Governance Assessment of the Agricultural Sector in EgyptAgricultural Extension and Cooperation

Prepared by: Dr. Yasmine KhodaryCARE International in Egypt

2016

1

“This study has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of CARE International in Egypt and can in no

way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.”

2

Governance Assessment of the Agricultural Sector in Egypt:

Agricultural Extension and Cooperation

Prepared by: Dr. Yasmine Khodary

2016

CARE International in Egypt

3

Executive Summary

Study Objective: Despite the initiatives taken by some national and international organizations to assess governance, gauge integrity, transparency, and accountability and fight corruption, most of these initiatives are based on international indicators that do not take the national specific aspects into account. In addition, these indicators are inadequate to assess governance across sectors, and thus fail to present more contributions to the reform of these sectors. Therefore, CARE International undertakes a study to measure and assess governance in the agricultural sector in Egypt with emphasis on agricultural extension and cooperation (cooperatives) using indicators and standards suitable for the Egyptian situation of the agricultural sector and its legal and institutional framework in order to monitor and measure service providers’ practice of governance principles, with the objective of identifying issues facing the agricultural sector and reaching more suitable remedies.

Methodology: CARE International adopted the following methodology in conducting the assessment: 1) Reviewing literature and international frameworks in good governance and governance principles. 2) Due to the multiplicity of governance principles, the study places emphasis on four governance principles in the sectors of agricultural extension, cooperation and cooperatives which are: transparency, participation, accountability and responsiveness, in order to reach concrete and precise results. 3) Reviewing the legal and institutional framework of agricultural extension, agricultural cooperation and cooperatives with the objective of building indicators that suit the reality of the agricultural sector in Egypt with regard to the national specifics. 4) Formulating a comprehensive matrix of the four principles; each of them consists of sub-principles. Each sub-principle is divided into a group of indicators that are divided into sub-indicators. Sub-indicators are directly measured from the survey data using field interviews. 5) Designing a questionnaire titled “Assessing Governance in Agricultural Extension and Cooperation” to collect governance indicators’ data using field interviews. 6) Collecting the data of governance assessment in Beni Suef and Minya using field interviews. Governance assessment data are collected in Beni Suef from a sample of 54 service providers from the agricultural extension and cooperative administration staff in three districts in Beni Suef (El-Fashn – Ehnasia – Beba) who were present in their workplace during the data collection period. (6 interviews with service providers in agricultural extension administrations. These interviews are complemented by an interview with an agricultural extension leader from the agricultural extension directorate in Beni Suef - 6 interviews with service providers in agricultural cooperation administration staff. These interviews are complemented by an interview with an agricultural cooperation leader from the agricultural cooperation directorate in Beni Suef - 30 interviews with agricultural cooperatives’ staff in the three administrations, in addition to 8 interviews with the staff of joint agricultural cooperatives across the three districts and two interviews with central agricultural cooperatives staff in Beni Suef).

In Minya, due to the difficulties of issuing formal approvals of conducting the governance assessment survey, data are collected only from cooperatives through two focus groups

4

that included 18 participants from agricultural cooperatives’ staff in Minya. Lastly, indicators are analyzed on a scale of zero to 100, where zero represents the lowest level of the indicator and 100 represents the highest.

Notable findings: overall score of governance in the agricultural extension administration (61.2%) is very close its counterpart in the agricultural cooperation administration (62.5%). Responsiveness scores the highest in agricultural extension, while transparency scores the highest in agricultural cooperation. Accountability has the lowest score in both agricultural extension and cooperation.

In general, the overall scores of governance are similar in both the agricultural cooperation and extension in each of the three surveyed districts, with a difference that doesn’t exceed 4 percentage points (more or less) for any of the three districts. Governance in the agricultural extension and cooperation administrations in El-Fashn scores the highest among districts (73.7%, 76.4% respectively), whereas scores are lowest in Ehnasia (44.2%, 48.6% respectively). Governance in agricultural cooperatives hardly exceeds the low level (41%). Unlike the situation in agricultural extension and cooperation, El-Fashn has the lowest scores of governance in agricultural cooperatives (34.7%), compared with Ehnasia which has the highest score (49.8%) due to the higher score of responsiveness compared with other principles, yet this percentage is still considered to be low.

Recommendations: The findings of governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperation (cooperatives) in Beni Suef and Minya reveal common weaknesses and problems among most districts and the directorate. The following is some recommendations to activate the role of governance in the agricultural extension and cooperation (cooperatives):

• Disclosure of financial information such as budgets, announcing more technical and financial information, and creating a formal and institutional mechanism for requesting information in the agricultural extension administration.

• Introducing cooperation staff to the means and mechanisms of internal and external accountability, its importance and using diverse internal accountability mechanisms.

• The government should not solely undertake the responsibility of agricultural extension; NGOs, cooperative associations and media (civil society) should all engage in this task.

• Activating the role of cooperatives in monitoring and technical and financial accountability (particularly for the agricultural cooperation administration), as an external, administrative or social (through farmers and citizens) accountability mechanism.

• Raising cooperatives’ awareness of the importance of cooperation with not only landowner farmers but also local and civil society. Cooperatives should be merged into the community and work with other agricultural cooperatives in order to benefit from the available opportunities in the community.

• Creating a mechanism for cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, especially for the agricultural extension and other government agencies such as Ministry of Social Solidarity.

5

• Creating diverse mechanisms for agricultural cooperation and extension administration staff to identify beneficiaries’ needs.

• Creating diverse and effective means and mechanisms for responding to beneficiaries’ needs such as new learning needs, inclusion of population and environmental culture in agricultural extension to ensure that extension programs fulfill the needs of farmers from diverse environments and backgrounds.

• Activating/ developing systems to address complaints.

• Advocacy and networking activities to gather resources, in order to effectively meet beneficiaries’ needs.

• Developing a system/ plan to deal with crises and urgent needs so that agricultural cooperation, extension or cooperatives’ staff is able to effectively respond to crises and urgent needs.

6

Table of Contents

101- Introduction

112- Good governance in the agricultural sector with emphasis on agricultural extension and cooperation

122-1 Transparency

132-2 Participation

142-3 Accountability

152-4 Responsiveness

163- Agricultural extension and cooperation: Legal and institutional framework

193-1 Legal and organizational framework of the agricultural extension sector in Egypt

283-2 Legal and organizational framework of the agricultural cooperation and cooperative sector in Egypt

324- Methodology of governance assessment of the agricultural extension, cooperation and cooperatives

334-1 Focusing on a specific stage, sector or field

334-2 Reviewing previous experiences of countries and international organizations in government assessments

334-3 Reviewing previous experiences of countries and international organizations in government assessment of the agricultural sector, particularly in the extension and cooperative sectors

334-4 Examining the legal and institutional framework of agricultural extension and cooperation

344-5 Formulating a comprehensive matrix of governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperation

344-6 Designing the questionnaire of governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperatives

344-7 Statistical sample of government assessment

7

374-8 Challenges faced by governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperation

374-9 Lessons learned from governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperation

384-10 Governance assessment data analysis

395- Governance assessment of agricultural extension, cooperation and cooperatives

405-1 Overview of governance of agricultural extension, cooperation and cooperatives

415-2 Governance assessment of agricultural extension

485-3 Governance assessment of agricultural cooperation

555-4 Governance assessment of various types of agricultural cooperatives

726- Conclusion and recommendations for promoting governance in agricultural extension, cooperation and cooperatives

726-1 Recommendations for promoting governance in agricultural extension

766-2 Recommendations for promoting governance in agricultural cooperation

776-3 Recommendations for promoting governance in agricultural cooperatives in Egypt

787- Capacity building plans (institutional development plans)

797-1 Capacity building plan (institutional development plan): Agricultural extension

837-2 Capacity building plan (institutional development plan): Agricultural cooperation

867-3 Capacity building plan (institutional development plan): Agricultural cooperatives

93Appendix (1): Questionnaire of governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperation in Egypt questionnaire: Agricultural extension and cooperation (and cooperatives) staff questionnaire

108Appendix (2): Governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperation in Beni Suef

124References

8

Tables16Table (1): Good governance concepts in the agricultural sector

36Table (2): Statistical methodology

40Table (3): Overview of governance in agricultural extension, cooperation andcooperatives

42Table (4): Governance assessment scores in agricultural extension

43Table (5): Transparency scores in agricultural extension

44Table (6): Participation scores in agricultural extension

46Table (7): Accountability scores in agricultural extension

47Table (8): Responsiveness scores in agricultural extension

48Table (9): Governance assessment scores in agricultural cooperation

49Table (10): Transparency scores in agricultural cooperation

51Table (11): Participation scores in agricultural cooperation

53Table (12): Accountability scores in agricultural cooperation

54Table (13): Responsiveness scores in agricultural cooperation

55Table (14): Governance assessment of various agricultural cooperatives

56Table (15): Governance assessment scores in agricultural cooperatives

58Table (16): Transparency scores in agricultural cooperatives

59Table (17): Participation scores in agricultural cooperatives

62Table (18): Accountability scores in agricultural cooperatives

64Table (19): Responsiveness scores in agricultural cooperatives

65Table (20): Governance assessment scores in joint agricultural cooperatives

67Table (21): Transparency scores in joint agricultural cooperatives

69Table (22): Participation scores in joint agricultural cooperatives

70Table (23): Accountability scores in joint agricultural cooperatives

71Table (24): Responsiveness scores in joint agricultural cooperatives

79Table (25): Capacity building plan for agricultural extension

83Table (26): Capacity building plan for agricultural cooperation

86Table (27): Capacity building plan for agricultural cooperatives

9

Figures

18Figure (1): Organizational structure of the Ministry of Agriculture

21 Figure (2): Former structure of the central administration of agriculturalextension

23Figure (3): New structure of the central administration of agriculturalextension

24 Figure (4): Another form of organizational structure of the centraladministration ofagricultural extension

29Figure (5): Cooperative structure in the Arab Republic of Egypt

32Figure (6): Organizational structure of the central administration ofagricultural cooperation

39 Figure (7): Governance assessment of the agricultural extension orcooperation guide

42Figure (8): Governance in the agricultural extension in Beni Suef

48Figure (9): Governance in the agricultural cooperation in Beni Suef

56Figure (10): Governance in the agricultural cooperatives in Beni Suef

65Figure (11): Governance in the joint agricultural cooperatives in Beni Suef

10

1- IntroductionThe agricultural sector is one of the vital productive sectors, its upgrade and development is reflected in the fulfillment of citizen’s nutritional needs on the one hand, and decreasing poverty rates in rural areas and achieving sustainable development in the community as a whole on the other hand. Therefore, comprehensive upgrade of the agricultural sector that includes all activities and operations will eventually lead to not only higher productivity, better quality and improvement of farmer’s circumstances, but also sustainable community development and lower poverty rates. According to the literature, the decline in development indicators in Egypt is attributed to the decline in agriculture-related indicators. Accordingly, it is necessary to assess the performance of this sector in terms of fulfilling farmers’ needs and capability of advancing development.

The upgrade and reform of the agricultural sector in Egypt from good governance perspective is an innovative and effective approach to increase agricultural sector growth and productivity. The sector faces many challenges that can be addressed by adopting good governance principles such as transparency, participation, accountability, responsiveness, justice, efficiency, effectiveness, respect for the law and fighting corruption. It suffers from the lack of a comprehensive framework for the agricultural development process; each party works separately in the field of development according to its own objectives and methodology rather than working under a unified approach or a national project for the agricultural development. The sector also suffers from low investments compared with other sectors and government’s abstention from monitoring and evaluating projects after they end. All of these factors contribute to decreasing the efficiency of this sector. On the other hand, the agricultural sector suffers from the decline of the role of cooperative associations in the agricultural sector development due to their failure to work as a mechanism for farmers’ participation in formulating agricultural policies. In fact, they are only administrative units affiliated to the Ministry of Agriculture. Some associations are witnessing rivalry between families to control their boards of directors, which negatively influence the efficiency of these associations. Therefore, the adoption of transparency, participation, efficiency and responsiveness principles besides other good governance principles in the agricultural sector will increase its efficiency and guarantee that the benefits of the agricultural sector and its reform will reach farmers and all community groups in general.

In cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, CARE International undertook the governance assessment of the agricultural sector in Egypt, with emphasis on the agricultural extension and cooperation sectors. Due to the multiplicity of governance dimensions, the assessment focuses on only four dimensions of governance in the agricultural sector, particularly in agricultural extension and cooperation, which are: transparency, participation, accountability and responsiveness, in order to reach precise and concrete results.

This assessment fits the Egyptian situation taking the specific aspects of the agricultural sector in Egypt into account in order to identify problems facing the sector, particularly in agricultural extension and cooperation, and reach suitable solutions for them. Despite the initiatives taken by some national and international organizations to assess governance to identify shortcomings of performance, gauge integrity, transparency, and accountability

11

and identify necessary tools to fight corruption, most of these initiatives are based on international indicators that do not take the national specific aspects into consideration. In addition, these indicators are inadequate to assess governance across sectors, and thus fail to present more contributions to the reform of these sectors.

2- Good governance in the agricultural sector with emphasis on agricultural

extension and cooperation

Upgrading the agricultural sector from the good governance perspective is an innovative and effective approach to enhance agricultural sector growth and productivity. The World Bank and international experts Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay and Massimo Mastruzzi define good governance as the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised in a sector, region or a country for the public interest, including: 1) The process by which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced 2) The capacity of governments to effectively manage resources and implement policies. 3) The respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among them. Accordingly, this definition points to various principles such as accountability, transparency, participation, equality, the rule of law, effectiveness and efficiency.According to the United Nations Development Program, good governance refers to “the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority at all levels to manage a country’s affairs. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, fulfill their obligations and mediate their differences”. Moreover, The European Union defines good governance as “the rules, process, behaviors that affect the way in which powers are exercised at European level, particularly as regards openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and cohesion.” The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) adds to this definition the participation of individuals and public, private, formal and informal institutions in planning and managing public affairs, in addition to using proper legal frameworks and effective mechanisms and policies to respond to citizens’ needs.

Based on the World Bank’s definition of governance, Amrit Petal defines good governance in agriculture as: 1) The process by which authority is exercised in order to implement and manage agricultural projects, 2) The capacity of agricultural sector officials to manage resources and effectively implement policies, 3) Citizens and farming communities’ ability to demand better agricultural services and hold public officials. Good governance in agriculture requires policies, mechanisms and practices that are based on transparency and farmers’ participation in expressing their interests and exercise their legal rights. Like the World Bank’s definition, this definition refers to various principles such as accountability, transparency, participation, equality, the rule of law, effectiveness and efficiency.

Hernandez, Ruiz and Garcia (2008) note that good governance in cooperatives involves managing and guiding cooperative towards realizing their objectives. Accordingly, the main objective of cooperatives, as stated by Chavez and Soler (2004), is guiding directors towards managing cooperatives through democratic and institutional mechanisms that work for the interest of their members and community. This includes effective delivery of services and products for cooperative members

12

and participation in community building. According to Romero and Pérez (2003), cooperatives’ participation in the development of their members and community is an integral part of the process of cooperative associations and its management. On a more aggregate level, Landell-Mills and Serageldin (1992) believe that good governance in cooperatives includes the process of decision making in the cooperative and its capacity of implementing decisions taken. It is characterized by transparency (openness), accountability, participation, and efficient performance.

Accordingly, Good governance in the agriculture sector refers to the proper man-agement of agricultural sector institutions through policies, mechanisms and practices based on transparency, participation, accountability, the rule of law and fighting corruption aiming to achieve justice among citizens, respond to their needs and seek efficiency, so that policies and services reach the highest level of effectiveness and quality to achieve citizens’ satisfaction.

Successful countries, including their agencies and institutions, adopt good governance and its various principles, due to its positive impact not only on citizens but also on decision makers. Good governance involves the participation of relevant stakeholders in the decision making process and policy formulation and providing several means and channels for officials’ accountability. It sets the stage for upgrading policies and services and ensures that services reach citizens and most vulnerable areas, and thus leads to increasing citizens’ trust and satisfaction with policies and the services they receive.

For analysis purposes, the assessment focuses on four principles of good governance in the agriculture sector (specifically agricultural extension and cooperation), which are: transparency, participation, accountability, and responsiveness. The definition of each of above principles differs according to the party studying and assessing it; some may merge it with another dimension, extend it or define it in a very specific manner. The following is some definitions of the above four principles from literature and various international organization.

2-1 Transparency

The United States Agency for International Development USAID and the United Nations Development Programme UNDP define transparency as citizens’ openness and awareness of government decisions; USAID defines it as “citizens’ access to government processes, while UNDP uses the term to refer to “open government decision making that is subject to public and private legislative monitoring”. Accordingly, transparency involves an open relation between the government and public; governments must have diverse procedures and policies for information access by the public. This openness in the relation between the government and the public ensures the legitmacy of the government’s policies and decisions.Freedom House believes that there is a close relation between transparency and fighting corruption, hence incorporates them into one aspect through which it measures the extent of transparency of a government (as regards budget, expenditure, procurment system, ..etc.) and having protective procedures against corruption and legal and institutional frameworks to fight corruption. According to Global Integrity, Public Information and Media indicator refers to media capacity and freedom of following and monitoring corruption

13

cases, in addition to disclosure and access to information. Transparency and information access require guarantees such as freedom of expression and freedom of information, according to Transparency International.

Amrit Petal affirms that transparency and information in the agricultral sector are important elements for good governance and enhanced accountability and participation. Without sufficient and sound information, farmers and stakeholders cannot participate in agricultural processes nor hold officials accountable due to the lack of awareness of who is in authority, their rights, duties, accountability body, accountability procedures,.. etc. Therefore, transparent and accessable information must be made available.1 Such information vary be it information on strategies ,policies ,decisions ,plans ,projects or procedures.

Dayanandan (2013) states that transparency in cooperatives is the availability of information on cooperative work ,activities decisions and other cooperative-related information for all users 2 .Pradhan (2005) points to transparency as a free or low-cost access to sound information ,which entails cooperative members ,users and the public awareness of policies ,budgets ,decisions ,programs ,activities ,reports ,and economic and financial information 3 .Transparency is considered to be the main pillar of good governance that has a strong influence on the rest of governance principles .Without transparency and clear and adequate information on activities ,procedures and responsibilities ,participatory work and accountability become more difficult.

2-2 Participation

Over the last two decades, participation of civil society organizations with the main actors in development has increased on the international, national and local level. This is a result of world trends such as “country ownership of development”, “Citizens’ participation”, “social accountability”, “decentralization” and “enhancing democratic rule”. The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) believes that “participation is an integral part of mechanisms that promote strong local representative democracies through inclusive, free and fair municipal elections”. Civic engagement by citizens and organizations, is a basic right of human basic rights and freedoms, according to the United Nations Development Program UNDP; it contributes to enhancing democratic rule through providing citizens with a solid mechanism for expressing opinions in decisions that influence their lives. It also facilitates decision makers’ accountability.

According to World Governance Indicators (WGI), participation is a continous process in which stakeholders are involved; it includes consultation, participation in decision making, developing plans and projects and monitoring performance, which entails a sense of commitment, responsibility and ownership. Global Integrity defines participation as the direct and indirect effective role of men and women in the decision making process, while the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) emphasizes women, men, poor and non-poor equal rights in participation.

Community participation is crucial for any agricultural upgrading endeavors; participation is a basic dimension that ensures farmers’ commitment and support for informed and smooth implementation of agricultural decisions and projects. According to Amrit Petal’s

14

definition of good governance, farmers, interest groups and vulnerable groups must have the chance to participate in formulating agricultural development plans and strategies and designing and implementing programs and projects through participatory and consultational mechanisms and processes. Petal emphasizes the importance of participation in the decision making process for all groups of farmers, especially for women, directly or through legitimate intermediate organizations representing their interests. The freedom of expression and freedom of association are basic guarantees of participation, for broad participation and consultation revolve around farmers’ ability to participate freely using sufficient information.4

Hernández (2001) claims that participation is the essence of agricultural cooperatives. Cooperatives are basically established on the basis of participation of their members of farmers in the cooperative sphere, such a right is provided by the law for farmers and other stakeholders. This right entails obligations regarding the management of the cooperative and fulfilling its duties.5 Pradhan (2005) also believes that participating in cooperatives is a collective decision making process in which responsibilities are shared among members under group leadership and open discussions. Members contribute with their time and sometimes their resources (through membership fees or donations) in planning, monitoring, evaluation, etc.6 Dayanandan (2013) measures participation in cooperatives using attendance percentages of general meetings in which cooperative-related decisions are taken in addition to participation in cooperative work in any way.7 Gentle (2004) asserts the importance of individual’s actual participation through eliminating all restrictions and ensuring freedom of interaction and participation, as one’s physical participation in a meeting is not a sufficient evidence of actual participation.8

2-3 Accountability

Accountability is one of the governance principles studied by international organization such as the World Bank, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT). For instance, the World Bank defines accountability as “the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in electing their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media”. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) evaluation of accountability focuses on “the extend to which government officials are approved by the public”, while the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) views accountability in a broad manner that involves “transparency mechanisms, responsiveness, personal safety and rule of law.»

World Bank’s Voice and Accountability indicator, one of World Governance Indicators (WGI), refers to a country’s citizens ability to participate in selecting their governments as well as freedom of expression and freedom of association. In its definition of accountability, Freedom House places emphasis on elections; it views accountability as the availability and adherence to the necessary legal frameworks for a free and fair elections (in election campaigns, funding, transfer of power ... etc.), affective and accountable government, participation and monitoring by the people. Finally, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) views accountability as clear and effective lines for (legal, financial,

15

administrative and political) accountability that are crucial for ensuring the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery. Accordingly, accountability is the commitment of those in power to present underlying reasons behind their actions and their willingness to take the responsibility for the consequences; it involves those with political, financial and other forms of power, including government officials, businessmen, service providers, tranditional leaders and non-governmental organizations. Accountability is based on virtual contracts between citizens and those in authority.

In the same vein, Dayanandan (2013) defines accountability in cooperative associations as the ability to summon any official or cooperative member and hold him accountable for his actions or responsibilities through specific channels and procedures. Hence, effective accountability is based on two main elements; the first is responsibility for actions and consequences.9 Surely, transparency and participation effectively enhance officials’ accountability; the availability of information regarding the functional responsibilities, duties, practices and actions of officials, as well as participation in monitoring and evaluation, and lack of concentration of power in the decision making process in agricultural cooperatives all contribute to activating accountability and making it less complicated. Strong accountability requires other guarantees such as oversight, monitoring, conflict of intrest prevention and checks and balances, according to Global Integrity.

Amrit Petal believes that accountability in the agricultural sector, in a narrow sense, focuses on the ability to monitor officials and their financial disclosures according to the law. However, in a broad sense, it involves monitoring agricultural sector’s performance by monitoring bodies and official’s performance by the civil society, hence accountability is a function of both the public and official institutions.01 In that sense, accountability involves social accountability including several interventions and tools that citizens, community, civil society organizations and the media can use to hold government officials accountable. it is an approach that is based on civic engagement, through which regular citizens/ civil society organizations directly or indirectly participate in accountability.11

2-4 Responsiveness

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) defines responsiveness as government’s consideration to the interests of the poor and formulating gender sensitive policies for service implementation and delivery. Accordingly, responsiveness focuses on citizens’ interaction, especially the poor, and their aspirations as well as responding to crises and emergencies. There is a close relation between participation and responsiveness in the context of democratic governance; “Participating by expressing opinions is met by response. The process should not stop at the expression of citizens’ opinions, the state and service providers must respond to these opinions and be willing and able to change their actions”.21 Dayanandan (2013) believes that responsiveness has two sides; one is the cooperative administration responsiveness to members and the other is members’ responsiveness to cooperatives. Response must be adequate and immediate31 .

The presentation above explains the variation in the definitions of each of the four

16

dimensions under study (transparency, participation, accountability and responsiveness) according to the organization studying and assessing each of them; some organizations may incorporate 2 dimensions and others may extend the definition or present it in a very narrow sense. For analysis purposes, transparency, participation, accountability and responsiveness dimensions are assessed in the agricultural sector (specifically agricultural extension and cooperation) according to the below definitions.

Table (1): Good governance concepts in the agricultural sector

Good governance in the agriculture sector refers to the proper management of ag-ricultural sector institutions through policies, mechanisms and practice es based on transparency, participation, accountability, the rule of law and fighting corruption aiming to achieve justice among citizens, respond to their needs and seek efficiency, so that policies and services reach the highest level of effectiveness and quality to achieve citizens’ satisfaction.

Good Governance Principles under StudyEase of access to information for farmers and beneficiaries and openness in the relation between the government and citizens.Transparency

Farmers and stakeholders’ participation in all of the stages of deci-sion making in the agricultural sector, including expressing opinions and participating in planning, implementation and evaluation.

Participation

Agricultural sector officials’ responsibility for their duties and con-sequences and the availability of diverse and effective parties and means for monitoring and accountability.

Accountability

Interaction and responding to the needs and problems of farmers and beneficiaries from different groups and fields.Responsiveness

3- Agricultural extension and cooperation: Legal and institutional frameworkAgricultural extension is an informal educational process. A large sector of agricultural advisors and local leaders contribute to this process. It is considered to be one of the essential ingredients for advancing the agricultural sector in Egypt. However, agricultural extension doesn’t receive the adequate attention in relation to its importance. The main challenge facing this sector is the multiplicity of agencies responsible for agricultural extension; among which are the central administration of agricultural extension, central specialised administrations, technology transfer component in various institutes and

17

laboratories, extension components in development projects affiliated to the Ministry of Agriculture,the General Authority for Fisheries Resources Development, General Organization For Veterinary Services and General Authority for Irrigation extension. This leads to conflicting policies, limited attention to agricultural advisors and low media attention to providing and activating agricultural extension services.

On the other hand, agricultural cooperatives are economic and social units based on community interest and aim at upgrading agriculture’s various fields including animal and plant production, water resources, or land reclamation and development. Cooperatives are either multi-purpose or specialised. They are considered to be one of the main means for development in the agricultural sector in Egypt, due to the services and technical, in-kind and financial support they provide for farmers, their contribution to rural development and the improvement of the economic and social situation of their members. As economic and social units, cooperatives are probably the most suitable agency to achieve economic development along with equal distribution of resources, poverty eradication and realising food security through participatory and democratic mechanisms. However, agricultural cooperatives suffer from governmental redtape the and lack of independence from the government. Government basically undertakes the management of cooperatives instead of farmers, hence cooperatives lose the main characteristic upon which a cooperative is based.

Due to the importance of agricultural extension and cooperation in advancing the agricultural sector in Egypt, their situation in Egypt must be reconsidered. Good governance provides a new perspective to upgrade agricultural extension and cooperation sectors by enhancing transparency, responsiveness, efficiency, participation, accountability, etc. For instance, the sector’s efficiency and responsiveness to farmers’ and citizens’ needs can be enhanced by incorporating the multiple agencies responsible for agricultural extension into one agency to avoid the conflict among multiple agencies. Agricultural cooperation efficiency can be improved through activating its role in improving the agricultural situation and liberating it from governmental red tape, ensuring its independance from government’s interventions in its management, and assigning its management to farmers.

Legal, organizational and institutional framework is the basis for any sector that determines its units’ responsibilities and tasks to be delivered to beneficiaries, whether citizens or farmers, under the current laws, bylaws and executive decrees. Therefore, the legal and institutional framework governing the work of agricultural extension and cooperation must be examined in detail. As shown in the highlighted part in the organizational structure of the Ministry of Agriculture below, agricultural extension constitutes a complete sector consisting of four central administrations, while agricultural cooperation is one of the seven central administrations within the jurisdiction of the agricultural services sector (figure 1 demonstrates the status of agricultural extension sector and the central administration of agricultural cooperation within the Ministry of Agriculture structure). The following is a discussion of the legal and organizational framework for both of them.

18

19

3-1 Legal and organizational framework of the agricultural extension sector in Egypt

Agricultural extension sector is the link between research centers and their studies, researches and technology of utilising natural resources and farmers in fields and workplace. The sector has undergone many development stages till it reached its current status as follows:

The first stage: involved scattered extension services among various group associations which were unspecialized in extension, in addition to some field visits by non-governmental farms’ engineers for the large-scale farms to raise their awareness about increasing productivity.

The second stage: started by the issuance of the rural reform law no. 30 of 1944 which aimed at establishing agricultural groups and an agricultural council for each group to be responsible for the dissemination of the guidelines of the Ministry of Agriculture. This stage was characterized by direct and grouped extension services. However, it had some shortcomings regarding the multiple supervisory agencies, the lack of independent extension organizations and the perception of agricultural extension services as an extra or minor task, as well as the lack of targeting small-scale farmers who constitute the grassroot level of the farming community.

The third stage: was a result of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) extension conference and the 23rd of July 1952 revolution in which agricultural extension was regarded as one of the important social and economic development programs. This stage was characterised by unified and independent extension organization with a clear organizational structure in 1953.

The fourth stage: lasted for thirty years (from 1953 to 1983) and witnessed many changes. In this stage, agricultural extension had been within the jurisdictions of the Agricultural Culture Department within the period (1953 - 1958). From 1958 to 1962, it was transfered to the Public Administration of Regional Services and upgraded from an agricultural extension department to an Agricultural Extension Monitoring Body and later to the Public Administration of Agricultural Extension; it included training for the first time in 1962/1963. Training function was separated from agricultural extension within the period (1964 - 1968) and Agricultural Extension Monitoring then became an independent public administration under the Ministry of Agriculture. As for the period from 1968 to 1976, the ministrial decree no. 251 of 1986 was issued to establish a higher council for agricultural extension which consisted of representatives from universities, higher agricultural institutes, farmers, cooperative agencies, service and research departments of the Ministry of Agriculture along with agricultural extension representatives on the central and regional level to discuss issues facing agriculture and suggest suitable solutions and recommended extension policy. The decree no. 478 of 1968 was issued to upgrade the Public Administration of Agricultural Extension to be directly affiliated to the Undersecretary for the Agricultural Extension Affairs, which is equivalent to the status of a separate undersecretary with attached extension research and technical office. This was followed by amendments that focused on the governorate, district, and village level pursuant to decree no. 409 of 1976 with no organizational changes on the national level.

The period from 1979 to 1983 witnessed a change in the role of agricultural extension under the ministrial decree no. 151 of 1979 that defined the responsibilities of the public administration of agricultural extension to include: developing plans to increase agricultural production through advising farmers, addressing the problems they face and encourage them

20

to follow agricultural research’s guidlines and recommendations, as well as developing extension plans in order to achieve the maximum agricultural productivity and setting programs to raise the agricultural efficiency of rural families and their rural incomes. In these years, Agricultural extension started to focus on youth and women through rural household extension, advising households to utilise available local resources, manage production and implement planned projects in the economic, industrial, agricultural, and social fields as well as other rural development fields. Agricultural extension also started to pay more attention to field extension through implementing the field extension project and fixed extension villages. scientific audio-visual media aids had been also largely used in planning and implementing extension programs and used intensively in field visits, seminars and extension meetings through rural television and radio programs. The types of specialized extension bulletins and the number of their printed issues had increased. This period also witnessed increased attention to upgrading agricultural extension units such as Esha’a’ center for farmers to promote the findings of technical research and advances in mechanization and agricultural methods.

The fifth and last stage: started in 1983 and linked between agricultural extension and the Agricultural Research Center under the ministrial decree no. 744 of 1982 that stipulated linking between the agricultural extension and agricultural research apparatus through the Agricultural Research Center. Accordingly, the Public Administration of Agricultural Extension had moved from the general bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture to the Agricultural Research Center. To link both entities, three agencies of the agricultural research center were established under the order no. 149 of 1983; the first undertakes agricultural research, the second is for production and plants and the third addresses agricultural extension affairs. Under the ministrial decree no. 280 of 1985, supported by the presidential decree no. 272 of 1988, the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension became under the administration of the Agricultural Research Center Agency for Agricultural Extension Affairs.

The agricultural extension sector consists of the following central and public administrations:

3-1-1 The Central Administration of Agricultural ExtensionAs previously mentioned, the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension operates under the administration of the Agricultural Research Center through the Agricultural Research Center Agency for Agricultural Extension Affairs. The Central Administration has faced several organizational difficulties and had several names throughout the period from 1983 to 1990. The indicative regulation, approved by the Agricultural Research Center, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Central Authority For Organization & Administration, was issued to put agricultural extension on the level of a central administration under the Agricultural Research Center Agency for Agricultural Extension Affairs and Training consisting of four administrations on the central level, as demonstrated in figure 2, three of which are technical: Monitoring and Counselling Administration, Extension Program Administration and Extension Methods Administration. The fourth is specialized in financial and administrative affairs and has 10 affiliated technical departments to cover most of extension fields and interests on the central level in addition to 4 financial and administrative departments. On the regional level, the Central Administration has three Public Administrations: Applied Extension in Cairo, Applied Extension in Lower Egypt

21

and Applied Extension in Upper Egypt, as shown in the below figure. Besides secretarial, administrative and financial affairs departments, each of the public administrations consists of four technical departments with 12 affiliated extension departments covering most of extension fields and interests on the regional level (on the governorate, district and village level). The ministrial decree no. 1833 of 2000 stipulates dividing the republic’s governorates into nine extension administrative regions under the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension on the regional level as follows: North Delta, West Delta, Northern and Central Delta, East Delta, Southern and Central Delta, Northern Upper Egypt, Middle Egypt, Upper Egypt, and North Coast. Each of these regions serves a group of governorates.

Figure (2): Former structure of the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension

It is worth noting that the organizational structure of the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension does not show the status of the Public Administration of Agricultural Culture or the Public Adminstration of Museums and Galleries despite being a part of it according to the organizational structure of the Ministry of Agriculture. Some of the staff of the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension are not even aware of this fact.

Given the multiple functions of the various administrations of the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension over time, the organizational structure of the Central Administration includes 18 administrations on the central level, as shown in the below figure, their main responsibility is to plan and organize extension and training programs, each in its specialization, on top of which: animal extension administration, horticultural extension administration, cotton and fiber advancement administration, suger crops advancement administration, grains administration, leguminous and oleaginous crop advancement administration, administration of crop advancement in new lands, extension program

22

administration (which undertakes planning and organizing extension programs in various agricultural production fields), extension publications administration (which undertakes the preparation and production of extension publications (magazines, bulletins, flyers and posters)), media administration (which is responsible for preparing and producing media material and audio-visual aids, marketing extension administration (which participates in implementing marketing extension programs and communicates marketing information and services to relevant agencies), agricultural councils administration (which supervises the activities of agricultural councils in various governorates, coordinates between their projects and work on their development), agricultural/extension units administration (which supervises agricultural units, their fields and their agricultural and extension activities), extension centers administration (which supervises the establishment of extension centers and monitors their work and extension activities) and rural development administration (which supervises rural development centers and the implementation of extension and traning programs for women and rural youth).

Radwan Rakha, Central Administration of Agricultural Extension: “The current organizational structure of the Central Administration of Agricultural Extension (which consists of 18 administrations) has expanded due to the recent broader scope and responsibilities that the administration undertakes beyond the structure assigned by the Agricultural Research Center, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Central Authority For Organization & Administration, which stipulates that agricultural extension is a central administration under the Agricultural Research Center and has 4 public administrations on the central level (Monitoring and Counselling Administration, Extension Program Administration and Extension Methods Administration and financial and administrative affairs Administration). However, the limited central department’s resources and the resulting diminishing current role and responsibilities requires adherence to the assigned formal structure or following a similar structure that consists of a smaller number of public administrations».

Some suggested that the central administration should consist of five public administra-tions, which are: extension programs, extension methods, rural development, animal extension and advancement of new crops and communities. This suggested structure is different from the formal structure in keeping the last three administrations (some mon-itoring and counselling departments) on the public administration level, due to their im-portance.

23

24

25

The Central Administration of Agricultural Extension undertakes:

• Linking research and extension activities in the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation.

• Participating in providing and disseminating rural-related technological packages, particularly in cultivating, production and marketing of field and horticultural crops, animal production and rural development.

• Developing new extension methodology such as: participatory extension methodology through farmer field schools or extension by farmers and incorporating population and environmental culture into agricultural extension.

• Encouraging bottom-up extension programs in various agricultural production fields and engaging target groups in them.

• Effectively respond to farmers’ new learning needs resulting from global changes such as globalization, market liberalization, privatization, etc.

• Monitoring and evaluating the implementation of extension and training programs in various agricultural production fields in old and new lands in governorates.

• Developing human resources by providing internal and external training opportunities with the objective of preparing trained caders from extension staff or farmers.

• Planning and production of agricultural programs, using and producing audio-visual aids (films, posters,...) and participating in local and international galleries.

• Increasing rural family production efficiency by implementing planned micro projects in various rural development fields and raising the awareness on food extension, consumption rationalization, and population, health and environmental concepts.

• Reducing the production gap in various fields in order to raise self-sufficiency in strategic crops and decreasing food imports.

3-1-2 Central Administration for Afforestation & Environment

The administration is competent to:

• Develop and monitor farmers’ awareness plans and programs on the most suitable methods and timing for irrigation and crops’ optimum water needs for rationalization purposes, in order to best utilize water sources on the field level in correspondence with the type of soil, crop and water.

• Formulate extension policies for cleaning and maintenance of mesqas and private drains to preserve their design sections, minimize water waste and maintain soil fertility.

• Develop and monitor water harvesting and storage plan in rainfed regions in cooperation with farmers, disinfect water tanks, emphasize the importance of supplemental irrigation to best utilize rainwater and recommend the best ways to prevent soil degradation and desertification.

26

• Develop awareness plans on suitable fertilizers’ types, methods and timing and communicate latest recommendations on fertilizer usage to maintain soil fertility and properties and prevent degradation.

• Communicate recommendations on best methods of preparing organic fertilizers to maximize the benefits of farming wastes in order to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and prevent the subsequent land and water contamination and raise farmers’ awareness on biofertilizers types and methods.

• Provide farmers with latest technology recommended by reseach apparatus on the suitable technical methods of land preparation, preserving soil physical and chemical properties and preventing soil degradation and desertification.

• Communicate reseach recommendations on dealing with some types of soils, such as salt-affected soil, soil that is irrigated by salt water, rainfed agriculture or supplemental irrigation, taking into consideration crop structure.

• Select an ideal farmer in each district and village who can substitute extension fields in each village to disseminate correct information about land and water.

3-1-3 Central Administration of Lands and Water

The administration is mandated to:

• Develop and monitor farmers’ awareness plans and programs on the most suitable methods and timing for irrigation and crops’ optimum water needs for rationalization purposes, in order to best utilize water sources on the field level in correspondence with the type of soil, crop and water.

• Formulate extension policies for cleaning and maintenance of mesqas and private drains to preserve their design sections, minimize water waste and maintain soil fertility.

• Develop and monitor water harvesting and storage plan in rainfed regions in cooperation with farmers, disinfect water tanks, emphasize the importance of supplemental irrigation to best utilize rainwater and recommend the best ways to prevent soil degradation and desertification.

• Develop awareness plans on suitable fertilizers’ types, methods and timing and communicate latest recommendations on fertilizer usage to maintain soil fertility and properties and prevent degradation.

• Communicate recommendations on best methods of preparing organic fertilizers to maximize the benefits of farming wastes in order to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers and prevent the subsequent land and water contamination and raise farmers’ awareness on biofertilizers types and methods.

• Provide farmers with latest technology recommended by reseach apparatus on the suitable technical methods of land preparation, preserving soil physical and chemical properties and preventing soil degradation and desertification.

• Communicate reseach recommendations on dealing with some types of soils,

27

such as salt-affected soil, soil that is irrigated by salt water, rainfed agriculture or supplemental irrigation, taking into consideration crop structure.

• Select an ideal farmer in each district and village who can substitute extension fields in each village to disseminate correct information about land and water.

• Design training programs to improve the competency of land and water engineers.

3-1-4 Central administration of horticulture and agricultural crops

The administration undertakes the following: Horticultural extension in cooperation with various research entities and communicating latest technical recommendations to fruit farmers in the fruit cultivation regions. The administration forms scientific committes consisting of researchers from specialized research institutes and engineers to conduct field visits to farms and horticultural plantations to support horticulture engineers in governorates, fight crop diseases and improve productivity, especially after the ministrial decree no. 896 of 2012 on increasing fruit gardens.

• Implementing training programs in the filed of fruit cultivation for horticulture engineers in various governorates.

• Publishing technical bulletins on crops and distributing them to farmers and horticulture engineers in cultivation governorates.

• Conducting annual inventory and calculating production averages of fruit crops as well as calculating establishment and service costs of one feddan of main fruit crops in cooperation with the Central Administration of Agricultural Economics and Statistics.

• Forming technical committees of administration’s engineer to examine export fruit saplings pursuant to the approval of Agricultural Crops Seeds Committee.

• Preparing a monthly report on the weather’s impact on fruit crops using the reports of various governorates and administration’s engineers.

• Examining fruit gardens upon their owners’ request. a scientific committee of members of specialized research entities and administration’s engineers is formed to examine to examine problems facing those owners and finding scientific suitable solutions free of charge.

• Distributing graft buds of virus-free citrus types to large-scale plantation owners to distribute to fruit farmers, in coordination with Bahteem Cirtus Certification Center.

• Making regular rounds to commercial fruit plantations to closely monitor them and enforce the Uniform Agriculture Law no. 53 of 1966 and its ministrial decrees for producing standard fruit saplings matching technical standards.

28

2-3 Legal and institutional framework of agricultural cooperation and cooperatives in Egypt

Central administration of cooperation is the administrative agency mandated to undertaker agricultural cooperative affairs. It provides technical and financial support, monitors agricultural cooperative associations in governorates and public associations at the national level and oversees workflow in the agricultural cooperative sector. Agricultural cooperation has undergone several stages starting from 1908 when Omar Lotfy, who is known as the founding father of cooperatives, called for the establishment of an agricultural cooperative. In 1910, the first agricultural association was founded in a village in Gharbia governorate. In 1923, law no. 27 was issued as the first law to regulate the cooperative movement in Egypt (for agricultural cooperation only). In 1927, law no. 23 was issued to regulate all types of cooperatives (agricultural, consumption, housing, service, etc.), followed by law no. 58 that was issued in 1944 and added provisions for lending in cooperative associations.

The Egyptian Agricultural Lending Bank was founded in 1930 pursuant to law no. 50 of 1930. Later in 1949, it became the Agricultural Cooperative Lending Bank. Farmers could deal with the cooperative bank through cooperative associations only, while large-scale farmers were exempted from this rule pursuant to law no. 129.

During the tenure of former President Gamal Abdel Nasser, law no. 317 of 1056 was issued to govern associations of various types of activities (agricultural, production and consumption) as a uniform law for the Egyptian cooperative movement. This was complemented by the presidential decree no. 1431 in 1960 to mandate the administrative agencies to oversee cooperatives. The decree stipulated that the Ministry of Agricultural Reform (now The Ministry of Agriculture) undertakes overseeing agricultural cooperatives. In the same year, the two presidential decrees no. 2127 and 2037 were issued to establish the Egyptian Public Agricultural Cooperative Foundation and the Public Agricultural Cooperative Foundation.

Separate cooperative legislations were finally issued for various sectors of the cooperative movement in 1969 upon the issuance of law no. 51 of agricultural cooperation, as amended by law no. 122 of 1980, which regulated agricultural coperatives independtly from other types of cooperatives (consumption, production, etc.).

During the tenure of former President Anwar El-Sadat, law no. 117 of 1976 was issued to establish village banks through which production supplies were distributed instead of agricultural associations, which deprived cooperatives of their primary source of funding. In 1976, the presidential decree no. 824 was issued to dissolve the Central Agricultural Cooperative Association and establish another one pursuant to law no. 122 of 1980 to undertake its competences for five years according to article “71” of the law.

In 1980, agricultural cooperation law no. 122 was issued, as amended by law no. 122 of 1981, and is applicable until now. In 1986, the undersecretary for agricultural cooperation affairs was transfered to the Central Administration of Agricultural Cooperation pursuant to the ministrial decree no. 883.

29

Article 1 of law no. 122 stipulates that:

“Cooperation is a democratic grassroots movement sponsored by the state. Cooperation contributes to the implementation of the state general plan in the agricultural sector. Agricultural cooperative associations are social and economic units that aim to advance various fields of agriculture and contribute to rural development in its regions in order to improve the economic and social status of their members within the framework of

the state general plan.”

Law no. 122 defines agricultural cooperation and cooperative associations (cooperatives) and the cooperative structure in Egypt through specifying the types of cooperatives, as shown in the figure below, their competences in the fields of services, production, marketing and rural development, their financial and nonfinancial resources, and membership requirements, obligations and reasons for termination. According to the law, the association is managed by a general assembly (which has the upper hand in the association) and a board of directors. The law specified their membership requirements and reasons for termination as well as their exemptions, privileges and monitoring process and methods.

Figure (5): Cooperative structure in the Arab Republic of Egypt

30

• Pursuant to article 62 of caption 8 (Monitoring) of the agricutural coop-eration law no. 122 of 1980 and its bylaw, the Central Administration of Agricultural Cooperation undertakes its mandated responsibilities in over-seeing, counselling, and monitoring the performance of cooperative as-sociations all over Egypt in order to support the cooperative movement’s role as a major productive and service sector in the national economy and implement the state general plan in the agricultural sector. According to the ministrial decree no. 1350 of 1997, the Central Administration of Agricultur-al Cooperation’s competences are as follows:

• Planning and monitoring the agricultural cooperation sector in compliance with the state’s public policy.

• Serving as a public record for its affiliated cooperatives, including preparing technical studies prior to associations’ foundation, dissolution or merger as well as disseminating orders in this regards.

• Inspection and technical, financial and administrative overseeing agricultur-al cooperative association.

• Preparing studies for cooperative development and assessing their perfor-mance.

• Strengthening relations among agricultural cooperatives and other types of cooperatives.

• Assisting cooperative summit organizations to build international relations in the field of agricultural cooperation in order to advance the cooperative movement.

• Developing the agricultural cooperative sector by providing technical exper-tise and financial support for associations.

• Monitoring and overseeing associations’ funding in order to achieve stabili-ty and prevent profiteering.

The Central Administration of Agricultural Cooperation consists of:

3-2-1 Financial and Administrative Affairs Administration:

Financial and Administrative Affairs Administration consists of statistics and cooperative and financial monitoring.

3-2-2 Financial and Cooperative Monitoring Administration:

Financial and Administrative Affairs Administration consists of (statistics and cooperative and financial monitoring) departments.

3-2-3 Public Administration of Counselling and Cooperation

Public Administration of Counselling and Cooperation consists of training, planning, counselling, registration, and projects departments. For instance, projects department manages projects by following monthly and annual reports and budgets of governorates’ projects, in addition to overseeing and monitoring projects and activities through agricultural cooperative associations all over Egypt and following and disseminating various funding programs (loans) to agricultural cooperatives through seminars held in governorates.

Through its training department, the administration aims to provide training and cooperation education by monitoring the implementation of internal and external training programs of the Public Authority for Cooperatives, Functional Authority for cooperatives

31

and the Functional Authority for Administrations of Agricultural Cooperation Affairs in governorates and Central Administration of Agricultural Cooperation staff. The training department also holds evening seminars to promote dialogue and discussions, launches veterinary convoys to offer diagnosis and treatment services and conducts feasibility studies for small-scale breeders in cooperation with the Animal Reproduction Research Institute.

3-2-4 Public Administration of Marketing

The Public Administration of Marketing includes the departments of field crops, fruits and vegetables, livestock and rural development. It monitors the distribution of agricultural production supplies (fertilizer - pesticides - seeds) by local agricultural cooperative associations in governorates in all seasons and the marketed quantities of field crops (wheat - cotton - maize) through agricultural cooperative associations (credit). Through its livestock departments, the administration monitors the activities of livestock, poultry and beekeeping associations in governorates. Livestock associations distribute feed, bran, maize and poultry feed to members in governorates (village - governorate), which contributes to providing milk, meat, veterinary medicines, table eggs, chicklets for domestic breeding and various types of feed in the regions and villages in the proximity of these associations.

Through its rural development departments, the administration also monitors agricultural cooperative associations’ role in the public sphere in governorates through holding awareness seminars on all life aspects, eradicating illiteracy at the village level, training rural women on needlework, knitting, embroidery and food manufacture, and monitoring the process and distribution of treeplanting by associations in some governorates.

32

3-2-5 Technical Office

Figure (6): Organizational structure of the Central Administration of Agricultural Cooperation

It is important to emphasize that a governance assessment is not an end in itself; it is rather a way to highlight a group of important issues that can improve services delivered to citizens.

4- Methodology of governance assessment of the agricultural extension, cooperation

and cooperatives

Due to the increasing importance of the concept of good governance for both national governments and development partners throughout the past decade. Both parties started to pay more attention to conducting assessment of good governance; such assessments play a crucial role in measuring efforts exerted to improve the performance of a sector or an agency. The success or failure of these efforts cannot be determined without conducting assessments to measure its effectiveness and success in improving the quality of the services delivered. Assessments also reveal weaknesses and shortcomings that need more attention and reform. Governance assessment is an effective way to assist and inform decision makers, citizens, media professionals, academics, and other civil society stakeholders about good governance.CARE International undertook a governance assessment of the agricultural sector for

33

the first time in Egypt, with a special emphasis on the sectors of agricultural extension and cooperatives to assess their performance and hence their needs with regards to good governance practices and mechanisms. CARE International adopted the following methodology to conduct the assessment:

4-1 Focusing on a specific stage, sector or field

As a first step towards measuring governance in basic service sectors in Egypt, the current stage focuses on certain principles of good governance which are transparency, participation, accountability and responsiveness and two sectors which are agricultural extension and cooperative sectors. Other principles, sectors and agricultural departments can be addressed later in the future. Service sectors in Egypt are highly interwoven and complicated in terms of the scope of service coverage and the multiplicity and diversity of stakeholders related to service policy formulation. Therefore, opting for the study and analysis of a specific sector or principle and measuring the capacity of service providers specialized in this field or sector to implement four principles of governance is adopted for practicality and organization purposes, especially that the findings of the assessment will be largely generalizable given that most sectors and departments follow the same practices and procedures, as well as participation and accountability mechanisms.

4-2 Reviewing previous experiences of countries and international organizations in government assessments

Previous experiences of countries and international organizations in the field of governance assessment had been reviewed, at the forefront of which: UNDP’s governance framework, USAID’s democracy and governance indicators, World Governance Indicators, European Union’s Country Governance Profiles, UNHABITAT’s Urban Governance Index and UN University’s World Governance Assessment.

4-3 Reviewing previous experiences of countries and international organizations in government assessment of the agricultural sector, particularly in the extension and cooperative sectors

Previous experiences of organizations and various countries on governance assessment of the agricultural sector, particularly in the extension and cooperative sectors, have been reviewed, for instance: Hernandez (2001) on good governance as the essence of agricultural cooperatives, Romero, A.J. and Pérez, M., (2003) and Chavez, R. and Soler (2004) on the Spanish experience in good governance and participation in agriculture and agricultural cooperatives, Hernandez, M. J.& Ruiz, C. & Garcia, E. (2008), on culture as a mechanism of governance in agricultural cooperatives, Prakash, Daman (2009) on agricultural cooperatives as a democratic and participatory mechanism to achieve economic and social growth, Dayanandan, R. (2013) on good governance practice for better performance of cooperatives and Petal, A. (2015) on good governance as the key to agricultural growth.

4-4 Examining the legal and institutional framework of agricultural extension and cooperatives

The legal and institutional framework of agricultural extension and cooperation has been examined in order to reach a better understanding of the nature of the sector, most important relevant laws, responsibilities and powers of sector institutions, the organizational structure, organizational relations, sector performance, etc. This study served as a background paper

34

for the assessment as regards reviewing previous experiences of countries and international organizations in the field of governance assessment, reviewing countries and specialized international organizations’ experience in governance assessment of the agricultural sector and agricultural extension and cooperatives in particular, as well as examining legal and institutional frameworks of agricultural extension and cooperatives.

4-5 Formulating a comprehensive matrix of governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperatives

A comprehensive matrix of governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperatives has been formulated. The matrix consists of four principles; each of them consists of sub-principles. Each sub-principle is divided into a group of indicators that are divided into sub-indicators. Sub-indicators are directly measured from the survey field data; i.e. sub-indicators are the last unit of matrix units and each of them corresponds to a question in the field questionnaire.This matrix consists of indicators collected quantitatively (closed-ended questions) to facilitate the process of assessment, it is also complemented by another matrix with a smaller number of qualitative indicators that are completed through open-ended questions for validation and analysis purposes. Open-ended questions allow respondents to comment and suggest solutions to encourage and implement governance principles and mechanisms, as well as support the responses of quantitative questions by examining evidence and note taking in the field.

4- 6 Designing the questionnaire of governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperatives

As previously mentioned, governance assessment basically depends on quantitative and qualitative tools. Thus, governance assessment of the agricultural extension and cooperatives requires designing a questionnaire to collect data from agricultural extension and cooperatives’ staff (appendix 1). The questionnaire includes closed-ended and open-ended questions in order to produce quantitative as well as qualitative/ analytical results. The questionnaire is divided into four sections, each section contains questions on one of the four governance principle. The first section assesses transparency through a set of questions about disclosure of information and information provision upon request. The second section assesses participation through questions on internal participation and external participation by citizens and stakeholders. The third section’s questions evaluates internal/ horizontal, external vertical and social accountability. The final section measures responsiveness through questions on responsiveness to needs, problems, crises and grievances.

4-7 Statistical Sample of Governance Assessment Data Collection

CARE International collected the data of governance matrix and its four principles using field interviews based on a sample of service providers from the agricultural extension and cooperation administrations selected using random and purposive sampling methods.

At the outset, Beni Suef and Minya governorates were selected purposively by CARE for being Upper Egypt governorates with high poverty rates, reaching 37% in Beni Suef and 30% in Minya, according to the data released in 2014 by the Social Development Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank and the Central Agency for

35

Public Mobilization and Statistics, in addition to CARE International’s previous work in both governorates in agriculture which facilitates the process of data collection.

Sampled districts in both governorates are selected using both random and purposive sampling methods (Table 2 demonstrates a brief overview of the statistical methodology). District selection is based on the selection of two districts in which CARE has implemented its programs to enhance agriculture and a third district in which no programs were implemented. Accordingly, CARE selected three districts in Beni Suef: El-Fashn, Ehnasia (in which CARE programs were implemented) and Beba (where no programs were implemented) and three districts in Minya: Maghagha and Matay (in which CARE programs were implemented) and Bani Ahmed (where no programs were implemented). It is worth noting that the poorest villages in Egypt are located in Ehnasia. The following is the detailed sample of service providers interviewed in the three districts in each governorate:

Beni Suef governorate: the total sample size is 54 service providers in the field of agricultural extension and cooperation in Beni Suef (Appendix 2 demonstrates the findings). CARE recruited a group of young volunteers from Beni Suef to collect data with the objective of promoting the culture of good governance and conducting assessments, as well as increasing the chances of the assessment sustainability with the possibility of future repetition of the same assessment. The sample is distributed as follows:

- 6 interviews with service providers in agricultural extension administrations who were present in their workplace during the data collection period in each of the three sampled districts based on a purposive non-probability sample. These interviews are complemented by one interview with an agricultural extension leader from the agricultural extension directorate in Beni Suef.

- 6 interviews with service providers in agricultural cooperation administrations who were present in their workplace during the data collection period in each of the three sampled districts based on a purposive nonprobability sample. These interviews are complemented by one interview with an agricultural cooperation leader from the agricultural cooperation directorate in Beni Suef.

- 30 interviews with agricultural cooperatives’ staff in the three districts. Two cooperatives are selected out of the total number of cooperatives in each of the three districts using simple random sampling method. A purposive non-probability sampling is later followed by interviewing cooperatives’ staff who were present in their workplace during the data collection period.

8 interviews with the staff in each of the joint agricultural cooperatives at the district level (one joint cooperative in each district), who were present in their workplace during the data collection period based on a purposive non-probability sample. Those interviews are complemented by two interviews with central agricultural cooperatives’ staff in Beni Suef.

It is worth noting that the researcher validated some of the data collected by calling respondents to illustrate some vague or incomplete responses, particularly for Ehnasia agricultural cooperation administration staff responses.

36

Table (2): Statistical methodology

Stage Statistical Sample Selection Method

Selecting governor-ates

Beni Suef and Minya gover-norates

Beni Suef and Minya are selected pur-posively by CARE for being Upper Egypt governorates with high poverty rates, in addition to CARE International’s previous work in both governorates

Selecting districts

Three districts in Beni Suef: El-Fashn, Ehnasia and Beba and three districts in Min-ya: Maghagha and and Bani Ahmed.

District selection is based on the selec-tion of two districts in which CARE has implemented its programs to enhance agriculture and a randomly selected third district in which no programs were imple-mented by CARE.

Selecting extension service providers at the administration level

6 interviews with service pro-viders in agricultural exten-sion administrations in each of the three sampled districts

Non-probability purposive sample of service providers in each of the agricul-tural extension administrations who were present in their workplace during the data collection period.

Selecting extension service providers at the directorate level

one interview with an ag-ricultural extension leader from the agricultural exten-sion directorate in Beni Suef

Non-probability purposive sample

Selecting cooperation service providers at the administration level

6 interviews with service pro-viders in agricultural cooper-ation administrations in each of the three sampled districts

Non-probability purposive sample of ser-vice providers in each of the agricultural cooperation administrations who were present in their workplace during the data collection period.

Selecting cooperation service providers at the directorate level

one interview with an agri-cultural cooperation leader from the agricultural cooper-ation directorate in Beni Suef

Non-probability purposive sample

37

Selecting cooperation service providers at cooperatives level

30 interviews with agricul-tural cooperatives’ staff in the three districts.

Two cooperatives are selected out of the total number of cooperatives in each of the three districts using simple random sampling meth-od. A purposive non-probability sampling is later followed by interviewing cooperatives’ staff who were present in their workplace during the data collection period.

Selecting cooperation service providers at joint cooperatives level

8 interviews with the staff in each of the joint agri-cultural cooperatives at the district level

Interviews with joint cooperatives’ staff (one joint cooperative in each district), who were present in their workplace during the data collection period based on a purposive non-probability sample.

Selecting cooperation service providers at central cooperatives level

Two interviews with cen-tral agricultural coopera-tives’ staff in Beni Suef. Non-probability purposive sample

Minya Governorate: due to the difficulties of issuing formal approvals of conducting the governance assessment survey, data are collected only from cooperatives through two focus groups that included 18 participants from agricultural cooperatives’ staff in Minya. Focus group discussions were guided by the governance assessment questionnaire.

Nonetheless, focus group discussions turned to be beneficial; they enabled in-depth discussions that resulted in meaningful conclusions and recommendations.

4-8 Challenges faced by governance assessment of agricultural extension and cooperation

The process of planning governance assessment faced some theoretical and practical challenges as follows:

- The scarcity of literature on good governance in agricultural extension and cooperation.

- The difficulty of data collection through a group of inexperienced young data collectors. In an attempt to overcome this challenge, CARE provided sufficient training for data collectors.

- The long duration between the training of young data collectors and the data collection process which exceeded 2 weeks, while it is supposed to be only few days.

- The difficulty of issuing formal approvals for conducting the governance assessment in Minya. Consequently, data were collected from cooperatives only through two focus groups.

4-9 Lessons Learned from Governance Assessment of Agricultural Extension and

Cooperation

The following is some of the lessons learned from the governance assessment using field interviews:

- Recruiting youth volunteers to collect data can contribute to promoting the culture of good governance and assessments and increasing the assessment’s sustainability. Data collectors

38

must be sufficiently trained and monitored in the field during data collection to ensure complete and sound data.

- Issuing formal approvals of the governance assessment survey and identifying data collection methodology before the beginning of training is crucial in order to minimize the duration between data collection training and the field data collection process.

- Focus Groups are beneficial; they encourage in-depth discussions which validate the findings, they also produce meaningful conclusions and recommendations.

4-10 Governance assessment data analysis

The below figure shows the composite governance indicator which consists of four princ