|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Another concept I introduced in the other group was that of a stalled government. A government stalls when the revenue funds available to sustain the services are mostly consumed by personnel cost leaving little if any funds for operations and services. The result is that a large number of civil servants spend extensive amounts of time in the office with little opportunity to go to he field and work, or only do so as part of donor funded projects which by their very nature are temporary. This is regardless how well trained or motivated. Under these circumstances prestige is obtained more by what you attempt then what you accomplish and individuals are looking forward to baksheek opportunities in terms of international and local training, etc. Traditionally we have sought to enhance these institutes by capacity building particularly by providing the staff with training opportunities and physical facilities such as laboratory equipment, etc. The model has always been donor countries standards where the tax base generates sufficient revenues to afford this level of commitment. I don't disagree with this as a starting point, or at least 40 years ago when technical assistance programs began. However, in the developing country context when revenue funds are limited all this capacity building goes for naught. (or is correct UK expression goes for a 6). How often have we seen good espensive equipment still in its original packing boxes unused? A stalled government is really tax drain and burden on society relative to its contributions. Under these circumstance if is better for DFID and other donors to carefully exam the available and reasonable projected revenue funds, and then gear the support and capacity building to what can be sustained with those funds. That is really all that ever gets done anyway. Once the revenue funds increase then additional services can be instituted. Meanwhile most members of the agricultue civil services would be financially better off in the private sector providing needed agriculture support services. They would also be less in need of informal income opportunities even gray area opportunites that divert project resources to personal use. The impact this would have on MOAs and their research and extension program would be a major downsizing in staff until a reasonable ratio of personnel cost to operating expenses is obtained. For research programs this may mean concentrating on genetic development. As it is most research programs restricted to revenue funds can barely maintain the germ plasma they have. Most of that has come via the CGIAR centers and represent their biggest contribution of National Programs. Actually most other agronomic management interacts too much with the limited operating resource base available to the farmers that farmers have to extensive fine tune the recommendation to meet their needs. Time of planting is spread over 8 weeks delaying most other activities past the optimal time, plant population interact with limited labor so it also gets spread out to 2/3 or 1/2 the recommended rates, and fertilizer is often sight specific. Thus most detailed extension recommendations are highly compromised. Extension just can not keep up with all the field staff as envision with the T&V system and why that has moved from "Training and Visit" to "Talk and Vanish". It is not that it is not desirable to have direct contact but with only revenue funds available few countries can afford it, and the donor need to take this into account. That is the main reason we need to emphasis the mass media for promoting agriculture technology. Is this unreasonable? Dick Tinsley
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.