Agricultural extension and productivity in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector

Agricultural extension and productivity in the Ratnapura

smallholder tea sector

Abstract

As a result of increasing competition and ecological transformations, the Sri Lankan tea industry faces barriers concerning productivity and sustainability. The smallholder tea sector, which employs 350.000 people in Sri Lanka, generally performs better than the plantations. However, also much inefficiency is in place. Agricultural extension offers many benefits and can stimulate developments that increase productivity and sustainability, such as increases in technological implementations such as fertilizers, specialty fertilizers, seeds, machinery and agro-chemicals. Top-down agricultural extension is currently the most dominant form of providing such services, but a shift is in place. Differences between top-down and bottom-up initiatives are present on for example education of extension officers and the concept matching towards farmers. Public-private partnerships prove to be beneficial in such cases, where services are complex and also in need of high capital investment. Through a more bottom-up oriented agricultural extension, stimulation of learning regions and innovative milieus is possible. Agricultural extension provides the capability of increasing interaction, greatly benefitting the development of struggling regions. This research focuses on the Ratnapura district, which employs the highest amount of tea smallholders and is also highly vulnerable to ecological transformations. Through extensive literature research, interviews with top-down and bottom-up extension providers, and a survey on tea smallholders in the Ratnapura district, research is done on the influences of agricultural extension on productivity.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ... 4

2. Theoretical Framework ... 6

2.1 Sustainability and productivity ... 6

2.2 Agricultural extension ... 7

2.3 Public private partnerships ... 8

2.4 Learning regions and innovative milieus ... 9

3. Methodology ... 11 3.1 The case of smallholders in the Ratnapura region ... 11 3.2 Research strategy & design ... 12 3.3 Data collection and analysis ... 12 3.4 Limitations and ethics ... 14 Operationalization of concepts ... 15 4. The need for increasing tea smallholder productivity in Ratnapura through agricultural extension ... 17 5. Top-down and bottom-up agricultural extension approaches ... 19 6. Agricultural extension and the creation of learning regions and innovative milieus ... 23 7. Conclusion ... 25 8. Discussion ... 28 9. Appendices ... 30 10. Literature ... 43

1. Introduction

For over a century, the tea industry has been the biggest provider of employment, export earnings and government revenues in Sri Lanka (Jayasuriya, 1998b). By independence of Sri Lanka in 1948, tea along with rubber and coconut contributed to more than 92 % of the total export earnings of the country (Athukorala and Huynh, 1987). Although numbers have gone down over time due to the competitiveness of the global tea market, the tea industry is still a very important industry. Since the Sri Lankan tea industry accounts for 14.6% of the total export earnings in 2014 and it provides employment for over one million people in Sri Lanka, the sector can be seen as one of great economic relevance for the country (CBSL, 2014; Ganewatta & Edwards, 2000). In 2010, Sri Lanka and Kenya possessed only 7% and 5% of the total worldwide tea growing area, but were world leaders in exports, both meeting 20% of the world export needs (Basu Majumder et al., 2010).

The smallholder tea sector in Sri Lanka is highly relevant. The sector employs 350.000 people and can be accounted for 73% of the national tea income (Wickramasinghe & Cameron, 2003). Several definitions of tea smallholdings are present (Perera, 2014). According to the Tea Control Act, which is a governmental initiative about the registration of tea plantations, tea estates less than 10 acres are considered “Tea Small Holdings”. This smallholder definition of the Tea Control Act is used in this research.

The smallholder tea sector faces many challenges, which are partially a consequence of increasing competitiveness, future ecological transformations and poverty issues. The lack of competitive advantage of Sri Lanka arises from lower productivity and high cost of production (Dulekha, 2008). In the period from 1998 to 2007, Kenya, Sri Lanka’s main competitor, had a 25.64% growth in production, compared to an 8.98% growth in Sri Lanka (Hilal & Mubarak, 2016). Environmental difficulties arise from ecological transformations, which have large impacts. Since tea is a rain fed plantation crop, droughts or extreme rainfalls that are the result of climate change have significant negative effects on the tea production (Gunathilaka et al., 2017). When it comes to poverty, according to the Centre for Poverty Analysis of Sri Lanka (Cepa.lk), estate workers showed very high poverty rates compared to the other sectors. In the case of Sri Lanka, 28% of the total labor force works in its agricultural industry, but only around 7% of the GDP is earned by this sector.

Research on how to enhance productivity and thus local economic growth can contribute to remaining relevant in a competitive market. This research discusses how different forms of agricultural extension (AE) can contribute to this process. AE services aim to hand over

knowledge from researchers to farmers. As a result of poor extension services, smallholders in the tea sector lack up to-date knowledge related to the production of tea (Karunadasa & Garforth, 1997). Effectively assessing the concepts of productivity and AE will be done through questioning who is involved in making the sector more productive, and for the sake of which stakeholders this is important. Through AE, stimulating the continuing knowledge exchange and interaction, learning regions and innovative milieus can also be created (Leborgne & Lipietz, 1992). These regions emphasize the place based roles of information, knowledge and learning as stimulators for local economic growth (Plummer & Taylor, 2001).

When discussing who is involved in increasing productivity through AE, two approaches come forward. AE can be practiced by different initiatives such as governmental institutions or farmers’ organizations and cooperatives. Debates on what forms are most effective are present. Because of this, research on differences between top-down and bottom-up approaches for AE is deemed relevant.

In addition to who is involved in increasing productivity, it is also of importance to identify the stakeholders who are in need of this development. As has been described earlier, estate workers show very high poverty rates compared to other sectors (Cepa.lk). The Cepa also states that the residents perceived that the overall living conditions had deteriorated over the past 15 years. These trends, in addition to the influence of their lack of knowledge on productivity, make tea smallholders very suitable for AE. This research focuses on the Ratnapura region since this region is very high in tea smallholders and vulnerable to climate transformations. This will be elaborated upon in the methodology.

Taking into consideration above described developments in the tea industry, the following research question is formulated:

What is the role of agricultural extension services for the smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura in increasing their productivity?

To support the main research question and to specify its dimensions, a set of sub questions has been formulated. The first sub question aims to highlight what the barriers are for productivity in Ratnapura. The second sub question focuses on what agricultural extension in the region entails. Sub question 3 and 4 aim to specify the differences between top-down and bottom-up approaches. Sub questions 5 and 6 discuss the role of learning regions and innovative milieus.

1. What are the barriers for increasing productivity in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?

2. What does agricultural extension in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector entail? 3. What are the top-down agricultural extension approaches and their efficiencies and

inefficiencies in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?

4. What are the bottom-up agricultural extension approaches and their efficiencies and inefficiencies in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?

5. Does the smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura possess the characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus?

6. To what extent can agricultural extension contribute to the creation of learning regions and innovative milieus?

The following section describes the theoretical framework and which concepts are used. The methodology will then elaborate on the study area and the data collection processes. Hereafter, the results of the research will be stated, and a discussion and conclusion is presented.

2. Theoretical Framework

To effectively assess the research questions, it is essential to define the central concepts. This includes definitions of productivity, but also the theoretical concepts that have been determined to specify the lens through which this research is conducted. The concepts that will be discussed after the definitions are the concepts of AE, learning regions and innovative milieus, and public-private partnerships.

2.1 Sustainability and productivity

in the case of this research, the goal of improving AE is to increase agricultural productivity and sustainability. An understanding of the way in which these two definitions are viewed is of great importance. Productivity and sustainability influence each other greatly, and thus should both be accounted for. Although this research focuses on increasing productivity, sustainability is an essential aspect of this productivity because of the great influence of environmental complications on the productivity in the smallholder tea sector

Productivity is about “the amount of output obtained from given levels of inputs in an economy or sector” (Fulginiti & Perrin. 1998, p.45). Furthermore, Fulginiti & Perrin (1998) state that productivity forms one of the fundamental sources of larger income streams, next to savings. According to Kodithuwakku & Priyanath (2007), the subject of productivity is one

surrounded by considerable confusion. People tend to neglect factors other than labor productivity, such as raw material and the means of production.

Sustainability is about systems that aspire to make the best use of environmental goods and services while not damaging these goods (Pretty, 2008). For this, it is essential to adapt practices that fit to the place. The concept of sustainability is not necessarily about extensive practices, but also about concepts that center on the intensification of use of resources and thus making better use of the resources. Negative externalities that come with agriculture are one of the classic causes of market failures and inefficiencies (Pretty, 2008). When viewing sustainability in terms of technologies in agriculture, this is about the development of technologies that: 1) do not negatively affect the environment, 2) are accessible for farmers and effective in its use by farmers, and 3) lead to an increase in productivity and positively affect environmental goods and services (Pretty, 2008).

2.2 Agricultural extension

Extension services are an important element of market and non-market entities and agents that provide the enhancement of human capital inputs and flows of information beneficial to agricultural workers (Anderson & Feder, 2007). The aim of extension is to hand over knowledge from research to farmers and enhance desired agricultural developments (Van de Ban & Hawkins, 1996). According to Walisinghe et al. (2017), extension services possess the potential to increase the adoption of technological innovations in agricultural production, which could enhance agricultural productivity growth. By doing so, advices can be given on the farmers’ decision-making and improving the decision-making process. AE can enable farmers to define their goals and possibilities in terms of productivity, resulting in an increase in desired agricultural developments (Van den Ban & Hawkins, 1996).

Extension has become associated with the notion of a centralized state that transfers technology through solely a top-down approach. However, the state practices AE through large public administrations, which are staffed with permanent employees on various roles and hierarchically structured, brings high costs (Kidd et al., 2000). This results in lacking the capacity of delivering public extension services in developing countries such as Sri Lanka because of an inadequacy of investments and human capital (Walisinghe et al., 2017). These arguments discuss the inflexibility, unresponsiveness and high cost, with other words, the inefficiency of government administrations. According to Bindlish and Evenson (1993), framework conditions that focus on solely top-down approaches are financially unsustainable for public extension systems, even though evaluation studies state that there are high returns on

investment. It is discussed that AE should rather be viewed as a more open form, which is about helping people through a systematic use of communication to solve their problems as partners, both contributing their own knowledge and capabilities’ (Albrecht, 1995).

Bottom-up approaches such as the role for farmers and their sectors are increasingly emphasized by literature and decision-makers, so users can take more responsibility for extension (Kidd et al., 2000). According to Leeuwis (2013), persuasive strategies can be put into practice to precede interactive strategies. This can be done through enhancing feelings of interdependence, improving the possibilities of communication, creating institutional spaces for innovative solutions/interactive processes and through creating awareness on the importance of diverging interests in a certain field. Creating roles such as process facilitators can then contribute to connecting relevant knowledge and actors (Leeuwis, 2013).

Additionally, a combination of bottom-up initiatives and top-down institutions is present in the form of Public-Private Partnerships.

2.3 Public private partnerships

Public-Private partnerships (PPPs) are about the relationships between private initiatives and governmental institutions. By doing so, the strengths of both the public sector and the private sector are combined and thus increases efficiency. PPP’s have become increasingly popular as a way of providing the public with very complex services, or services that are in need of high capital investments (Bevir, 2008). The nature of PPP’s stem from the trend of New Public Management (NPM), which distinguishes itself through a reliance on market based mechanisms to deliver public services (Appuhami et al., 2011). The partnership consists of a contractual relationship in which the private initiative and the public institution agree on a long-term and stable link to fulfil a social goal, while also profiting the private agency (Bevir, 2008). Adopting PPP policies in industrialized countries can be seen as a tool for the further development of public services (Hodge, 2004). Most of the opposition that forms against PPP’s comes from the fear for the loss of public values, such as accountability and fairness as the result of the involvement of the private sector (Bevir, 2008). Difficulties in transitioning to a PPP policy appear even in Sri Lanka itself. When a more PPP focused policy was aimed for by the Sri Lankan government after 1990, several challenges arose. A lack of state credibility, weak regulatory framework, political instability and an underdeveloped capital market were all issues that affected the transition to a PPP oriented policy. However, the massive need of capital greatly influences changes of government policy towards PPPs (Appuhami et al., 2011).

The importance of knowledge intensity, society and commoditization can be seen as a challenge for AE, since knowledge is becoming an increasingly significant economic production and growth factor. Although the production of knowledge in society is increasing, accessibility only improves for those that are ‘connected’ (World bank 1998; Leeuwis 2013). Creating learning regions and innovative milieus through support of AE can contribute to solving this issue.

2.4 Learning regions and innovative milieus

Learning regions and innovative milieus emphasize the place-based roles of information, knowledge and learning as stimulators for local economic growth (Plummer & Taylor, 2001).

Hassink (2001) states that the concept of learning regions can be distinguished from two angles, thus being a fuzzy concept. Firstly, learning regions can be described as the relationship between entrepreneurial learning, spatial proximity and innovation at the micro level. Additionally, the most used view of the concept is about theory-led regional development through an action-related perspective from the meso level (Hassink, 2001). According to Boekema et al. (2000), the learning region can be seen as a paradigm rather than a concept or theory. As a paradigm, a concept is more difficult to define. However, Hassink (2001) aims to create a definition to decrease the fuzziness of the concept. Hassink defines a learning region as a regional innovation strategy in which a broad set of innovation-related regional actors are strongly, but flexibly connected with each other, and who stick to a certain set of policy principles.

The approach of innovative milieus systematizes the main questions related to spatial economic dynamics. Innovative milieus allow for taking into consideration how technologies and interactions between actors evolve, but also considers the temporal and spatial forms that these processes take (Crevoisier, 2004). By viewing these developments, innovative milieus focus on technological dynamics, organizational changes and changes to territories. Technological dynamics are about the innovations that take place in an economic system, where innovation could be described as a process of differentiation from the competition. The organizational changes take into account the mechanisms that influence coordination between actors within a milieu. Territory is understood as an organization that links companies, institutions and local population within a process of economic developments (Crevoisier (2004). According to Crevoisier (2004), these three discussed paradigms should be considered simultaneously and seen without hierarchy. An illustration of these paradigms can be seen in figure 1.

The theoretical concepts of learning regions and innovative milieus also focus on the solid relationships between agents and the collective backgrounds on culture, psychology and politics between participants of a network (Maillat, 1996). According to Plummer & Taylor (2001), an innovative milieu consists of four basic characteristics. First of all, there should be a group of actors (firms and institutions) that are relatively autonomous in decision-making and strategy formulation; Secondly a specific set of material, immaterial, and institutional elements combining firms, infrastructure, knowledge, know-how, authorities, and legal frameworks should be present. Thirdly, it is essential to have interaction between actors based on cooperation. Lastly, a self-regulating dynamic that leads to learning is vital for creating learning regions and innovative milieus. The four basic characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus also form an important foundation for effective AE. These four characteristics will be used in this research to discuss whether the Ratnapura district can be viewed as a learning region and innovative milieu. Additionally, an analysis will be made on which characteristics can be improved upon through AE.

Essential for the success of these learning regions and innovative milieus, are long term relationships between buyers and producers, continuing knowledge exchange and interaction, and trial-and-error problem solving (Leborgne & Lipietz, 1992). These buyers and producers (smallholder and plantation owners) are part of the actors. Additionally, governmental institutions such as the Department of Agriculture, as well as non-public institutions such as NGO’s and private actors are also considered actors.

3. Methodology

The chapter on methodology will elaborate upon the process of data collection, from the exploratory phase up until the reflections. Firstly, the choice for the Ratnapura district as case study will be elaborated upon. Secondly, the research strategy and design will be discussed. Hereafter, the expected process of data collection will be analyzed, and the data analysis will be described. Lastly, a reflection will be made on limitations and ethics.

3.1 The case of smallholders in the Ratnapura region As has been described previously, the tea growing areas of Sri Lanka are mostly located in the south-west of the island. This is partially because tea grows properly in altitudes of >100m and with the right amount of desired rain and temperatures (Jayasinghe et al., 2020).

Figure 2 illustrates the regions in Sri Lanka that are most vulnerable to climate change according to (Punyawardena et al., 2013). The Ratnapura district is the largest tea smallholder cultivating region in Sri Lanka, containing a larger part of the total smallholder tea production in the country (Jayakody & Dishanka, 2019). In 2019, there were 92083 tea smallholders in Ratnapura district. In this region, of a 100 tea smallholder sample, 71% practiced tea smallholding as their main source of income (Navaratne et al., 2019). Out

of a sample labor force of 95, 65.25% of the Ratnapura labor force (62) was participating in the tea estate work (Chandrabose, 2002). The Ratnapura region is one of the regions that is both strongly tied to tea production but also classified as “very high” when it comes to vulnerability Fig. 2: Sri Lankan regions and their vulnerability to climate change (Punyawardena et al. 2013a)

to climate change. This makes the Ratnapura district a very relevant location for research on developments in the tea industry. This research inquires the potential of AE to enhance adoption of technological innovations, stimulating productivity and sustainability and thus creating resilience and decreasing vulnerability of the estate workers.

3.2 Research strategy & design

The research strategy design will focus on how to most efficiently answer the research question;

What is the role of agricultural extension services for the smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura in making them more productive? For this research, qualitative data is deemed most suitable

and necessary. This is the case since interviews will be conducted, and qualitative research tends to be concerned with words rather than numbers (Bryman, 2012). The choice for interviews has been made because they can provide insights on perceptions of AE from different viewpoints. By interviewing different stakeholders, there is an aim for a holistic approach. Additionally, the use of a survey provides the ability of gathering information from larger groups of people. Through this method, division or general opinions can be gathered and used to make statistical observations. Bryman (2012) states that a case study is a study which is concerning a region that is intensively researched. In this research, the case is about the tea industry in the Ratnapura district. The study is inductive in nature, since observations will be made and findings will be analyzed firstly.

3.3 Data collection and analysis

In the process of data collection, different types of data are collected and analyzed. This data is selected through analysis of its potential contribution to the main research question and sub-questions. Secondary qualitative data is gathered through extensive literature research. Apart from the secondary data, primary data is gathered through the practice of semi-structured interviews, which are conducted through online video meetings. Additionally, a survey is put out. This data contributes to answering the research questions.

To gather information on the first two sub-question; “What are the barriers for increasing

productivity in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?” and “What does agricultural extension in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector entail?”, a survey has been sent to tea smallholders in

Ratnapura. The aim is to find these smallholders through established contacts with the University of Ruhana. These survey questions provide insights on how tea smallholders receive AE, and how they perceive its influence on their practices. Questions are targeted on to what extent they receive AE, in what forms, and how this influences them. Information is gathered on the operationalized concepts such as yield, active sellers on the market, implementation of

technologies and environmental impacts such as soil degradation. Additionally, questions are targeted on the four characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieu and their presence in the sector (See Appendix 2 and 3 for the survey and translated survey questions). Also, a respondent from the Tea Research Institute (TRI) has been interviewed. This interview with the TRI focuses on the differences between top-down and bottom-up AE, and on their perceptions of learning regions and innovative milieus in Ratnapura (Appendix 4). Another interview has been conducted with a respondent from A. Baur & Co., an agricultural input company that also provides bottom-up extension (Appendix 5). Extensive literature research provides additional information on trends and arguments on AE, productivity and learning regions and innovative milieus. The third and fourth sub-questions; “What are the top-down agricultural extension

approaches and their efficiencies and inefficiencies in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?”

and “What are the bottom-up agricultural extension approaches and their efficiencies and

inefficiencies in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?”, about effectiveness between top-down

and bottom-up approaches in AE for tea smallholders in Ratnapura, is also supported by extensive literature research. Debates on the differences between the two approaches are analyzed carefully. However, interviews form an essential element in answering these sub-questions too. Through the Dutch Embassy in Sri Lanka and critical viewing of the extension providers that can be found on the global forum for rural advisory service, contact has been made with top-down and bottom-up initiatives. An Interview with the TRI (top-down) and A. Baur & Co (bottom-up) provides information on the challenges they face and how they view their practices and influence. This interview focuses on the challenges that these initiatives face, how they perceive their efficiency, what can improve, and how they influence productivity. Lastly, the 5th and 6th sub questions; “Does the smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura possess the

characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus?” and “To what extent can agricultural extension contribute to the creation of learning regions and innovative milieus?”,

are supported by interviews with the TRI and the surveys. These primary data sources elaborate upon their experiences in their regions and milieus. Additionally, the questions are supported by extensive literature research.

Doing the semi-structured interviews allows for changing the sequence of the prepared questions, and also allows for some latitude to ask further questions about answers that are deemed relevant (Bryman, 2012). The sampling for these interviews is done through purposive sampling, thus sampling in a strategic way. By doing so, it is made sure that the respondents are of great relevance for the research. It is of importance to be aware of language as a power resource which is related to socio-cultural change and ideologies (Bryman, 2012). The

interviews that are conducted during the research are effectively analyzed, making them contribute to the research with their maximum potential. Relevant parts of the interviews will be transcribed.

3.4 Limitations and ethics

When viewing the limitations and ethics, different topics come to mind.

According to Diener & Grandall (1978), there are four main areas of ethical principles that should be taken into account. First of all, it should be made sure there is no harm done to the participants of the research. The BSA statement of ethical practice will be followed, meaning to ‘anticipate and guard against consequences for research participants which can be predicted to be harmful’, and ‘to consider carefully the possibility that the research experience may be a disturbing one’ (Bryman, 2012, p.136). This should also be done through the practice of maintaining the confidentiality of records. Secondly, the goal should be set to create informed consent. As Homan (1991) states, it is difficult to provide potential participants with all the information that is needed for the participant to make the decision of participating in the research. However, an attempt will be made to provide the participants with sufficient information, and possibly informed consent forms could be used. Additionally, feelings of invasion of privacy should be prevented. This can be done through anonymity, and also through confidentiality of records such as discussed on preventing harm to the participants. Lastly, preventing deception should be well thought of, making sure that professional self-interest does not come at the cost. Through the measures that can be taken for full informed consent, this will be dealt with.

Limitations arise from several aspects of the research. Due to the current pandemic, interviews will be conducted through Zoom. This results in making them less personal and creates a higher possibility of miscommunications. Additionally, people might be less interested in contributing to the research and cooperating with an interview. The pandemic also causes for restrictions for travelling, making personal fieldwork impossible. Working together with the university located in Sri Lanka creates possibilities, however, there are also implications due to this collaboration. The language barrier might result in miscommunications, and cultural differences cause for being extra careful on asking specific questions or discussing different topics. Also, there is a great dependency on the contribution of the collaborator.

Operationalization of concepts

Concepts Dimensions Variables

AE in the smallholder tea sector

Top-down approaches - Effectiveness

- Implementation of technologies - Economic goals - Social goals - Cultural goals Bottom-up approaches / Cooperatives - Effectiveness - Implementation of technologies - Economic goals - Social goals - Cultural goals

Learning regions and

innovative milieus

Local economic growth - Poverty rates - Productivity - Yield - Income - Competition - Economic relevance Sustainability - Ecological transformation - Soil degradation - Yield Characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus - Autonomous decision-makers - Material and immaterial elements combining firms, knowledge etc. - Interaction between actors through cooperation

Variable Indicator/question

AE effectiveness - Implementation of technologies

- Operating cost of institution

Productivity - Yield (Finished tea / kg / hectare)

- Price per kg raw leaves - Soil degradation

- Labor cost

Competition - Difficulties to sell batch

- Active sellers on the market - Price per kg raw leaves Learning regions and innovative milieus - Autonomous decision makers

- Material and immaterial elements combining firms, knowledge etc.

- Cooperatives

- Self-regulating dynamic leading to learning

- Self-regulating

dynamic leading to learning

The following section covers the results of this research. Through analysis of the described data in the methodology, and through the theoretical framework that has been established, data is gathered which is deemed useful for answering the research questions. The Ratnapura tea smallholder survey that has been conducted has resulted in 22 respondents, which, among other primary and secondary data, will be used in the following chapters. Chapter 4 focuses on the data that is the barriers for productivity and the contribution of AE in this process. Chapter 5 presents data about the efficiencies, the inefficiencies and the differences between top-down and bottom-up approaches in AE. Chapter 5 uncovers data concerning the characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus in the Ratnapura district.

4. The need for increasing tea smallholder productivity in Ratnapura through

agricultural extension

The smallholder tea industry appears to be more efficient than the tea plantations in Sri Lanka. In 2002, tea smallholdings could be accounted for 73% of the national tea income (compared to 27% for tea plantations), whilst using 20% less land and having a production percentage that is 24% higher. The productivity yield for tea smallholdings is 2216 kg/ha compared to only 1350 kg/ha for tea plantations (Wickramasinghe & Cameron 2003). Although the smallholder tea sector outperforms the larger plantations in terms of efficiency, the smallholder sector faces great challenges.

The smallholder sector is highly dependent on family employment, where labor supply becomes an issue because the younger generation is not attracted to working on the estates because of the low dignity status. Plantations struggle with rising labor costs in combination with high labor intensity (Wickramsinghe & Cameron, 2003). According to Gunasinghe (2012), the probability of a household falling into a struggling poverty position in Ratnapura is very high. There is a chance for every 68 households out of every 100 to fall into a struggling position. The large number of people working in the tea sector and the competitiveness in this sector puts pressure on productivity. Sri Lanka’s position in the world tea economy has decreased drastically, from a 20% share in the world market in 1960, to 9.5% in 1993 (Bandara, 1996). Out of the respondents from the Ratnapura tea smallholder survey, 47.6% agreed that they experienced an increase in competition. This competition translated itself to 82.4% experiencing a lower price per kg of raw leaves and 52.9% having increased difficulties when it comes to selling their batch. Additionally, the productivity of the tea smallholding sector has reduced by 1.9% in the year 2018 compared to the previous year (TSHDA, 2018). Such

decreases are the result of the current lack of knowledge. According to a survey conducted by Mahalayanarachchi (1996) about the knowledge of Sri Lankan tea smallholders on fertilizers, 32.5% had full knowledge, 50.41% had partial knowledge, and 17.09% had no knowledge. Additionally, only 13.25% of tea smallholders had full knowledge on pest and disease management.

Research by Navaratne et al. (2019) shows that 13.15% of tea is qualified as highly vulnerable to climate change. Significant increasing trends can be seen concerning daily maximum temperatures and precipitation. The economically viable life span of low grown tea varies from 25 to 30 years in the corporate plantation sector, to a life span of only 10 to 15 years in the smallholding sector. The resulting need of replanting in such short periods leads to soil degradation and degradation of the natural balance of the environment of the crops (Amarathunga et al., 2008). The conducted Ratnapura tea smallholder survey showed that the majority of tea smallholders had their productivity influenced by direct effects of climate change, with 42.9% agreeing and 28.6% strongly agreeing on these influences. 71.4% of these respondents experienced soil degradation and 85.7% experienced heavy rainfall which they linked to climate change.

Above mentioned trends in the Ratnapura tea sector call for action through for example implementation of technologies such as fertilizers, specialty fertilizers, seeds, machinery and agro-chemicals. This can be stimulated through AE. According to Griffith et al. (2004), the adoption of technologies that are generated during a research and development process is of great importance for productivity growth. However, the adoption rate of technologies in the smallholder tea sector is low (Amarathunga et al., 2008). This adoption rate is stimulated by extension providers such as top-down institutions as the TRI, the Ministry of Plantations and the Tea Smallholder Development Authority. Bottom-up extension services are also present in many forms. This could be farmer’s organizations or agricultural input companies such as A. Baur & Co. Such a company provides agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, specialty fertilizers, seeds, machinery and agro-chemicals (Jayasinghe, 2021). A firm depends on innovation processes, and exchange of information and reproduction of knowledge is necessary in this process. Cumulative learning is not only about learning by doing or using, but more about learning by interacting (Hassink, 2001). Although spatial proximity is important for this interaction, social proximity and organizational proximity are essential factors as well. A research by Walisinghe et al. (2017) showed clear results of positive and high levels of significance in the probability of technology adaption as a result of extension service programs. A recently developed program by the TRI concerning tea factory based extension officers has

also showed promising developments on the productivity of tea smallholders, as has been expressed in an interview:

“The factory has appointed a tea factory based extension officer. His responsibility is to receive the smallholder fees and to investigate what the problems are on the grass root level, and what their difficulties and welfare needs they have. The strong interaction between the factory and smallholder results in more green leafs for the factory. The smallholder is also getting more benefits from the factories.” (Chanushka Munasinghe, 2021)

Examples in the Sri Lankan rice industry also show evidence of the benefits of implementations of techniques as a result of extension services. Of those who experienced extensions services, 91% adopted rice varieties, whilst only 23% of the farmers who did not receive extension services adopted rice varieties (Walisinghe et al., 2017). These numbers clearly illustrate that extension services contribute greatly to the adoption of beneficial techniques. Additionally, a research by Amarathunga et al. (2008) showed that the adoption of operations such as fertilizer application, pest and disease management and pruning sees a significant increase with the degree of partnership. This thus states that the levels of adoption of technologies is highly dependent on the amount of interaction between smallholders and extension providers. Feder and Slade (1986) were one of the first to explore the effect of a Training & Visit system (T&V), of which the research showed that this led to rapid diffusion of knowledge in the area, with increase in productivity as a result.

5. Top-down and bottom-up agricultural extension approaches

Boekema (2000) states that the regional level is increasingly seen as the level that provides the greatest prospect for governance structures to stimulate learning in a knowledge-based economy. In Sri Lanka, this has been the case for a long time. The TRI has been established in 1925, and has been working through governmental procedures. Institutions are conducting bottom-up activities as well, but the majority is top-down activities (Munasinghe, 2021). Kidd et al. (2000), however, state that public spending is being reduced in both the global north and the global south. Many of the systems that are labor intensive, such as training and visit, face crises because of limited funds. Funds for the Tea Smallholders Development Authority are raised through for example taxes on exported tea, so-called cess funds. However, of every Rs. 2.50 per exported kilo of tea they receive, Rs. 1.40 is applied for administrative costs (Yapa &

Ariyawardana, 2005). The Ratnapura tea smallholder survey showed multiple statements of tea smallholders who consider top-down extension more since these extension officers are viewed as reputable persons. However, the number of staff in public extension systems is inadequate as a result of the limited funds. This is also described by Chanushka Munasinghe (TRI):

“Government institutions have limitations that arise from the given resources. This is human resources and other physical resources that they are lacking. Both the Tea Research Institute and Tea Smallholder Development Authority do not have much officers who can go to the field and do extension. The government institutions are not capable of visiting all smallholders for extension. There are nearly 400.000 tea smallholders in Sri Lanka, but government institutions have a limited number of officers. The tea smallholder development authority has 150 officers at the grass root level, who have to cater 400.000 smallholders. One extension officer has to cover more than 8000 smallholders. This is practically impossible. As far as the private sector concerns, they are generally having enough resources but their knowledge is poor.”

The global forum for rural advisory services states that there are many farmers-based associations, companies and cooperatives present in Sri Lanka who are involved in input supply, value addition and credit provision. However, they state that it is beyond comprehension that in spite of such a great amount of farmers-based bodies, the country still has a weak and fragmented extension service (Qamar, 2012 n.p.). An example of a cooperative that provides extension service is the Morawk Korale tea producers’ cooperative. However, responses on this extension service were mixed. Most of the members had good perceptions of the extension provided, but some members stated that the service did not function properly, and some members were not even aware of the service (Mahindapalaa et al. 2020). The private sector is in general free from political and administrative constraints that public institutions suffer from. Because of this, the private sector is more capable of allocating resources efficiently (Kidd et al. 2000). However, most of the field staff of private channels are not technically qualified to serve as extension workers. Interviews conducted by Mahindapalaa et al. (2020) also showed that some members of cooperations find that some employees of Sri Lankan tea cooperatives are not professionally qualified to hold specific positions, which has an impact on organizational activities. This also comes forward in an interview with Chanushka Munasinghe:

“With the private sector, these companies have officers that are not properly educated. Their goal is to sell the product to the farmer and create a profit. Their goal is profit generation. Their officers are not well educated in the extension field, so they are not having that knowledge on the new extension concepts. Their knowledge is not much at a satisfactory level. In government institutes their knowledge is on a much higher level.”

The Ratnapura tea smallholder survey showed that 52.4% disagreed and 9.5% strongly disagreed that top-down extension has resulted in implementation of new technologies or techniques, whereas only 9.5% agreed and 28.6% was undecided. On the other hand, 47.6% agreed and 4.8% strongly agreed that bottom-up extension had resulted in implementation of new technologies and techniques, whereas only 4.8% disagreed and 42.9% was undecided.

A survey conducted by Malkanthi & Mahaliyanaarachchi (2001) on the attitude of vegetable farmers in upcountry Sri Lanka showed that, of 120 farmers, 59% had favorable and most favorable attitudes towards privatization of AE services. The same survey showed that all respondent groups (Farmers, agricultural instructors, higher officers of the department of agriculture and higher officers of private companies) agreed with some positive statements about privatizing AE services, such as a lower budget burden, an increase of efficiency of agricultural production system, services being based on seasonal needs and provision of appropriate advisory services. Another survey carried out by Yapa & Ariywardana (2005) showed that 92.9% of tea smallholder respondents were willing to have extension services through private organizations. Such developments have also been described by the TRI:

Top-down extension has resulted in implementation of new technologies or techniques

Bottom-up extension has resulted in implementation of new technologies or techniques Strongly disagree 9.5% 0% Disagree 52.4% 4.8% Undecided 28.6% 42.9% Agree 9.5% 47.6% Strongly agree 0% 4.8%

Table 1: Technological implementation as result of top-down vs bottom-up extension (source: author)

“Sometimes, our concepts might not be matched to the farmer’s goals. In these cases, the top-down approach might fail. For the bottom-up approach, the farmer decides what he wants. He informs what kind of extension activities he needs, and asks form information regarding his goals. So, the bottom-up approach is more effective since it addresses the farmer’s need directly.” (Chanushka Munasinghe)

Results on the feasibility of privatization of AE in the survey by Yapa & Ariywardana (2005) also came out positive. About 27.83% of the farmers were willing to pay for the service without doubt. 30.83% of the farmers were willing to pay when they decided the service was economical and essential. Most of the farmers of the survey had favorable attitudes towards privatization of extension services, but a reasonable amount of income is needed for this. Malkanthi & Mahaliyanaarchchi (2001) thus state that privatization of extension service can be recommended if the demands of farmers are met. The TRI acknowledges that there has been a shift, and that more focus is being put on bottom-up practices, stating:

“Things are changing with the development of new concepts and technologies, but still the majority of extension comes from top-down approaches. Now the situation has changed, we aim to focus much more on bottom-up approaches. Particularly with the participation of private institutes. This approach we call Public-Private partnerships, which is a new type of extension approach.” (Chanushka Munasinghe)

These public private partnerships show promising signs of increasing productivity in the smallholder tea sector and more effective AE. The TRI has developed a special program to develop farmer’s organizations, since some do not function properly as a result of their limitations. Another issue that arises with farmer’s organizations is the lack of bargaining power they possess. They still depend greatly on governmental institutions. The TRI views farmer’s organization as the ideal for developing more bottom-up extension approaches, since they work at the grass root level and can identify the farmers needs and problems. The TRI’s goal is to increase the efficiency of these organizations through improving their human resources, financial resources and knowledge (Munasinghe, 2021). A great example of a Public Private Partnership is the tea factory based extension officer initiative. Since the factories are the center where all green leafs are processed, extension through these factories covers a huge area. The extension officers are trained by the TRI, so they are aware of how to inspect the field, identify problems and conduct training programs. Farmers express their needs to the officers, and the

extension officers are conducting effective bottom-up extension at the grass root level. The extension officers also consult the TRI, thus jointly conducting the extension services.

6. Agricultural extension and the creation of learning regions and innovative

milieus

Stimulating the development of learning regions and innovative milieus in the Ratnapura district is a process in which the four characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus are aspired. It is essential to assess which of the characteristics the region already possesses sufficiently, and what characteristics are yet to be achieved. This assessment is done through the survey with smallholder tea farmers on the presence of these characteristics, with answer possibilities being ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘undecided’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’.

First of all, the characteristic of the group of actors (firms and institutions) that are relatively autonomous in decision-making and strategy formulation should be met. In the case of Ratnapura, the conducted survey showed that 60% of tea farmers was undecided on this topic, but 15% agreed and 35% disagreed.

Secondly, a specific set of material, immaterial, and institutional elements combining firms, infrastructure, knowledge, know-how, authorities, and legal frameworks should be present. In this case, 33.3% was undecided, 14.3% disagreed, but 52.4% of smallholder tea farmers in the survey agreed that these institutional elements were in practice.

There are institutional elements that combine elements such as infrastructure, knowledge and legal frameworks. These firms and institutions are independent in decision-making and strategy formulation. There is a lot of interaction between actors in the smallholder tea sector. (cooperation) The current dynamic in the smallholder sector leads to learning. Strongly disagree 0% 0% 5% 4.8% Disagree 14.3% 25% 5% 9.5% Undecided 33.3% 60% 55% 71.4% Agree 52.4% 15% 9.5% 9.5% Strongly agree 0% 0% 5% 4.8%

Table 2: Statements on presence of characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus (source: author)

Thirdly, it is essential to have interaction between actors based on cooperation. 55% of tea smallholders were undecided on the presence of this topic. 30% agreed and 5% strongly agreed that there was good interaction based on cooperation. Furthermore, 5% disagreed and another 5% strongly disagreed with the statement. Although 30% of the people tends to agree that there is quite some interaction based on cooperation in the sector, the numbers show that there still is enough space for improvement. Jayasinghe (2021) stated that the tea sector has considerably good collaboration through PPPs; getting together, spending money and sharing knowledge. However, it is discussed that further steps should be taken, especially in for example the paddy sector and vegetable sector where extension is practiced almost solely through top-down practices and without collaboration. Munasinghe (2021) has also stated this in the interview, discussing that more interaction is needed in the form of PPPs.

“There are some interactions between societies and government and private institutes.

However, this interaction is not enough. We have to develop more interaction between government and private institutes. Some societies are not functioning at the grass root levels. They have some forms of barriers such as resource problems. Some other societies are functioning well, but we have to develop the non-functioning societies as well. If we can incorporate them in this procedure, there will be more interaction between the government and societies. So, there is interaction there, but it should be more.” (Chanushka Munasinghe, 2021)

In the survey, multiple tea smallholders indicated that they are in need of more close supervision and relationships between farmers and AE officers. Through development programs, goals are set to increase interaction between actors. This is done by for example the factory extension officers. Through such developments, AE can contribute greatly to an increase in interaction. Munasinghe (2021) described the positive effects from these programs.

“Now, we have initiated a development program to develop the interaction between

smallholders and factories. Without focusing only on green leaf, the factory has to take care of the welfare of the tea smallholder. How they cultivate, if they have enough money, if they do good agricultural practices. Now, the factory and the smallholder have a more powerful interaction than before.” (Chanushka Munasinghe, 2021)

Lastly, a self-regulating dynamic that leads to learning is vital for creating learning regions and innovative milieus. In this case, the respondents were perfectly divided, with a 4.8%

strongly disagree, 9.5% disagree, 71.4% undecided, 9.5% agree and 4.8% strongly agree. Once again, AE, and especially more bottom-up oriented AE can contribute to the stimulation of this dynamic. Through more powerful interaction between extension officers and tea smallholders, communication between actors is improved upon and the dynamic that stimulates learning is increased.

7.

Conclusion

The results that have been gathered through interviews, surveys and extensive literature research in chapter 4, 5 and 6, provide the possibility to answer the set research questions. This research focused on several aspects concerning AE and productivity in the smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura, with the following sub questions;

1. What are the barriers for increasing productivity in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?

The smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura is vulnerable for a number of reasons. Firstly, poverty rates in the district are high, with 68% of citizens risking to fall into the ‘struggling’ poverty position. Labor issues arise from the dependency on family employment, whilst young people are becoming less interested in working in the tea sector due to the low dignity status. Increasing competition puts the pressure on productivity, with clear declines being visible in Sri Lanka’s position in the global market. This lack in productivity is partially related to a clear lack of knowledge on technologies such as fertilizers and pest and disease management. Additionally, since tea is a rain fed crop it is deemed highly vulnerable to climate change and its extreme weather events. Increasing productivity can benefit the Sri Lankan tea smallholders in the form of enhancing their economic status, their position in the market and creating a buffer towards extreme weather events.

2. What does agricultural extension in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector entail?

AE is a means that can be put into practice to stimulate positive developments in the agricultural sector, through improving the farmers’ decision-making process. It the case of the Ratnapura district, it entails the provision and exchange of knowledge, but also the stimulation of implementation of technologies such as fertilizers, specialty fertilizers, seeds, machinery and agro-chemicals. These forms of AE are practiced through top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Additionally, collaborations between such practices arise in the form of PPPs, combining the strengths of both top-down and bottom-up initiatives.

3. What are the top-down agricultural extension approaches and their efficiencies and inefficiencies in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?

Top-down institutions that practice agricultural extension face many challenges. As a result of a decrease in public spending, governmental institutions suffer from inadequate numbers of staff and other physical resources. In addition to the lack of resources, top-down institutions have a relatively weak interaction with the farmers who they provide with extension. This leads to the development of concepts that are not matched to the farmers’ goals. However, top-down extension officers have often received a proper education. Farmers tend to also have a positive attitude towards advice given by these officers, since they view them as reputable persons.

4. What are the bottom-up agricultural extension approaches and their efficiencies and inefficiencies in the Ratnapura smallholder tea sector?

When it comes to bottom-up extension services, several inefficiencies are present as well. Bottom-up initiatives such as agricultural input companies or farmer’s organizations are generally rather fragmented. This fragmentation results in them being weak and having a lack of bargaining power. Additionally, bottom-up extension officers generally are not properly educated, resulting in a lower quality of extension. However, since the bottom-up extension services have a stronger interaction with the smallholders, they are more capable of addressing the farmers’ needs effectively.

5. Does the smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura possess the characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus?

The survey data shows that there are still many improvements to be made concerning the characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus. Although responses on the survey were divided, and some of the characteristics received rather positive responses, optimal responses were not present during the research. Except for the presence of institutional elements who combine elements such as infrastructure, knowledge and judiciary frameworks, none of the characteristics had more than 15% of the respondents agreeing and/or strongly agreeing. This shows there is progress to be made on all characteristics.

6. To what extent can agricultural extension contribute to the creation of learning regions and innovative milieus?

AE is not able to impact the first two characteristics that are about the presence of institutions and their autonomy, since this goes beyond its reach. However, the two characteristics that are concerning interaction and creation of a self-regulating dynamic that leads to learning can be improved through AE. The interviews showed that they perceived increases in interaction through AE, mainly when done through bottom-up practices or PPPs. The development of bottom-up initiatives and PPPs strengthens the relationship between extension providers and the farmers, and thus increases interaction. Additionally, self-regulating dynamics that lead to learning are stimulated when interaction through AE services is improved upon.

Through taking into consideration the different sub-questions, an answer can be given to the main research question;

“What is the role of agricultural extension services for the smallholder tea sector in

Ratnapura in increasing their productivity?”

AE takes a pivotal role in increasing productivity and developing the smallholder tea sector in the Ratnapura region. Through this increase in productivity, circumstances concerning challenges such as poverty, competition and climate change effects can be improved upon. This will be especially effective when AE is practiced more through bottom-up initiatives or PPPs, instead of a focus on top-down institutions. Focusing on a more collaborative approach will not only increase efficiency in terms of more implementation of technologies, but can contribute greatly to the creation of Ratnapura as a learning regions and innovative milieu. Enhancing interaction and creating self-regulating dynamics that lead to learning is highly beneficial for the future development of the Ratnapura region, and staying relevant in a fast-paced market.

The discussion below will put the findings in a further perspective by discussing the results and linking these to the theoretical concepts. Additionally, the discussion will describe complications during the research and will elaborate on advice for further research.

8. Discussion

As has been described, the debate on agricultural approaches is mainly about the differences between top-down and bottom-up approaches. Extension has become associated with the notion of a centralized state transferring knowledge and technology through top-down approaches. In Sri Lanka, this has also been the case for many years, but gradually a shift is taking place towards a more collaborative and bottom-up oriented approach. The survey that has been conducted during this research and other surveys such as by Malkanthi & Mahaliyanaarachchi (2001) showed the positive attitudes towards a more bottom-up oriented approach. Although both approaches have their individual benefits and drawbacks, respondents from the TRI and A. Baur & Co agreed that efficiency seems to be higher in bottom-up initiatives. The results also confirmed the public funding issues for top-down institutions and the benefits in terms of concept matching when taking a more bottom-up oriented approach.

Public-private partnerships prove to be a very useful approach in combining the strengths of top-down institutions and bottom-up initiatives. The research shows that AE services are services which call for high capital investment and are complex services. The TRI described that their top-down institutions struggled with a lack of funding. It is exactly these types of services which PPPs can be of benefit to. The results show that the collaborations contribute to the issue concerning the lack of education in bottom-up approaches. Additionally, the concept matching phase is improved through closer collaboration with farmers through PPPs. Appuhami et al. (2011) stated that issues arise when adopting a more PPP focused policy, such as a lack of state credibility, a weak regulatory framework, political instability and an underdeveloped capital market. However, the PPPs that have been described are currently put into practice in collaboration with established private organizations such as tea processing factories. Through collaborating with such organizations that are embedded in the system, the previously described issues are minimized.

When viewing the concept of learning regions and innovative milieus, the results show that AE offers the possibility to influence mainly the technological paradigm that has been described by Crevoisier (2004). Through increasing interaction, the know-how and innovation are improved. The organizational paradigm can partially be influenced by AE, depending on the approach that is taken. Cooperation is increased significantly when focusing on a more bottom-up oriented approach. Cooperation is greatly dependent on how AE is practiced, and not if AE is practiced. Since the different paradigms are interconnected, stimulating one or

multiple of these paradigms work reinforcing. Through this, AE offers promising perspectives in the stimulating process of learning regions & innovative milieus.

Several complications have been stumbled upon during this research. The process of doing this research has suffered from the current covid-19 pandemic, resulting in the inability to conduct personal fieldwork in the region. Changes had to be made towards online interviews, which worked rather well. However, getting in touch with tea smallholders in the Ratnapura region has proved to be of great difficulty. The initial goal was to interview tea smallholders to acquire in-depth knowledge on their perceptions on AE, learning regions and innovative milieus and their practices. Eventually, another route was taken through survey questions. 22 respondents were reached through this survey, thus reaching the 20 respondents mark and making it statistically viable. However, the high amount of ‘undecided’ results in the survey, especially on the questions concerning learning regions and innovative milieus, might suggest that farmers experienced difficulties understanding some of the questions. Although these survey questions have provided general information on above mentioned topics, no follow-up questions could be asked. Therefore, it may not have been possible to provide farmers with a sufficient clarification on some of the rather complicated questions. Additionally, the short timeframe in combination with the covid-19 pandemic and weather extremes has resulted in limitations concerning data collection. Through slow mailing contacts due to lacking internet connections as a result of heavy rainfall, the process of scheduling meetings was heavily delayed. Conducting more interviews would have been beneficial for the research, which was not possible because of the slow and distanced contacting possibilities.

Further research should be done on how AE can contribute to the environmental sustainability and social sustainability of the smallholder tea sector in Ratnapura, since this research has solely focused on productivity. Such research is closely related to productivity, and might have stimulating effects on productivity as well. The Ratnapura region lacked on all four characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus, where AE could be of benefit to the interaction and self-regulating dynamic that leads to learning. However, research should be done on the issues in Ratnapura concerning the institutional elements who combine elements such as infrastructure, knowledge and judiciary frameworks, and on the independence of institutions’ decision-making and strategy formulation. Research on these two characteristics would contribute to the process of Ratnapura district achieving all four characteristics of learning regions and innovative milieus.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Topics for Questionnaire

Productivity Improvements, climate change

Competition >sellers, pressure on price/productivity?

Top-down AE Do they receive top-down AE? How? Is it

effective? Is it enough?

Bottom-up AE Do they receive bottom-up AE? How? Is it

effective? Is it enough?

Learning regions and innovative milieus Four characteristics

Appendix 2: Questionnaire questions

Dimension Question

number Question Answer

Sex Q1 What is your gender? Male / Female / Other

Age Q2 What is your age? Open question

Occupation Q3 Is tea cultivation your main source of income?

Yes / No Q4 How long have you been

cultivating tea?

Years: 0-5/ 5-10 / 10-20 / 20+ Productivity Q5 My Tea smallholding

productivity can be improved on significantly. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q6 I possess sufficient knowledge

to increase productivity. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q7 I experience direct effects from

climate change that influence your productivity? 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q8 Which of the following effects

do you experience?

None/ Soil degradation / Heavy rainfall / Droughts / Other …

Q9 These events have affected my yields significantly. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Competition Q10 I experience an increase in

competition.

1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree

3: Undecided 4: Agree

5: Strongly agree Q11 If yes, how do you experience

this increase?

More active sellers / Difficulties to sell batch / Lower prices per kg of raw leaves / Other…

Q12 I feel pressure on increasing the productivity as a result of more competition 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q13 My income has been affected

by increased competition in the past years. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree

AE Q14 Do you currently receive AE

from top-down initiatives such as governmental organizations?

Yes / No Q15 If yes, have you noticed

inefficiencies within these organizations? For example, bad communication,

employees with lack of technical qualification etc.

Yes, such as…

Q16 Top-down extension has resulted in implementation of new technologies or techniques. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q17 Receiving top-down AE has

resulted in increased productivity. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q18 Do you currently receive AE

from bottom-up initiatives such as farmer’s cooperatives

sharing knowledge?

Yes / No

Q19 If yes, have you noticed inefficiencies within these organizations? For example, bad communication,

employees with lack of technical qualification etc.

Yes, such as…

Q20 This bottom-up extension has resulted in implementation of new technologies or techniques. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree

Q21 Receiving bottom-up AE has resulted in increased productivity. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q22 Have you participated in

cooperatives that focus on AE? Yes, often / Yes, but rarely / No, never Q23 Do you feel that either

top-down or bottom-up initiatives are more effective than the other?

Yes, top-down AE is more effective than bottom-up

Yes, bottom-up AE is more effective that top-down

No, they are equal

Q24 If yes, why? Open question

Learning regions and innovative milieus

Q25 There are institutional elements that combine elements such as infrastructure, knowledge and legal frameworks 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q26 These firms and institutions are

independent in decision-making and strategy formulation. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q27 There is a lot of interaction

between actors in the smallholder tea sector? (cooperation) 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q28 The current dynamic in the

smallholder sector leads to learning. 1: Strongly disagree 2: Disagree 3: Undecided 4: Agree 5: Strongly agree Q29 If you have other issues to

mention about AE or productivity, you can write these here.