Agricultural research and extension linkage: synthesis and analysis of selected cases in the Philippines

Under this analysis, functional agricultural research-extension linkage (AREL) is characterized as a situation wherein it is intended users utilize technologies generated by research. It is indicated by the participation of the various actors in the various linkage mechanisms and the ultimate utilization of technologies to effect increase in production. Functionality is determined by the extent linking mechanisms such as input and feedback (e.g. joint planning workshops, research reviews, etc.), training, testing and adaptive research (techno-demo) and support services (e.g. seed distribution, soil laboratories, communication materials, transportation, etc.) are practiced in the process. But the performance of these mechanisms is further influenced by institutional variables, such as adequacy of logistic support (financial, manpower, and infrastructure), leadership and its commitment, and institutional mandate. The Philippines is characterized as having a pluralistic extension system, meaning there are multiple extension providers, or institutions involved such as the LGU [local government unit], SUCs [state universities and colleges], private organizations, non-government agencies (NGAs) and progressive farmers themselves. But the direct extension linkages with farmers has been devolved to the LGUs. Structurally, the main conduits to the farmers are the LGUs with all their limitations. This is institutionally determined as defined under RA 7160. The law has guided all other subsequent pronouncements effecting R and E [research and extension] linkages under various projects of the government. Hence, national food production programs of the government and their technology dissemination components have been designed following such institutional arrangements. This remains alarming if project implementors have limited perspective on the philosophy and practice of farmer participatory research and extension especially among the devolved extension workers who were given the added function of conducting on-farm verification trials at the provincial and municipal levels. This arrangement could further reinforce the much criticized top-down linear technology transfer model where technology flows from research to extension to farmers isolating farmers from active participation in determining research agenda that should be consistent with their varied farming contexts and needs. Strengthening LGU's capability along management technologies, problem solving, decision making, facilitating, negotiating and participatory development thus, is necessary. Among the linkage mechanisms evaluated, it was noted that the formal documentation of farmers' feedback in terms of their experiences in technologies tried on their farms was nil. Even worst was the non-recognition of some feedbacks shared during their rare attendance to research reviews, joint-planning workshops, and technology forum where extensionists and farmers could participate. While these were rarity, those projects with strong AREL were implemented under a MOA, but their sustainability was brief owing to the ad hoc nature of the MOA which was the enabling instrument for the collaboration. Provinces with very strong AREL had municipal extensionist as the major source of information, knowledge level was adequate, and extent of technology use for Leyte and Davao del Sur was high. Farmers' decisions to adopt were motivated by technologies' ability to increase yield, efficacy or effectiveness of the technology in solving local problems, affordability, and environmental benefits derived (e.g., as hazard-free for humans and the environment). Linkages operates at multiple levels. Formal linkages are executed at the level of head of agencies. However, the informal linkages play important role in polishing the formal linkages thus, ensuring more enduring research-extension linkages.