|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
I hope list members will permit me to "float" some thoughts on extension to see whether they fly or get shot down abruptly (excuse mixed metaphors)! I am not an extension specialist, so these are observations "from a distance" from working as a researcher, often alongside field level extension staff, in Africa for a number of years. Several contributions on extension so far within the consultation have been quite sceptical about the ability of public extension services, in particular, to contibute much of value to agricultural intensification efforts (Michael Lipton's Plan A). Looking at African extension services in their current state, I accept that there are plenty of grounds for pessimism. Whenever we have asked farmers about the extension services that they receive, only a tiny fraction have seen an extension officer at all regularly (and often 50% or more not at all in the previous year). Those who do enjoy regular contact appreciate it, but - unless there are informal information sharing mechanisms that we are not aware of - the majority receive no benefit. Casual observation suggests that the few who see an extension officer at all regularly are already the more enterprising and often better resourced farmers. Dick Tinsley's comments about stalled services, where all available funds go on salaries, certainly resonate in many situations with which I am familiar, but I can also relate to Alastair Bradstock's observation that even money might not do the trick. Why, then, do I think that extension - indeed public extension services - should still be part of the investment strategy for agricultural development and what do I think should be different in order for the obstacles above to be overcome? Ironically, one of my reasons for believing that public extension services are important is that, where conditions are conducive, I see the private sector investing in providing extension advice. I think here of African cotton sectors where, as long as competition in the seed cotton market is not too chaotic (so that cotton buyers / ginners can secure a return on investments made in pre-harvest services), larger cotton companies typically employ their own (Loans and) Extension Officers and may invest quite heavily in developing simple messages for promotion to their farmers. Now, these may suffer some of the problem that Dick alludes to in terms of not understanding farmers' constraints - early planting, in rows with "correct" plant densities, feature quite prominently. You could even question whether the main beneficiary of followed advice would be the producer or the company in some cases. Nevertheless, private investments are made. I suspect that similar investments are happening in a range of other cash crops and contract farming systems. However, the market conditions under which such crop-specific private investments are likely to be made are quite limited; it is hard to see anybody in a maize marketing chain (or most staple food crops, for that matter) making a similar investment. What the cotton example and other experiences do teach me, however, is that extension is valuable when it is linked to a specific market opportunity, when producers are being equipped to respond to particular market demands. Some years ago, we did some pilot work with Agritex in Zimbabwe on horticultural markets. (Traditionally, training of extension agents in Zimbabwe has focused on field crops, so extension officers have neglected horticulture once in post). We gathered information on horticultural market opportunities and fed it (through extension staff) to groups of producers who were already growing horticultural products, but selling them into highly volatile informal markets. What struck me was that, once the producers had this information, they suddenly had a whole raft of questions and training needs for the extension officers related to fulfilling particular market requirements (quality, timing of sales etc). With back-up from a good subject matter specialist, the extension officers could then feel valued and useful, so could potentially a) gain in motivation for their work, b) relate to producers in a new way, not having to maintain "professional distance" to hide insecurities. The briefest of insights into extension in South Africa - observing Monsanto trials of GM maize in one district, where they are working through local extension staff - reinforces the point about motivation. Farmers were excited about the new maize varieties, which reduced the drudgery of borer control and (because borers were more effectively controlled as a result) opened up market opportunities for selling maize, whereas previously there was no point in producing more than was needed for home consumption. In turn, this made those involved in extension feel good and valued - and hence motivated. As Alastair noted, resources here were not an issue. The key to effective extension systems is, therefore, providing knowledge that farmers want. In some ways, this is so obvious as to be a point not worth making, yet it has profound implications that - it seems to me - much current extension planning and management have not taken on board. For example: 1) the knowledge in question may not be a new product from the research system. Disseminating new findings from research is one role for extension, but - I would argue - not the main one. With the rise of supermarkets and other, increasingly demanding market chains, equipping producers to meet the heightened quality, timing and reliability requirements of markets (through "old" agronomic practices, advice on spraying etc) is a key role for extension officers. Just equipping farmers to cope better with the challenges of liberalised markets (supermarkets etc aside) would be useful. This, of course, requires that extension officers themselves understand market opportunities and demands and are in contact with buyers operating in their area (often not the case currently?). 2) another key role is simply making linkages - important in rural situations characterised, inter alia, by poor information flows. The key characteristic of extension officers is that they straddle two worlds. They (should) have intimate knowledge of local conditions and individual producers, but they are also connected into the "wider" world of markets and technological development. When a new research or NGO project starts up in an area, who do they often look to work with - extension staff. If commodity buyers want to identify groups of producers whom they could potentially work with, whom might they consult - extension staff. Might there be a role for extension staff in supporting such fledgling market relationships even once they are established (mediating where there are misunderstandings between the parties, as well as equipping the producers to meet the buyers' requirements)? Yes, but such tasks are sometimes discouraged as distracting extension staff away from their core function of technology and knowledge promotion! 3) who identifies what farmers want and how? I tend to agree that it will be impossible (with plausible levels of resourcing) to tailor public extension advice to the needs of all individual producers (though privatised competitors can offer this service to the better-off few). We have to think about wider "recommendation domains" and, probably, about encouraging extension staff to work primarily with groups. (Who will assist in establishing such groups - maybe NGOs, but often extension staff themselves). Fundamentally, though, priority setting needs to be done at as local a level as possible. The development of district level agriculture / rural development plans (see my contribution to the Public Expenditure theme) seems to me a good place to identify priorities for extension officers to be involved in within a given district, particularly if farmers' representatives, NGOs and the private sector participate in the drawing up of these plans. I would go further to argue that district and field level extension staff should be accountable to managers within district (or equivalent) administrations - and, through local planning processes, to local stakeholders more generally - not to a national extension service. Instead, central extension capability should be streamlined to providing knowledge back-up (plus periodic refresher courses introducing them to the latest research products) that district and field level extension staff can draw upon once they have identified priority problems for farmers in their area. I am all for greater public, including donor, investment in strengthening public extension capability along these lines. However, there is a catch: free-standing projects that seek to do this, independent of wider reform of Ministries of Agriculture and the process of agricultural development planning, will end up either funding extension staff who still don't perform (because the planning processes to identify priorities and provide accountability do not exist) or resorting to centralised management and priority setting (equally unlikely to deliver useful and motivated extension on the ground) for the same reason. If there is a case for extra spending on extension, it is conditional on seeing some more fundamental changes in agricultural development planning at the same time (or preferably first). Let the shooting begin! Colin Poulton
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.