
Inadequate supply of motorbikes and materials and equipment for work, no uniforms and
protective clothing
Over delayed promotions and
Exposure to risks eg snakes bite, poisonous chemicals etc.
The Municipal Director o f Agriculture stated that he was experiencing job satisfaction 
because his new position has opened him up to new challenges. Before decentralisation he 
was concerned with only one sector of agriculture in the ministry but now he is concerned 
with all the sectors of agriculture in the ministry.
122
CHAPER SIX 
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
6.0. Introduction
This chapter discusses the findings of the study. The discussion provides a comparative view 
of how extension delivery was performed in the old and decentralised structures. The 
discussion is done under three main sub-headings. These are:
• The ability o f M inistry  of Food and Agriculture to have technologies that meet the needs 
of farmers and solve their problems under its old and decentralised structures.
• The ability o f Ministry of Food and Agriculture to equip its extension agents with 
knowledge and skills that they require for the job under its old and decentralised 
structures.
• The ability o f Ministry of Food and Agriculture to ensure that farmers are reached on a
timely and regular basis with technologies that they need under its old and decentralised
structures.
6.1. The ability of Ministry of Food and Agriculture to have technologies that meet the 
needs of farmers and solve their problems under its old and decentralised structures.
The discussion under this heading covers four main areas. These are: sources of technologies 
for delivery, involvement in technology generation, nature o f involvement in technology 
generation and ability to provide solutions to farmers’ problems.
Sources of technologies for delivery. The findings show that sources of technologies for 
delivery in both the old and decentralised structures were through individual efforts and
123
institutional arrangement whereby Ministry of food and Agriculture source for technologies 
from research for its extension agents. In the old structure two procedures were used for 
sourcing the technologies. The Department of Agricultural Extension Services had researchers 
train Subject Matter Specialist who then train extension agents in the technologies received 
from researchers. The other departments organised the training for the extension agents 
directly using consultants. In the decentralised structure the Municipal Director o f Agriculture 
organised the training using sometimes the Regional Training Officer or researchers from 
Research Institutes. Extension agents through their own efforts search for technologies in 
books in the old structure while in the decentralised structure the sources were books, crop 
research institute, universities, animal research institute, friends and farmers.
Technologies from the sources indicated might not always meet farmers’ needs and solve 
their problems. Technologies from books are too general for addressing specific problems of 
farmers under different conditions. On the other hand technologies from research can address 
the needs and problems of farmers if  the farmers were involved in the development o f the 
technologies by taking their concerns into consideration in the development of the 
technologies.
Involvement in technology generation. The extension agents, the district officers, the 
Municipal Director of Agriculture and the farmers indicated their involvement in technology 
generation in both the old and decentralised structures. From their expressed views, it became 
clear that the nature of the division of work in the old structure allowed some departments to 
be involved in the process of technology generation by researcher while other departments did 
not. The Department o f Agricultural extension services, Crop Services Department and
124
Women in Agricultural Development department were those involved in technology 
generation. Other departments like Veterinary Services, Policy planning Monitoring and 
Evaluation and Animal Production were not involved in technology generation.
These findings have implications for technology development and availability in the old 
structure. For example, researchers are more likely to develop technologies in crops because 
of the involvement of the Crops Services Department in technology generation than in the 
areas o f animals because both the departments of Veterinary Services and Animal Production 
were not involved in technology generation.
In the decentralised structure departments of Ministry o f Food and Agriculture were merged 
into a single department. The study also revealed that the extension agents performed 
different responsibilities from what they did in the old structure. All the respondents were not 
unanimous on their involvement in technology generation. In majority o f the cases both 
extension agents and farmers claim that they were not involved in technology generation but 
the Municipal Director of Agriculture said the agricultural extension agents were involved. 
Findings on the responsibilities of extension agents in the decentralised structure compared to 
documented responsibilities for extension agents in the decentralised structure give an 
indication that the extension agents studied did not know their responsibilities well. This 
problem could be due to poor communication of responsibilities to extension agents thus 
suggesting a problem of role ambiguity. According to Mullins (1993) role ambiguity occurs 
when there is lack of clarity as to the precise requirement of a role and the person is not sure 
what to do. He further states that the problem could be due to poorly prescribed role
125
expectations or poor communication of the prescribed role. This would have effect on 
performance o f work and extension delivery.
Nature o f involvement in technology generation. In the old structure, the findings revealed 
that the departments that were involved in technology generation made different contributions 
to the technology generation process. While the frontline staff in the Department of 
Agricultural Extension Services and Women in Agricultural Development was found to be 
involved in identifying farmers’ problems, giving feedback to research through Subject 
Matter Specialist and conducting mini-demonstrations, the Crop Services Department was 
only involved in conducting adaptive trials. These findings are contrary to the expectation of 
the unified system in the old structure. Crop Services Department, Veterinary Service 
Department and Animal Production Department along with other departments not found in 
the study area were to be designated Subject Matter Special departments. Their role was to 
provide technical backstopping and support to Subject Matter Specialist. In addition the 
departments were to be involved in planning and conducting adaptive trial activities in 
collaboration with researchers, their Subject Matter Specialist, extension officers and farmers 
so that farmers’ felt needs an be taken care of (Ministerial Directive on the Unified 
Agricultural Extension, 1992). From the findings made, it is only the Crop Service 
Department that was involved in conducting adaptive trials and yet the relationship with 
agricultural extension was such that extension never got the full benefit o f the researches 
conducted.
In the decentralised structure the views expressed are different. From the list of 
responsibilities o f agricultural extension agents, only 5% of extension agents indicated they 
picked farmers problems and passed them on for solution. In addition only approximately 16
126
% of the extension agents stated being involved in adaptive trials. The nature of involvement 
in the technology generation process as well as the percentage o f extension agents involved is 
an indication that the research process leading to the development of technologies in the 
decentralised structure was dominated by research. Although the involvement of the 
Department of Agricultural Extension Services in technology development in the old structure 
looks better than that o f the decentralised structure, the dominance o f the research process by 
researchers was still evident. Contributions from users of the technologies in both regimes 
were minimal. According to Merrill-Sands et al (1989) research institutions that have direct 
links with farmers and technology transfer workers ensure that research focuses on their 
priorities and problems. It is thus important that all users o f technology be involved in the 
generation process. This will bring about balance in outcomes to satisfy the interest of both 
researchers and users or technologies.
Ability to provide solutions to farmers’ problems. The essence of all extension work is to 
improve the standard of living of farmers and their families (Maunder, 1972 and Oakley & 
Garforth, 1985). This can be achieved if extension agents are able to identify farmers’ 
problems and provide solutions to them. The views of extension agents in the old structure 
and extension agents and farmers in the decentralised structure suggest that extension agents 
were not able to provide solutions to farmers’ problems most of the time, although in the 
decentralised structure there was an indication of a good relationship between farmers and 
extension agents. In the old structure indications from the findings suggest that apart from 
problems in the area of plant diseases, agricultural extension agents in most cases for 
problems in the areas of inputs, marketing and technical backstopping were not able to 
provide solutions to problems identified. The story is not different for agricultural extension
127
agents in the decentralised structure and for the fanners too, since the views of fanners 
suggest that majority o f them did not find the extension messages received useful. This means 
those extension agents’ sources of extension messages to farmers did not adequately address 
the problems and needs o f farmers.
The inability of extension agents to provide solutions to farmers’ problems can be associated 
with farmers’ involvement in planning. In the old structure compared to the decentralised 
structure, the expressed views of agricultural extension agents on farmers’ involvement in 
planning showed that more agricultural extension agents involved farmers in planning in the 
old structure than in the decentralised structure. The farmers were involved in needs and 
problems assessment and in fixing meeting days and time. The expressed views of district 
officers indicated that the Department of Agricultural Extension Services was the only 
department in the old structure that involved farmers in planning. All the other departments 
did not involve farmers. The results from the study have shown that those extension agents 
who involved farmers in problems’ and needs assessment were also those in the majority who 
had their farmers accept their solutions. Similarly those extension agents who did not involve 
fanners in problems and needs assessment were also those in the majority who did not have 
their farmers accept their solutions. This suggests that extension agents in the old structure 
were more likely to provide acceptable solutions to farmers’ problems than in the 
decentralised structure.
6.2. The ability of Ministry of Food and Agriculture to equip agricultural extension 
agents with knowledge they require for the iob under the old and decentralised 
structures.
The expressed views of agricultural extension agents, district officers and the Municipal 
Director of Agriculture indicated that training provided by Ministry of Food and Agriculture
128
to its extension agents in both regimes equipped the Agricultural extension agents with 
technologies. According to Cristovao, Koehnen and Portela (1997) extension staff frequently 
lack skills to work with rural people in an interactive manner because their pre-training is 
narrow and focus on the acquisition of technical knowledge and abilities. Therefore there is a 
need for in-service training for extension workers to sharpen their skills for efficient and 
effective work with rural people. In-service training for extension agents should emphasize 
actual field experience and emerging new technologies (Vijayaragavan and Singh, 1997).
In the study the chain o f command in the old structure did not show any hindrance to the 
acquisition of knowledge by agricultural extension agents. Findings indicated that agricultural 
extension agents received training and the training was useful for their work. In the 
decentralised structure, the Municipal Director of Agriculture had as part of his 
responsibilities to ensure that agricultural extension agents receive training and technical 
backstopping (MOFA handbook on decentralisation, 1998). Findings from the study suggest 
that the Municipal Director of Agriculture did not know that he was responsible for ensuring 
that agricultural extension agents receive training and technical backstopping since he did not 
state this as one of his responsibilities. The lack o f awareness that providing training to 
extension agents was the responsibility of the Municipal Director of Agriculture could have 
contributed to the manner in which the Municipal Agricultural Development Unit handled 
training issues. Training was provided once in a while instead of monthly.
The training topics considered in both regimes for a period o f one year revealed that the 
training given was all in technologies. This suggests that agricultural extension agents never 
received training in actual field experience. A lack of or inadequate in-service training for
129
agricultural extension agents in skills for working with rural people will make them ill- 
equipped for their job.
Tkp.fh1np.ss of training to extension agents. Extension agents expressed a unanimous view that 
the training provided in the old structure was useful to them. In all the cases extension agents 
stated that the training sharpened their skills while some o f the cases indicated that the 
training provided solutions to farmers’ problems. In-service training in the old structure was 
done on departmental basis. Thus it was possible for some departments to provide solutions to 
farmers’ problems while others did not.
In the decentralised structure, for a majority of the cases extension agents thought that the 
T&V training provided was less useful to them because it lacked practical training and all was 
theory. Agricultural extension agents coming from different technical backgrounds in the old 
structure into the decentralised structure would have been better off if  the training was made 
practical to equip them with both knowledge and skills. An extension agent needs to be 
confident in himself/herself to be able to work effectively (Oakley & Garforth, 1985). 
Confidence can be achieved if the extension agent can master the knowledge and skills 
required for the job.
6.3. Ability of Ministry of Food and Agriculture to ensure that farmers are reached on a 
timely and regular basis with technologies that they need under its old and decentralised 
structures.
The discussion under this heading is done under the sub-headings methods used in extension 
delivery, timeliness of extension messages to farmers, problems with delivery and working 
conditions of extension agents.
130
Methods used in extension delivery. Agricultural extension agents were unanimous on the use 
of individual and group contact methods in both regimes. The extension methods commonly 
used in both regimes were farm and home visits, group meetings, results and method 
demonstrations. Office calls and field trips were the least used in the old structure but in the 
decentralised structure the use of office calls had improved while field trips were non­
existent. The improved use of office calls can be attributed to the availability o f the poverty 
alleviation fund and the social investment fund for loan to farmers for which the farmers came 
to the office to seek. On the other hand field trips were no longer in use in the decentralised 
structure because extension agents in Women in Agricultural Development department used 
field trips to train women leaders in farmer demonstration homes that were no longer in use.
The expressed views of farmers and district officers confirmed the methods used by extension 
agents in extension delivery in both regimes. A further revelation from the study showed that 
majority of the fanners had cordial relationship with the extension agents, a necessary 
condition for successful individual and group contacts with farmers. According to Van Den 
Ban and Hawkins (1988) and Oakley and Garforth (1985) learning is more on an individual 
basis and by adopting a group method many farmers can be reached. These suggest that the 
extension agents are knowledgeable in extension methods and their choice o f individual and 
group contact methods in both regimes were appropriate for farmers to be able to acquire new 
information and also for many farmers to be reached.
On the methods used in teaching, majority of the extension agents indicated demonstrations 
while a majority of the farmers stated talking only as the means through which information
131
was passed on to them in the decentralised structure. A noted hindrance to the successful use 
of demonstrations in the decentralised structure was the expressed lack of materials and 
equipment for demonstrations by a majority o f the extension agents. Also only a small 
percentage of the farmers stated that extension agents used visual aids in passing on messages 
to them. Without practical demonstrations learning could be a problem for the farmers 
because Oakley and Garforth (1985) state that a new idea is better learnt through practice.
Timeliness of extension messages to farmers. Farmers were not unanimous in their expressed 
views on the timeliness of messages received from extension agents. It was found that those 
farmers who found messages useful also said they were timely. Thus suggesting that 
messages that are timely can be used by farmers and are therefore considered useful. Majority 
of the farmers practising inter-cropping did not find the messages timely and therefore 
considered them not useful. This suggests that the T&V approach to extension delivery being 
used posed difficulties in the provision of timely messages to fanners practising inter­
cropping. This is because T&V focus on one message at a time while mixed farming and 
inter-cropping requires more than a message at a time. The fish smokers who were into one 
kind of activity all said the messages were timely and useful to them.
Findings on field visits in the old structure show that there was frequent interaction with 
farmers indicated by a majority of the agricultural extension agents. Field visits are useful in 
technology transfer and adoption. Variations in frequency of visits existed within the 
departments and also between the departments. The variations between the departments could 
be due to differences in resource availability among the departments and may be the kind of 
new information being taken to farmers. For example if  the message is simple to understand
132
little interaction with the farmers will be needed for them to be able to acquire the new 
information and vice versa. The difference in messages and how they were packaged for 
farmers in the old structure was related to the department in which that agricultural extension 
agent belonged.
Findings on field visits in the decentralised structure indicated that agricultural extension 
agents varied in the frequency o f field visits. Expressed views from both farmers and 
extension agents are that field visits were frequent. The frequency of visits ranged from once 
a month to four times in a week. Since both farmers and extension agents consider the field 
visits to be frequent, the only explanation for the variations in visits can be attributed to 
differences in the ability to learn by individuals. The farmers studied had different levels of 
education. According to Onu (1991) education is an important factor in influencing the 
acceptance of new information by farmers. Thus it can be said that the frequency of visits to 
ensure acceptance of extension messages was influenced by the differences in the level of 
education of the farmers.
Problems with delivery. The nature of division of work in the old structure affected extension 
delivery in terms of efficient use of resources on the part of the Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture. This is because of the number of extension agents visiting a single farmer with 
new information due to the number of departments that were involved in extension. Apart 
from not being cost effective, different extension agents scheduling meeting times with the 
same farmers will be taking much of their time required for work. This is even more serious 
because agriculture in Ghana is rain fed and timeliness is very essential. Therefore any action
133
or actions that delays the farmers’ operations are detrimental to him/her making the 
acquisition of knowledge negligible.
In the decentralised structure there was a merger of the departments o f the old structure into 
an Agricultural Development Unit. This solved the problem of cost inefficiency that 
characterised extension delivery in the old structure. However the expressed views of majority 
of the extension agents indicated lack of technologies for delivery. These were consistent with 
farmers’ views on agricultural extension agents’ responsibilities when only 20 % of the 
farmers stated that extension agents introduced new technologies to them. In addition nearly 
8% of the farmers stated that extension agents provided solutions to their problems. This 
means that 92% of farmers did not receive any new technologies from extension agents. 
Agricultural extension agents were to be given T&V training in new technologies as well as 
technical backstopping from Subject Matter Specialists. However the study revealed that 
these were not performed as expected. T&V training was provided once in a while and 
Subject Matter Specialist backstopping was completely lacking. Thus suggesting the possible 
reasons why extension agents lacked technologies for delivery.
In the old structure the chain of command was unique to the departments that existed in the 
study area. This affected planning. Some departments had their plans being influenced by 
their national departments while others did not. The result was different departments working 
at cross-purpose to each other instead of towards a common purpose which the unified 
extension system sought to achieve. Farmers were faced with several extension agents 
introducing technologies to them.
134
In the decentralised structure, the Municipal Agricultural Development Unit had authority to 
plan its own activities but the plan was derived from the national plan or strategic plan. This 
ensures that the Municipal Agricultural Development Unit contributes to achieving the 
purpose o f the organisation. This was missing in the old structure. A  few farmers were 
involved in the planning process, thus suggesting that the planning process in the 
decentralised structure attempted both at meeting the needs of the organisation and clientele.
A limiting factor o f the chain of command in the decentralised structure for knowledge 
acquisition by fanners was that the Director of Agriculture had to satisfy two superiors, the 
municipal chief executive and the regional director of agriculture in the performance o f his 
duties, which violates the unity o f command principle and made him less effective. The effect 
was that T&V training, which was a source of technologies for agricultural extension agents 
suffered (the training was not provided on schedule), with the result that agricultural 
extension agents were not well equipped with technologies for farmers.
Working conditions of extension agents. The ability o f an organization to provide good 
working conditions for its staff is a step in the right direction for promoting performance. 
According to Herzberg (1966) cited in Hess and Siciliano (1996) if any of the conditions 
listed as either hygiene factors or motivators are not met in an organization, performance will 
suffer. Expressed views of extension in both the old and decentralized structures suggest that 
condition under which they worked were not satisfactory to them. Maj ority o f the extension 
agents listed thing like low salaries, lack of security in cases of sickness on the job, 
inadequate transport and traveling allowance, no proper job descriptions, in adequate supply 
of motorbikes and materials and equipment for work, over delayed promotion, exposures to
135
risks and lack o f protective clothing as poor working conditions. One other factor that 
majority o f the extension agents indicated as contributing to their lack of job satisfaction is 
lack of social respect for extension agents and the work they do. These suggest that those 
extension agents were experiencing low morale and therefore low performance in their duties. 
The condition was more in the decentralized structure than in the old structure.
In both regimes appropriate methods were used to ensure that farmers were reached. Field 
visits were also frequent in both regimes and it was found that timeliness of messages 
delivered made them either useful or not useful. Messages that were delivered on a timely 
basis could be use by farmers and therefore were considered useful. Farmers who were into 
inter-cropping always found the extension messages not timely and therefore not useful, 
suggesting that the T&V extension delivery was not effective with farmers growing more than 
one crop at a time. The availability of technologies for delivery was however different for the 
two regimes. In the old structure agricultural extension agents had access to technologies for 
delivery better than in the decentralized structure were new technologies for delivery were not 
always available.
136
CHAPTER SEVEN 
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.0. Introduction
In this chapter the summary, conclusion and recommendations from the research are 
presented. These will be discussed under the following headings:
Purpose o f research
Procedure
Findings
Implication of findings 
Recommendations and 
Suggestions for further studies
7.1. Purpose of research
The need to improve extension delivery to farmers in Ghana has led to several structural 
changes within the organisation of Ministry of Food and Agriculture. In addition the T&V 
approach to extension delivery and a Unified Extension System were introduced. However the 
need to reach farmers with technologies continues to persist because of the important role 
agriculture plays in the economy. It is in the light of this that the research sought to find out 
what effects the decentralised administrative structure o f the Ministry of Food and Agriculture 
have made on extension delivery. To assist in the investigation, the following objectives were 
addressed:
1. To determine how effectively the decentralized administrative structure of MOFA is 
adequately equipped with the technologies that farmers need.
137
gR To determine how effectively the decentralized administrative structure of MOFA is 
equipping agricultural extension agents with technologies that farmers need.
3. To determine how effectively the decentralized administrative structure o f MOFA is 
ensuring that its agricultural extension agents reach out to farmers with technologies 
that they need on a timely and regular basis.
7.2. Procedure
The study was conducted in the Tema municipality o f the Greater Accra region o f Ghana. 
There is pressure on land in this area making the need for technologies very crucial in order to 
increase production.
The design for the study follows the case study approach. The concentration was on the 
administrative processes that may be crucial to the success or failure o f extension delivery in 
the decentralised administrative structure of Ministry of Food and Agriculture. The sample for 
the study was sixty-five respondents. These were made up of farmers who are in contact with 
extension agents, agricultural extension agents of the Municipal Agricultural Development 
Unit who work with farmers by taking to them agricultural information as well as new 
technologies in agriculture and the Municipal Director of Agriculture. Others were the 
Municipal Chief Executive and members of the development sub-committee of the municipal 
assembly.
Apart from the fourty farmers who were selected using purposive sampling, the total 
population in each target group was used because the numbers involved were small. The data
138
was analysed using univariate and bivariate techniques such as frequencies, percentages and 
cross tabulation.
7.3. Findings
Before decentralisation, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture operated several departments in 
the Tema municipality. These were Crop Services Department, Veterinary Services 
Department, Animal Production Department, Department of Agricultural Extension services, 
Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department and Women in Agricultural 
Development representing the departments of the respondents. Among these some were 
involved in technology generation indicated by 58% of the agricultural extension agents while 
others were not. Those involved in technology generation were from Crop Services 
Department, Department of Agricultural Extension services and Women in Agricultural 
Development. In addition 42% of agricultural extension agents stated that they involved 
farmers in problems and needs assessment. On the sourcing of technologies majority (89.5%) 
of the agricultural extension agents-did not source for technologies outside Ministry of Food 
and Agriculture. According to them the technologies provided within Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture meet their field needs. Farmers the users of the technologies were found to be 
involved in the technology generation process by a majority of 64% of the agricultural 
extension agents who were involved in the technology generation process.
In the decentralised structure there was only one department at Tema municipality 
representing the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture. To this department and others similar to it 
was devolved all extension activities of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Interestingly, 
the study found out that approximately 79% of the agricultural extension agents were no
139
longer involved in the technology generation process under the decentralised structure, 
although the Municipal Director of Agriculture stated that it was the agricultural extension 
agents and the development officers who were involved. Approximately 32% of the 
agricultural extension agents indicated involving farmers in problems and needs assessment, 
which was found to consistent with an equally low of 33% of farmers indicating that their 
extension agents involved them in problems, and needs assessment. A majority (58%) o f the 
agricultural extension did not source for technologies outside the Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture. Their reasons were that some did not know other sources while others stated 
funds were not available for sourcing technologies. The minority (42%) who source for 
technologies outside Ministry of Food and Agriculture gave various sources such as books, 
Crop Research Institute, universities, friends and farmers.
Agricultural extension agents were equipped with technologies for delivery before 
decentralisation through training. The training was organised differently according to the 
departments involved. Approximately 42% of the agricultural extension agents stated 
receiving T&V training while 58% indicated yearly training. These training according to all 
the agricultural extension agents were useful because they provided the knowledge and skills 
required for their work. In addition 68% stated that the training provided technologies and 
solutions to farmers’ problems.
In the decentralised structure it was found in the study that all the agricultural extension 
agents depended on T&V training for technologies for delivery. Others used additional 
sources such as previous knowledge indicated by 47% of extension agents, Animal Research 
Institute and colleagues. In addition the study revealed that the T&V training was organised
140
once a while indicated by approximately 79% of the extension agents and was considered less 
useful because it was all theory without practice stated by approximately 58% of the 
extension agents. The Municipal Director of Agriculture stated that he did not receive any 
training upon assuming office and listed his training needs as computer skills, financial 
management and agricultural administration.
Before decentralisation the Ministry of Food and Agriculture was in a better position than 
now to disseminate technologies to farmers that were likely to meet the needs of farmers 
because of some level o f extension agents and farmer involvement in technology generation. 
The study revealed that 58 i  of extension agents were involved in technology generation 
while 42% stated that they involved farmers in planning through problem and needs 
assessment. In addition 64% out of the 58% of extension agents who were involved in 
technology generation indicated they identified farmers’ problems as part o f their 
involvement. Different departments existed and some of them apart from PPMED performed 
extension services, which together covered all aspects of agriculture. Apart from having the 
required technologies generated extension agents needed to be equipped with the technologies 
and the skills for delivery. The study revealed that all the extension agents received some 
form of training in new technologies but not in practical field experience. Approximately 58% 
received yearly training while 42% received T&V training. On its usefulness 32% stated that 
it sharpened their skills and improved their performance while 68% stated it improves their 
skills and provide new technologies and solutions to farmers’ problems. Apart from having 
the required technologies and equipping extension agents with them, the ability of the 
extension agent to use the right extension methods as well as available resources for the work 
and the morale o f the extension agent are crucial for successful dissemination of technologies.
141
i he study revealed that all the extension agents used individual and group contact methods 
such as demonstrations and farm visits indicated by approximately 90% of the extension 
agents in each case and home visits 47%. A majority of 63% had no problems associated with 
their work in the old structure only 37% indicated various problems such as inadequate and 
delayed payment o f transport and travelling allowance no means o f transport and difficulty in 
meeting farmers in groups. Field visits were found to be frequent (1-4 times per week) 
indicated by 74% of the extension agents. Twenty-one percent carried out field visits 
fortnightly while 5% did so once in a month.
The study revealed that agricultural extension agents were able to identify five problems of 
farmers before decentralisation. Approximately 32% of extension agents identified diseases in 
onion among their farmers, 42% identified high cost of inputs, 37% difficulty in accessing 
tractor services, lack o f access to credit facilities was by 47% of the extension agents and 42% 
poor yields. On the ability to provide solutions to the problems the study revealed that 
extension agents were able to provide more partial solutions than complete solutions. Only the 
problem of diseases in onion that majority of extension agents involved provided complete 
solution. Considering all the cases more extension agents provided solutions than those who 
did not provide solutions under the old regime. On the acceptance of the solutions by their 
farmers, many o f the extension agents had their farmers accept their solutions than those who 
did not.
The morale o f staff was found to be low. The findings show that 74% o f the extension agents 
were not satisfied with their job. Many reasons were given such as poor working conditions 
used to classify low salaries, lack of security in cases of sickness on the job, delayed and
142
inadequate transport and travelling allowance, no properly defined job descriptions, 
inadequate supply o f motorbikes and materials and equipment for work, no uniforms and 
protective clothing, over delayed promotions and exposure to risks e.g. snakes bite, poisonous 
chemicals etc indicated by 58% of the extension agents. Lack o f competence for unified 
extension indicated by approximately 16%, lack of social respect for extension agents and the 
work the do stated by 68% of the extension agents and extension agents are used in loan 
disbursement for which they lack skills and control stated by 42%.
In the decentralised structure, the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture is not likely to able to 
reach out to farmers with technologies that meet the needs of farmers. The study revealed that 
approximately 79% of extension agents were not involved in technology generation. Only 
37% of farmers were involved in testing new technologies and 75% out o f 21% of extension 
agents involved in technology generation identified farmers’ problems as a part of their 
involvement in the technology generation process. Training o f extension agents in the 
knowledge and skills required for their work were irregular as revealed in the study by 
approximately 79% of the extension agents. On the usefulness o f the training 58% of the 
extension agents stated that theory without practice made the training less useful while 42% 
said it improved their skills and performance.
The ability o f the extension agent to use the right extension methods as well as available 
resources for the work and the morale of the extension agent are important in dissemination of 
technologies. The study revealed that extension methods and mode of contacting farmers had 
not changed much in the decentralised structure. All the extension agents used individual and 
group contact for reaching out to farmers. Extension methods used were found to be farm
143
visits indicated by approximately 90% of the extension agents, result and method 
demonstration 84%, home visits 10% while all extension agents used group meetings. The 
number of extension agents who use home visits before decentralisation reduced from 47% to 
10% in the decentralised structure. On the other hand office calls increased from 10% to 21% 
in the decentralised structure.
In the study agricultural extension agents indicated both resource and non-resource related 
problems that affected their work under the decentralised structure. The results indicate that 
42% of extension agents lacked adequate materials and equipment for demonstration and 
adequate transport and travelling allowance while 21% had no means o f transport and 
uniforms for identification. In addition 79% of the extension agents indicated inadequate 
training in new technologies, 32% lack of competencies in new areas and 21% lack skill to 
transfer technologies. The study also revealed that the Municipal Director of Agriculture had 
some problems that could affect the work of the extension agents. These are lack of sufficient 
development officers for the Municipal agricultural development Unit, lack of Subject Matter 
Specialist backstopping and formation of farmers’ groups is not acceptable to farmers.
The study revealed that there were variations in field visits among the extension agents. 
Approximately 42% of the extension agents when on field visit fortnightly, 10% monthly and 
approximately 37% made field visits between once and four times a weeks. The results from 
farmer respondents indicated that extension agents visited 35% of them six times in a month, 
30% indicated three times in a month 20% stated eight times in a month and approximately 
3% stated four times in a month. With this frequency in field visits 70% of the farmers 
interviewed were satisfied, 23 i  stated that they would like more visits to discuss their
144
problems while 7% remained indifferent. The Municipal Director o f Agriculture stated that he 
ensured extension agents were supervised.
It was found in the study that agricultural extension agents were able to identify six problems 
of farmers. These include diseases in onion indicated by approximately 10% of the extension 
agents, high cost o f inputs 37%, lack of access to credit 42%, difficulty in getting farmland 
68%, low prices for farm produce 58% and high interest rates 37%. The study revealed that 
apart from diseases in onion and lack of access to credit facilities, in all cases of the problems 
identified, only few extension agents were able to provide solutions the majority could not. 
For example 68% of extension agents identified the problem of difficulty in acquiring land 
10% gave partial solutions while 58% had no solutions. Similarly 37% of extension agents 
identified the problem of high cost of inputs 16% provided partial solutions and 21% had no 
solution.
Findings on the acceptance of the solution provided indicatedthat majority of the extension 
who provided solutions had their solutions accepted by their farmers. Results obtained from 
farmers interview also indicate that 30% of the farmers always liked the way extension agents 
presented information to them while 70% stated that they sometimes. On the method used 
75% of the farmers stated that presentation of messages was by talking only. In addition 25% 
of the farmers indicated they had very cordial relationships with their extension agent while 
75% had cordial relationship with their extension agent. On the timeliness with which 
messages are received, farmers’ views were that messages that were timely could be and 
therefore were considered useful. Messages that were not timely could not be use and 
therefore were considered not useful.
145
m e morale of staff in the decentralised structure was found to be low. This was revealed by 
95% of the extension agents who stated they were not satisfied with their job. Some of the 
reasons given for lack of job satisfaction include lack of competencies for unified extension 
indicated by approximately 58% of the extension agents. Poor working stated by 
approximately 95% of the extension agents include low salaries, lack o f security in cases of 
sickness on the job, delayed and inadequate transport and travelling allowance, no properly 
defined job descriptions, inadequate supply of motorbikes and materials and equipment for 
work, no uniforms and protective clothing, over delayed promotions and exposure to risks eg 
snakes bite, poisonous chemicals etc. Irregular and poorly done T&V training and lack of 
social respect for the extension agent and the work he/she does stated by nearly 90%. 
Approximately 53% stated that they are used in the disbursement of loans for which they lack 
skills and control.
7.4. Imnlication of findings
The main source of technologies for delivery in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture in both 
the old and decentralised structures has been from research institutes. Therefore the Ministry 
of Food and Agriculture has been involved in the technology generation process of the 
research institutes to some extent. The study revealed that not all the departments in the old 
structure were involved in the technology generation process and even those departments 
involved only made minimal inputs. With the introduction of the decentralised structure of 
the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture, the technology generation process that involved both 
farmers and extension agents but did not cover all the departments that exist then, 
deteriorated. Research was seen to dominate the whole research agenda. Considering that the 
main source of technologies to Ministry of Food and Agriculture in both regimes was research
146
institutes, it is not possible for the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to have technologies that 
meet the needs of its farmers in the decentralised structure without the involvement of the 
users o f the technologies in the technology development process in the same period.
The study revealed that the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture equipped its extension agents 
with technologies in both regimes. It further revealed that extension agents did not receive 
training in practical field experience in both regimes. The training provided was regular and 
considered useful in the old regime than in the decentralised structure where extension agents 
thought that the training they received in new technologies was all theory and therefore not 
useful to them. These revelations therefore suggest that the decentralised structure was not 
effective in equipping extension agents with knowledge and skills for their job.
In both regimes the study revealed that extension agents used appropriate extension methods 
in the delivery o f messages. In addition field visits were frequent and farmers in the 
decentralised structure had cordial relationship with extension agents. A hindrance to the 
Ministry o f Food and Agriculture’s ability to reach farmers on a timely basis with 
technologies in both regimes was the T&V extension which did not suit farmers growing 
several crops at a time. In addition to this there was lack of new technologies for delivery in 
the decentralised structure.
From the findings and results of the study, the decentralised administrative structure has not 
improved the delivery of extension services to farmers in the study.
147
7.5. Recommendations
From the findings o f the study the following recommendations are made
1. Technology, the main product of an extension organisation must de demanded by its 
target population for it to achieve performance. It is in the light of this that the researcher 
recommends that the technology generation process that existed with the Department of 
Agricultural Extension Services and the Crop Services Department before decentralisation 
be revisited such that all technical directorates and farmers will be able to make adequate 
input into the development of new technologies so research alone does not determine the 
research agenda.
2. For extension agents to be effective they need both knowledge and skills in rural life and 
practical field experience and not just new technologies. It is therefore recommended that 
all in-service for extension agents should always include aspects of agricultural extension 
and rural sociology.
3. For the District Director of Agriculture to be able to perform his role well, he will require 
knowledge and skills in extension education and rural sociology and not only in 
management and administration. It is therefore recommended that the District Director of 
Agriculture be given regular training in extension education and rural development to 
assist them in their work.
4. Morale o f staff is an important factor in terms of attitude to work and performance. The 
study found out that the morale of extension agents was low. The researcher recommends 
that the morale o f extension agents in the Ministry o f Food and Agriculture be critically 
examined and issues identified appropriately addressed. This is because extension agents 
form the bridge between MOFA and farmers and any thing that hinder their performance 
directly or indirectly impinges on the total performance of MOFA.
148
5. From the farmers problems identified in the study, new production technologies alone 
cannot meet adequately the current needs of farmers. It is therefore suggested that the 
development of technologies go beyond production to include current needs of farmers 
outside production.
6. The findings from the study supports findings in earlier studies that the T&V extension 
delivery approach is not timely in the provision messages to farmers who grow several 
crops at a time. It is recommended that the current T&V being used be modified or an 
alternative extension approach to delivery be considered.
7.6. Suggestion for further studies
The study needs to be replicated with a much bigger sample to include many districts and the
whole organisational structure. This will help to throw more light on the topic.
149
REFERENCES
Abudu, M. I (1998). Relevance of the training and visit extension messages in the multiple 
cropping system in Wa district of Upper West Region. Ghana unpublished Mphil 
thesis, University of Ghana, Legon
Axinn, G. H. (1988).Guide on Alternative Extension Approaches. Rome: FAO.
Bell, J. (1993). Doing vour research project. A guide for first-time researchers in education 
and social science (2nd ed.~). Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press
Benor, D. & Baxter .M. (1984). Training and visit extension. Washington D.C: The World 
Bank.
Blaxter, L, Hughes C and Tight M (1996). How to research. Buckingham: Open University 
Press
Boateng, A. I (1987). Office management and administrative procedures in the Ghana civil 
service. A  research project report presented to the Ghana institute of requirements for 
the post graduate diploma in public administration.
Bolliger, E, P. Reinhand and Zellweger T. (2001). Definition of extension. Humanity 
development library: Document text.
Boone, J. E (1989). Philosophical foundations of extension
In Blackburn, J. Donald (Eds) Foundation and changing practices in extension (pp. 1- 
9). University of Guelph.
Cassaday, K. A, Monnet, G, & Dowswell, C.R. (1994)(Eds.) Strengthening national extension 
services in Sub-Saharan Africa. M. D.F. CASIN /SAA/Global 2000/: Mexico.
Cleaver, M. K (1993). A strategy to develop Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa and a focus 
for the world bank. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.
Cosley, D. J. and Lury D.A. (1987). Data collection in developing countries (2nd ed.~). Oxford: 
Clarendon.
Cristovao, A, Koehnen T. & Portela J. (1997). Developing and delivering extension 
programmes. In In Swanson, E. Burton, Robert P. Bentz and Andrew J. Sofranko 
(Eds), Improving Agricultural Extension: A reference manual (pp. 57-65). Rome: 
FAO.
Drucker, P.F (1989). The practice of management. Heinemann Professional.
150
Esponou, T. (1996). Partners in technology generation and transfer. Linkages between
research and farmers’ organisations in three selected African countries.(ISNAR report 
No. 9) The Hague.
Fell, J. M. (2000). Fayol stands the test of time. Journal of Management History vol. 6 No. 8 
pp345-360). MCB University press.
Geker, J.K., S. Korang-Amoako, F. Donkor, R. Tettebo, T. Haile-Mariam and C. Hong 
(1990). Proposed Agricultural Extension strategy under the medium term agricultural 
development plan. Accra: Ministry of Agriculture.
Ghana Department o f Agriculture (1957). Annual report.
Goold, M. & Campbell, A. (2002). Do you have a well designed organization? Harvard 
Business Review March (ppl 17-124)
Hess, P. & J. Siciliano (1996). Management: Responsibility for performance. New York: 
McGraw-Hill.
Impact Evaluation Consulting Team (2000). Imnact Evaluation of NAEP: Draft Final Report. 
Accra: Communication and media for development, Cantoments
ISSER (2003). The state of the Ghanaian economy in 2002. Legon: University of Ghana.
Kahn, L. R. (1996). Role conflict and ambiguity in organisations. In Matteson, T. Micheal & 
Ivancevich (Eds.) Management and organisational behavior classics (217-228). 
Boston: McGraw-hill
Korang-Amoakoh S.; F. Donkoh and K. Amoah (1994). Ghana: In Cassaday, K. A, Monnet, 
G, & Dowswell, C.R.(Eds.). Strengthening national extension services in Sub-Saharan 
Africa. SAA/Global 2000/ CASIN: proceedings of a seminar for extension 
practitioners, 15-19 May Charanner-de-Bogis, Switzerland.
Korang-Amoako (1997, August). Minutes of the middle zone Research Extension Linkage 
Committee meeting. Held at Rural Water Resource Centre: Sunyani.
Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A. (1995). Organisational behaviour (3rd ed .\ Chicago: IRWIN
Local Government and Rural Development, Ministry of (1996). Ghana-The new local 
government system. Accra: Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
Maunder, H. A. (1972). Agricultural extension reference manual. Rome: FAO.
Merrill-Sands, Deborah, Kaimowitz , Sayce Kay & Chater S. (1989). The technology triangle- 
linking farmers, technology transfer agents, and agricultural researchers, ('summary 
report o f an international workshop held at ISNAR, 20-25th November). The Hague- 
ISNAR.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organisations. Prentice- Hall
151
MOFA (1999). The policy o f decentralisation: Evolving role o f the Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture. Case studv. Ghana. Accra : Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MOFA (2001). Accelerated agricultural growth and development strategy in support of 
Ghana’s vision 2020. Accra: Ministry o f food and agriculture.
MOFA (1992). Ministerial directive on unified agricultural extension under the national 
agricultural extension project of Medium Term Agricultural Development Programme. 
Accra: Ministry of Food and Agriculture
MOFA, (1998). Handbook on decentralisation Accra: Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Moris, J.(1991). Extension alternatives in tropical Africa. London: Overseas development 
institute.
MTADP (1990). An agenda for sustained agricultural growth and development (1991- 2000). 
Accra: Ministry o f Food and Agriculture.
Mullins, J. L (1993). Management and organizational behaviour (3rd ed~) London: Pitman.
Nagel, U. J. (1997). Alternatives approaches to organizing extension. In Swason, E. Burton, 
Bentz P. Robert and Andrew J. Sofranko(Eds.) Improving agricultural extension : A 
reference manual (pp. 13-20). Rome: F.A.O.
Ninsin, A. K. & Hansen E. (1989). The state development and politics in Ghana. London: 
Codesria book series.
Oakley P. & Garforth C. (1985). Guide to extension training. Rome: F.A.O
Okyere, K. (1997, February). Minutes of first south- western zone research extension linkage 
committee meeting. Held at Sasakawa centre: Cape Coast.
Onu, D. O. (1991). Communication and adoption of improved soil conservation: technologies 
by small scale farmers in Imo state of Nigeria. In Jacques F. (Eds) Agricultural 
systems in Africa. (Vol.l. no. el pp91-97
Peters, T. J. and Waterman R.H Jr. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Hapers& Row.
Republic o f Ghana (1992). Staff appraisal report: National Agricultural Extension Project 
(report No. 9847-GH). Accra: Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Robbins, P. S. & R. Stuart-kotze. (1990). Management: concepts and application (Canadian 
2nd ed.t. Ontario: Prentice- Hall.
Rue, W. L. & Byars, L. L. (1995). Management: skills and application atos ed .\ Chicago: 
IRWIN McGraw-Hill.
Rue, W. L. & Byars, L. L. (1999). Supervision: key link to productivity ('6th ed.~). Boston: 
IRWIN McGraw-Hill.
Swanson, E. B. (1997). Strengthening research-extension-farmer linkages. In Swanson, E. 
Burton, Robert P. Bentz and Andrew J. Sofranko (Eds), Improving Agricultural 
Extension: A reference manual (pp. 171-178). Rome: FAO
The budget statement, (2002). Republic of Ghana.
U.S. Peace Corps (1982). Agricultural development workers training maunual. Volume 11 
Extension skills. Washington, D.C: A. L. Nellum and Associates.
Van Den Ban, A.W and Hawkins, H. S. (1988). Agricultural Extension. Essex: Longman 
scientific and Technical
Vercruijsse, E.V.W. & Boyd T. B.(1970). Evaluation of an extension programme: report of a 
pilot study into the effects of the focus and concentrate programme in the Tamale area. 
Research report series paper No. 4. Cape Coast: University o f Cape Coast
Vijayaragavan, K. and Singh Y.P. (1997). Managing human resources within extension. In 
Burton, E. Swanson, Robert P. Bentz and Andrew J. Sofranko (eds). Tmprovinp 
Agricultural Extension: A reference manual. Rome: FAO
Whale, W.B. (1989). Technology transfer revisited: changing practices. In Blackburn, J. 
Donald (Eds) Foundation and changing practices in extension (pp. 108-117). 
University o f Guelph.
Wright, M.P. & Noe, A. R. (1996). Management of organizations. Boston: IRWIN McGraw- 
Hill.
153
Appendix 1
SOURCES OF SECONDARY DATA AND ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION.
List of personalities contacted.
• Some formal district officers with the Ministry of Food and Agriculture at Tema.
• National director of extension and some senior officers at the directorate of extension 
services.
• Regional training officer for the Regional Agricultural Development Unit of Greater 
Accra region.
• Administrators at the head office of Ministry of Food and Agriculture and
• Some staff o f Policy Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department at head office.
List of documents and report consulted.
• Management review of the ministry of agriculture established under a decentralised 
unified extension system.
• Medium term agricultural development programme (MTADP)
• Current organisational chart of MOFA
• Ministerial directive on the unified agricultural extension under the national agricultural 
extension project o f the medium term agricultural development programme (MTADP)
• Agricultural extension policy: directotrate of agricultural extension
• Strategic plan of MOFA
• Agricultural services sector investment programme
• Accelerated agricultural growth and development strategy in support of Ghana’s vision 
2020.
154
• Some RELC reports from some of the zones.
• MOFA’s handbook on decentralization
• Job descriptions for district directors and agricultural extension agents.
• The policy o f decentralization, evolving role of the ministry of food and agriculture. Case 
study of Ghana.
• Impact evaluation of the national agricultural extension project (NAEP).
155
APPENDIX 2A
SIMPLIFIED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
OF
MINISTRY OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
APPENDIX 2B 
THE NEW ORGANOGRAM OF MOFA
r" h T “
FISHERIES VET .
COMM1SION COUN C IL
M IN I S T E R
INTERNAL
AUDIT
MINISTERIAL
ADVISORY
BOARD
NATIONAL
AGRIC
RESEARCH
COMMITTEE
DEPUTY
M IN ISTER
DEPUTY
MINISTER
TECHN ICAL SOEs, STATUTORY
DIRECTORATE CORPORATIONS
......___________ -------(B)-----
HUMAN  
RESOURCE  
DEVELOPM ENT  
AND  MAN  AQ  EM ENT
HUMAN
RESOURCE
DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL DtRIiCTOR 
OF FOOD Si. AGRICULTURE 
(R-A.D)
REGIONAL
COORDINATINa
COUNCIL
(R.C.C)
RESEARCH. 
STATISTICS. 
PR. i t  INFO.
PROJECTS. 
PROGRAMS 
U BUDGET
HUMAN 
RESOURCE 
DEV. at 
MANAGEMENT
PROJECTS 
PROGRAMS 
& BUDGETS
FOOD 4t AORIC. 
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT 
OFFICERS
Tfehntee! A  AJmlnhtroUv* fUporllng 
AJmlnhiraiht /trpnrilng Only
Appendix 3A
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZED MINISTRY OF FOOD 
AND AGRICULTURE ON EXTENSION DELIVERY 
A STUDY OF TEMA MUNICIPALITY IN THE GREATER ACCRA REGION 
TO BE ADMINISTERED TO: Municipal Director o f Agriculture
PURPOSE OF STUDY: This study is to enable me prepare and submit a thesis to the
Department of Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ghana, Legon in
partial fulfilment o f requirements for M.phil. degree in Agricultural Extension
Please kindly answer the questions below and be sure that your responses will be treated in
confidence.
Questionnaire number:-------------------------------------------------------
Name of respondent (optional):-------------------------------------------------------------------
Town /village:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A . PERSONAL INFORMATION
1. Sex:-----------------------------------------------------------
2. Educational qualification :------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Professional status:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Years o f working experience:----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Your department before decentralization :---------------------------------------------------------
6. Status before decentralization:------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. KNOWLEDGE GENERATION.
7. Are you in any way involved now in the generation of technologies for your district?-
A.Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
158
8. If no who are involved? Name them.
9. If yes describe your involvement:
10. Is your involvement the same as what existed before your appointment as district director? 
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
11. If no state what the involvement was before your appointment and indicate any 
difference(s).----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. List up to ten major agricultural technologies that were introduced to fanners in your 
district during the NAEP period prior to decentralization of MOFA and indicate their
sources.
Technical areas Technologies introduced Major sources
159
13. Comparing the decentralization period to the NAEP period have the sources of 
technologies changed? A. Yes [ ] B.No [ ]
14. If yes what are the new sources of technologies?
Technology Sources.
15. Does your district source for technologies outside MOFA? 
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
16. If yes explain the procedure involved--------------------------
17. If no why?
18. Did your district source for technologies outside MOFA during the NAEP period
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
19. If yes indicate the procedure involved.-------------------------------------------------------
160
20. If no why?'
21. Do you source for technologies from within MOFA during NAEP and the decentralization 
period? Indication yes or no in correct column below.
DURING NAEP DURING DECENTRALIZATION.
22. Explain your answer to Q.21 for the NAEP and decentralization periods. 
During NAEP---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During decentralization
23. If  you answered yes for any period in Q. 21 describe the procedure put in place for 
sourcing technologies from within MOFA.
During NAEP---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During decentralization.
161
24. If before and during decentralization you source for technologies within MOFA, is there 
any difference(s) between the procedure used?
A . Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
25. If yes state the differences.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROBLEMS OF MUNICIPAL DIRECTOR / KNOWLEDGE REQUIED BY MUNICIPAL
DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
26. What are your problems as a district director of Agriculture in-charge of extension 
activities in your district?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Did you receive training on your appointment as district director of agriculture?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
28. If yes list the topics covered in your training.---------------------------------------------
29. Have you received any other training since becoming a district director of Agriculture? 
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
30. If yes indicate the type o f training and the training topics.-------------------------------------------
162
31. If your answer to Q. 29 is yes , where you involved in determining the training?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
32. If no did the training meet your needs? Explain.-----------------------------------------
33. Are you able to assist your AEAs in their extension work?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
34. If no why?-------------------------------------------------------------
35. If  yes explain how you are able to assist them.
36. Name five major extension problems of your AEAs and how you assisted them to solve 
these problems.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRUCTURE: Chain of command (planning, supervision, decision-making and 
control); division of work (responsibilities) and co-ordination of effort (meetings 
organised to ensure all flow together).
CHAIN OF COMMAND - PLANNING.
37. Did the district have goals: During NAEP?...................................................................
During decentralization.?..........................................................................................................
163
38. How did you arrive at these goals?-During NAEP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- During
decentralization.......................................................................................................................
39. Who are involved in setting goals for your district? During NAEP--------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------During
decentralization----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. Who determines the indicators /standards of goal attainment?
During NAEP------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- During
decentralization-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41. Are you as a district director involved in the setting of standards /indicator s of goal 
attainment? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
42. If yes explain your involvement----------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------
....................................  If no
why?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
164
43. During the NAEP period was you involved in setting standards / indicators of goal 
attainment? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
44. If no why?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. If yes explain your involvement.
46. During the NAEP and decentralisation periods what strategies did you adopt for achieving 
district goals and objectives?
NAEP period........................................................... .................................................................
Decentralisation period-
47. Who were involved in the programme planning?
Those involved What they do
48. Have the process of programme planning changed in the decentralization period?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
49. If yes indicate the new process of planning your programmes?------------------------
165
IMP identity those involved in the new process of planning and what they do.
Those involved What they do
51. How would you describe the type o f planning you had in the two periods with regards to 
your work?
A. Planning during NAEP period is better than the decentralization period. [ ]
B. Decentralization planning is better than NAEP planning. [ ]
C. There is no difference between the two periods. [ ]
CHAIN OF COMMAND -  SUPERVISION
52. How many supervisors did/do you have in your district?
During NAEP---------------------------------------------------
During decentralization---------------------------------------
53. How many extension agents does each supervisor supervise?
During NAEP------------------------------
During decentralization — .................................
54. How often does a supervisor visit each extension agent on the field on the average?
During NAEP.........................................
During decentralization----------------------------
166
I I P ij. Lnerc is any anrerence (s) in your answer to Q. 54 explain?'
56. What activities does a supervisor do to ensure that those supervised accomplish their jobs? 
During NAEP----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During decentralization
57. Who supervised the district extension officers during the NAEP period and what did it 
entail?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58. During the decentralization of MOFA who supervises the municipal director of agriculture 
and what do they do?
Title o f supervisor What he/she does as a supervisor
59. Is there any difference(s) between the kind of supervision given to municipal heads during 
the NAEP and decentralisation periods? A. Yes [ ] B.No. [ ]
60. If yes state the differences.................. ...........................................................................................
167
CHAIN OF COMMAND -  MANAGEMENT CONTROL
61. Who are involved in the monitoring of activities in the municipality? 
During NAEP------------------------------------------------------------------
During decentralization
62. Is municipal head involved in the monitoring?
During NAEP- A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
During decentralization A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
63. If  your answer is no for any period in Q. 71 explain?-
64. If  yes to Q 71 describe your involvement during NAEP and decentralization 
During NAEP--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During decentraliation
65. Does the monitor give you feedback based on the monitoring of your activities during 
NAEP and decentralization?
During NAEP A. Yes [ ] B .No [  ]
During decentraliation A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
66. Is there any difference in the way your activities are being monitored now compared to the
NAEP period? A. Yes [ ] B.No [ ]
168
o / . ir yes state the difference.
68. What is your opinion about monitoring in terms of you performing your duties in the two 
periods?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION OF WORK -  RESPONSIBILITIES
69. Please indicate your functions as a Municipal Director of Agriculture
70. Have your responsibilities increased or decreased compared to the NAEP period? A. 
Increased. [ ] B. Decreased. [ ]
71. Explain your answer to Q.70 with regards to performing your field duties.---------------------
CO-ORDINATION OF EFFORT
72. Do you have office meetings during NAEP and decentralization?
During NAEP A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
During decentralization. A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
73. If yes with whom do you have your office meetings during NAEP and decentralization? 
During NAEP---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
169
During decentralization
74. How often do you have your office meetings?
A. Once a week.[ ] C. Once in a fortnight [ ]
B. Monthly [ ] D. Others (specify)---------
75. Who organises the office meetings?------------------------------------------
76. What is the purpose of the office meetings?'
77. Apart from office meetings what other meeting do you attend? Indicate by completing the 
table below.
Title o f meeting. Purpose of meeting. Participating bodies (eg. 
Institutions, 
organizations, 
Departments etc.)
78. Are you provided with the resources you require for your work o f the Municipal 
Agricultural Development Unit? Indicate by completing the table below
170
Kesources. Indicate adequately 
provided, not 
provided or 
partially provided 
as it apply.
Resource provided 
on time (tick 
against resource). Comments.
Fund
Means of transport. 
Office
accommodation.
Teaching aids.
Materials and 
equipment for 
demonstration.
Others (specify)
171
Appendix 3B
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZED MINISTRY OF FOOD 
AND AGRICULTURE ON EXTENSION DELIVERY 
A STUDY OF TEMA MUNICIPALITY IN THE GREATER ACCRA REGION 
TO BE ADMINISTERED TO: Agricultural extension agents.
PURPOSE OF STUDY: This study is to enable me prepare and submit a thesis to the 
Department o f Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ghana, Legon in 
partial fulfilment o f requirements for M.phil. degree in Agricultural Extension 
NOTE: Please answer the questions below; responses will be treated in confidence. 
Questionnaire number:-------------------------------------------------
Name of respondent (optional):----------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/village:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS.
1. Sex:------------------------------------------------
2. Educational status:------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Years of working experience in MOFA:---------------------------------------------------------
4. Department before the decentralization of MOFA-----------------------------------------
5. Position before the decentralization of MOFA-----------------------------------
B. KNOWLEDGE GENERATION.
6. Are you involved in the generation of technologies for farmers?
During the NAEP period?------------------------- A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
During the decntralization period?-...........................A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
7. If your answer is yes for any of the periods or in both periods in Q.6 indicate your 
involvement?..............................................................................................................................
172
nR wnat technologies did you take to farmers last year (2001)? List them and their sources.
Technical area Technology. source
9. Are the technologies that you have indicated in Q.8 above the same as those you were 
taking to farmers during the NAEP period? A.Yes [ ] B.No [ ]
10. If yes why are the technologies the same?---------------------------------------------------------------
11. Do you source for technologies outside MOFA in the NAEP and decentralization periods?
During NAEP period?-------------------------------A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
During decentralization period?--------------------A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
12. If  you did not source for technologies outside MOFA in any period indicated in Q.l 1 state 
why?
NAEP period----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period-
13. If your answer is yes for any period in Q.l 1 indicate the source(s) of technologies and the 
procedure for sourcing the technologies.
Period Source of technologies Procedure for sourcing 
technologies.
NAEP
Decentralization
PROBLEMS OF FARMERS /KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED BY FARMERS.
14. Identify five major problems facing farmers you interact with during the NAEP period.
Technical area Problems
In your estimation how many of the problems in Q. 14 have you tackled successfully?
15. What happened to the problems that you could not tackle successfully?-
16. Identify five major problems facing the farmers you interacted with in the last farming 
season (2001)?
174
Technical area Problems
17. How many of the problems indicated in Q. 17 did you tackle successfully?-
18. What are you doing about those problems that could not be tackled?-
19. Describe the procedure you use to tackle problems during NAEP and the decentralization 
periods?
NAEP pe riod ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period
20. Indicate any difference(s) in the procedure you used for tackling problems during NAEP 
and the decentralization periods--------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Do your farmers accept the solutions that you provide for their problems? 
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ] C. Sometimes [ ]
175
z-z,. nApiain your answer to Q.21
23. Did your farmers accept the solutions that you provided for their problems during the 
NAEP period? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ] C. Sometimes [ ]
24. Explain your answer to Q. 2 3 .........................................................................................................
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENTS (AEAs) PROBLEMS / KNOWLEDGE
REQUIRED BY AEAs.
25. Did you face any problems doing extension work under the unified extension system 
during the NAEP period? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ] C. Sometimes [ ]
26. If  no or sometimes explain----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. If yes state the problems and indicate any solution(s) that was adopted.
Problems Solutions adopted
28. Do you face any problems doing extension work under the decentralized unified extension 
system? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ] C. Sometimes. [ ]
29. If no or sometimes explain?............................................................................................................
176
!3U. it yes indicate problems and any adopted solutions.
Problems Solutions adopted.
31. During the NAEP period have you been receiving in-service training on extension work? 
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
32. If no how are able to work effectively?-------------------------------------------------------------------
33. If yes indicate the training tropics and how useful they have been to you (use 1996 as 
reference year)
Training topics Usefulness.
34. In the decentralization period are you receiving in-service training on extension work? 
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
35. If no how are able to work effectively?----------------------------------------------------------------
177
yes indicate me training tropics and how useful they have been to you (use 2001 as
reference year)
Training topics Usefulness.
37. Who were your trainers during NAEP and the decentralization periods?
NAEP period.
Decentralization period
38. How did the trainers select their training topics during the NAEP period?-
39. How does your current trainers select their training topics?-
40. Are you currently involved in the selection o f training topics? 
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
41. If yes explain your involvement-------------------------------- -----
42. Were you involved in the selection of training topics during the NAEP period?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
43. If yes explain your involvement -..............................................................................
44. How often was the training?
178
p A r. wuai type training was it?
NAEP period ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
46. Do you visit your farmers in the NAEP and decentralization periods?
NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
Decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
47. How often do you visit your farmers?
NAEP period ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Do you schedule meeting days and time with your farmers?
NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
Decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
49. If yes are the farmers given the opportunity to determine the days and time?
NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
Decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
50. How do you contact your farmers?
NAEP period 1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
51. What methods do you use in delivering messages to farmers, indicate method and 
frequency o f use. This question covers the NAEP and decentralization periods.
179
iNAxir Period Decentralization Period
Frequency o f use Extension method Frequency of use Frequency of use
STRUCTURE: Chain of command (planning, supervision, and management control); 
division of work (responsibilities) and co-ordination o f effort (meetings organised to 
ensure all flow).
CHAIN OF COMMAND - PLANNING
52. Do you have goals/objectives for your operational area in NAEP and decentralization 
periods?
NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
Decentralization period A. Yes f ] B. No [ ]
53. If yes indicate how you came by the goals/ objectives in the NAEP and decentralization 
periods?
NAEP period --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period
54. Who are involved when goals/ objectives are being set for your operation area? List them 
for the NAEP and decentralization periods.
NAEP period ..............................................................................................................................
180
Decentralization period
55. Do you have indicators to determine the achievement o f your goals/ objectives in the 
NAEP and decentralization periods?
NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
Decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
56. How did you come by these indicators?
NAEP period-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decntralization period------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. Do you plan your activities during the NAEP and decentralization periods?
NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
Decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B .N o [  ]
58. Whom do you involve when planning your activities during NAEP and the
decentralization periods?
NAEP period Decentralization period
Those involved What they do . Those involved What they do
59. Since the decentralization began have you changed the process of planning your 
activities? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
60. If no indicate your planning process.............................................................................................
181
o i . i t  yes indicate the previous and current planning processes 
Previous planning process.................................................
Current planning process
62. How would you describe the type of planning you had in the two periods with regards to 
your work?
CHAIN OF COMMAND - SUPERVISION
63. Do you have somebody who visits and assist you in your work a s a supervisor?
During NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
During decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
64. If  yes for any of the periods in Q. 64 indicate the number of times your supervisor visited 
you .------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. If you had supervisors during NAEP and the decentralization periods indicate what they 
do during visits?
NAEP period ...............................................................................................................................
Decentralization period
66. Apart from visits what other assistance does your supervisor give you to make you 
effective and efficient in accomplishing your job in the decentralization period?-------------
182
67. Apart from visits what other assistance did your supervisor give you to make you 
effective and efficient in accomplishing your job in the NAEP period?-------------------------
68. How will you rate the quality of supervision you received in the two periods? Indicate 
by completing the table below.
Quality o f supervision. Period in question.
Very good supervision. 
Good supervision.
Fairly good supervision. 
Poor supervision.
decentralization NAEP
CHAIN OF COMMAND - MANAGEMENT CONTROL
69. Are your activities monitored on the field during the NAEP and decentralization periods?
During NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
During decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
70. Who monitor your activities in the NAEP and decentralization periods?
During the NAEP period ..............................................................................................................
During decentralization period?-
183
71. Are you involved in the monitoring of your activities during the NAEP and 
decentralization periods?
During the NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
During decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
72. If yes indicate your involvement during NAEP and the decentralization periods
NAEP pe riod ........................................... ...................................................................................
Decentralization period
73. Do you receive feedback based on the monitoring of your activities during the NAEP and 
decentralization periods?
NAEP period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
Decentralization period A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
74. What is your opinion about monitoring in terms of you performing your duties in the two 
periods?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIVISION OF WORK- Responsibilities
75. Complete the table below by listing your responsibilities in periods indicated
NAEP period Decentralization period
184
/o . How would you describe your ability to satisfy your farmers based on your
responsibilities in the NAEP and decentralization periods. Tick in table below.
NAEP period Decentralization periods
I am able to satisfy them always 
I am able to satisfy them sometimes 
I am not able to satisfy them
I am able to satisfy them always 
I am able to satisfy them sometimes 
I am not able to satisfy them
CO-ORDINATION OF EFFORT
77. Did you have office meetings during NAEP and decentralization periods? 
NAEP period?A. Yes [ ] B. [ ]
Decentralization period? Yes [ ] B. [ ]
78. How often did you have your office meetings in NAEP and decentralization periods?
NAEP period-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period----------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. Who organises the office meetings in NAEP and decentralization?---------------------NAEP
period ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. Who attend the office meetings in NAEP and decentralization?-----------------------------
NAEP period -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decentralization period -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
81. What is the purpose of the office meetings in the decentralization and the NAEP periods? 
State in table below.
NAEP period Decentralization period
185
82. How would you rate the effectiveness of co-ordination of effort in terms of performing 
your duties in the decentralization and the NAEP periods?
NAEP period  ...............................................................................................................
Decntralization period---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. Give reasons for your ratings.
NAEP period ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decntralization period------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------
RESOURCES
84. Are you provided with the resources you require for your work? Indicate by completing 
the table below.
Resources Indicate adequately provided, not 
provided or partially provided 
against the appropriate resource.
Comments.
Motorbike.
Transport and travelling
allowance.
Teaching aids.
Materials and equipment
for demonstrations.
Field uniforms/protective
clothing.
Others (specify).
186
MORALE OF STAFF
85. Are you satisfied with your job as an extension agent? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
86. If No why?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
87. If Yes give reasons
88. What do you suggest if  done will give you job satisfaction?-
187
Appendix 3C
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE IMPACT OF DECENTRALIZED MINISTRY OF FOOD 
AND AGRICULTURE ON EXTENSION DELIVERY 
A CASE STUDY OF TEMA MUNICIPALITY IN THE GREATER ACCRA REGION OF
GHANA
TO BE ADMINISTERED TO: Farmers in the Tema municipality
PURPOSE OF STUDY: this study is to enable me prepare and submit a thesis to the 
Department o f Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ghana, Legon in 
partial fulfilment of requirements for M.phil. degree in Agricultural Extension.
NOTE: Please answer the questions below; responses will be treated in confidence. 
Questionnaire number :------------------------------------------------
Name of respondent (optional):----------------------------------------------------------------------
Town/village:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. SOCIO- ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
1. Sex:--------------------------------  age:.............. .............................
2. Educational status:-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Marital status----------------------------A. married [ ] B. single [ ] C. widowed.[ ]
4. What type of farming system do you practice on your farm?
a) Mix cropping (growing more than one crop on the same land without row spacing)
b) Sole cropping (only one crop planted on the land)
c) Agro-forestry (food crops and tree crops)
d) Mixed farming (raising both crops and livestock)
e) Inter-cropping (growing more than one crop on the land in rows)
f) Others (specify)
188
B. EXTENSION DELIVERY (KNOWLEDGE GENERATION).
5. Have extension agents been visiting you?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
6. If  yes indicate the frequency o f visits per month.-------------------------------------------
7. Are you satisfied with the number of visits made to you by the extension agent? Explain.—
8. Do you discuss with your extension agent what your problems are?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
9. How often is the information he brings you able to solve your problems?
A. Always [ ] B. Sometimes [ ] C. Never [ ]
10. Messages on what does the extension agent bring to you?
11. Are the messages you received useful to you?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
12. If No why?
13. If Yes explain the usefulness of the messages
14. What messages in your opinion would you like to receive from your extension agent
189
PROBLEMS OF FARMERS
15. Do you like your extension agent?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
16. Give reasons for your answer
17. How will you describe your relationship with your extension agent?
18. Do you like the way your extension agent introduces new information to you?
A. Yes [ ] B. No[ ]
19. Give reasons for your answer to Q18
20. Are the messages you receive from your extension agent timely enough to meet your 
needs? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ] C. Sometimes [ ]
21. Give reasons for your answer to Q. 20
PROBLEMS OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENT
22. What do you think are some problems that affect your extension agent in his/her work? —
23. Does your extension agent live in your community? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
190
Z4. it No why?-
25. Where does your extension agent always meet you?
26. How does your extension agent pass on information to?
27. How does your extension agent contact you?
28. Does your extension agent have a motorbike? A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
29. If  No how does your extension agent visit you? ------------------------------------------
KNOWLEDGE REQUIRED BY AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AGENTS.
30. Are you able to communicate effectively with the extension agent- who visits you? 
Explain.
31. Does your extension agent sometimes seek some knowledge and skills from you? Explain.
32.Do you have confidence and trust in the extension agent in your area? Explain.
33. What do you think the AEA must know about you and your agricultural activities to be 
able to help you?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRUCTURE: chain of command (planning, supervision, decision making and control); 
division of work (responsibilities, specialisation and geographical coverage in terms of target 
population).
CHAIN OF COMMAND -  planning.
34. Does your extension agent involve you in planning agricultural activities?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
35. If  Yes explain your involvement --------------------- ----------------------------------------------
36. Have you ever been involved in a planning session for the Ministry o f Agriculture?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
37. If yes indicate the year in which you were involved.---------------------------------------
CHAIN OF COMMAND -  supervision.
38. Do you know anybody as a supervisor for the extension agent in your area?
A. Yes [ ] B. No [ ]
39. If your answer is yes in Q.38 indicate what the supervisor does when on visits?
DIVISION OF WORK- Responsibilities o f AEA.
40. What are the things that the extension agent does anytime he/she visit you?
APPENDIX 3D
INTERVIEW CHECK LIST 
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MUNICIPAL CHIEF EXECUTIVE
1. Do you have any formal relationship with the Department of Agriculture in your district? 
Yes or No.
2. Describe your relationship with the Department of Agriculture in your district.
3. Which is the main occupation for the people o f your district?
4. Do you have any plans for promoting agricultural production from its current level to a 
higher level? Explain.
5. How will you go about promoting agricultural production in your district.
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR THE MUNICIPAL ASSEMBLY SUB­
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
1. Is the department o f Agriculture in the district represented on your sub-committee? Yes or 
No.
2. What role does the department of agriculture play on this committee?
3. What is the relationship between the district assembly and the department of agriculture?
4. What support does the district assembly offer to the department o f agriculture?
5. What contribution does the department of agriculture make to the district assembly?
193