Artcles > Reforming Agriculture In A Global World

Reforming Agriculture in a Global World Poverty, Vulnerability and Agricultural Extension: Policy Reforms in a Globalising World edited by Ian Christoplos and John Farrington; Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2004; pp xiv + 251, Rs 545. Sucha Singh Gill

Agricultural extension service is one of the policy instruments through which government can intervene in the process of rural development and influence the outcome in terms of resource allocation efficiency, distributive justice and level and pattern of production and productivity. Extension workers are the link between agricultural research and farmers on one hand and policy of rural development and the rural people on the other. Historically agricultural extension services were developed to increase agricultural production in the wake of innovation/inventions produced by agricultural research. In most developing countries, the system of agricultural extension and research was created in the post-second world war period after they attained independence. Although some elements of extension services were meant for advancing rural development, especially rural infrastructure and prevention of mass diseases like malaria in the initial period, yet the main thrust came in the 1960s for increasing agricultural production in wake of serious foodgrain shortage. Agricultural extension services were created and funded by the government to take agricultural research to the farm level. In India also, state level agricultural universities were set up both for training and research as well as for interaction between the state and central organisations funded by the union government for more generic type research and to establish strong links between research and extension including getting feedback from the farmers. The financial support mainly came from Rockefeller Foundation to emulate agricultural services on the pattern of the US Land Grant Model [Farrington et al 1998]. The book under review examines the role of agricultural extension services for alleviation of rural poverty and reduction of risks to vulnerable sections of rural population. At the same time attempt has also been made to examine the policy changes in the wake of globalisation. This volume is based on five case studies from the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) under the auspices of the ‘Neuchatel Initiative’, an informal group of donors and policy analysts seeking to identify new approaches to agricultural extension. The volume contains a long introductory article by the editors formulating various issues examined in the five case studies in addition to main issues of poverty and vulnerability and the role and scope of agricultural extension services in attending to these two core issues. Poverty, in this volume implies the inability to achieve a minimum level of consumption (defined as poverty line) due to lack of power and entitlement of resources. Vulnerability is defined as risk to livelihood of the poor. The fear of destitution and acute suffering sustained through shocks imposed by natural disasters, conflicts and serious market disturbances (failures) lead to vulnerability for the poor. The priorities of the poor typically include strategy to increase income, reduce vulnerability and secure a more reliable access to resources. The recent paradigm shift in economic policy across countries, designated as liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation, in the editors’ view has increased more chances for the transmission of economic shocks and conflict across borders. Capital can move to avoid such shocks, but most of the poor cannot move out, and, therefore, have become far more vulnerable. Commercialisation has led to a decline in subsistence economy making traditional coping strategies weak. It implies that help from wealthy neighbours is less forthcoming and horizontal ties are subject to covariate risk. This means that when need is greatest, it is unlikely that other poor people will have the capacity to help. The combination of ecological, agricultural and social system collapse such as violence in Afghanistan, central Africa and Balkan states and the HIV/AID epidemic in developing countries, has meant that disasters are not temporary. In the changed scenario, poor people are increasingly struggling to reduce their vulnerability by diversifying beyond agriculture. Pro-poor Extension Pro-poor extension, according to the editors, must be constructed so that it affects livelihood of the poor based on their roles as producers, labourers and consumers. Taking a cue from Sen and Drezê (1989), the broader view of development is taken to mean increased productivity, ability to participate in the market through access to information, freedom of movement, and access to socio-economic infrastructure, and the role of extension service is viewed as help people to make choices by enhancing freedom of choice. This in turn depends on strengthening the institutions of the poor in relation to not only production but also more widely in relation to access of resources, vulnerability reduction and freedom of choice. The government in developing countries is expected to bring development by not only correcting market failures but also to take a wider distributional mandate. The agricultural extension, therefore, has both economic and social goals and can be judged on principles of both economic and social policy. In view of fast decline in agriculture, non-agricultural options, such as accessing wage employment and engaging in micro-enterprises, are of considerable importance for the rural poor. Extension services must find a new role as a part of overall rural development process including marketing and processing. Agriculture cannot be seen in isolation. At the same time, though investment in minuscule plots (tiny holdings) is supported in policy yet medium and large farmers are preferred primarily because they create more wage employment

for the rural poor. In view of the viability crisis of such (tiny) holdings, the role of extension services must be assessed in relation to overall policies regarding mechanisation and employment generation and providing help to children of the poor to provide them safe exit from agriculture by preparing them through adequate interventions for a wide range of nonagricultural occupations. The lessons the five case studies provide are varied but have certain commonalities. Everywhere there are lot of opportunities and challenges for making agricultural extension services pro-poor. In Uganda pro-trade reforms are aiming to provide better advice to their clients and help producers get better deal with their markets. Information communication technologies have the potential to enable extension workers to become more effective. But far less has been achieved. There are no signs of addressing market failure in the isolated and conflict prone areas of the country. In India agricultural extension started by adopting different approaches after the training and visit (T&V) system began to lose popularity. T&V system was essentially providing training to farmers to use the new technology and opportunities in agriculture. There have been efforts to involve private extension providers in agriculture during the 1990s but their present activities remain skewed towards the well-endowed regions and well-off farmers. In spite of massive poverty in the areas of low productivity regions in India, even public funded agricultural extension (and also private sector extension) has not made a major dent towards reducing poverty and vulnerability. The reforms favouring the poor are unlikely to be achieved unless agricultural policy links productivity enhancement with employment creation and reduction in vulnerability. Bolivia has experimented with different extension models such as statistic model, intermediate-user model and free market allocation of extension projects. Due to its past history and poor performance, currently there is no national extension system in Bolivia. Even in the decentralisation process launched recently, the extension component is missing. Vietnam has a strong state with a clear commitment to rural development, poverty alleviation and vulnerability reduction. But even here the bias is visible in favour of the elite, wealthy farmers. The spread of modern and capital intensive technologies through extension services is largely concentrated among the rich farmers resulting in the exclusion of the poor and vulnerable rural population. In Nicaragua, the extension services are increasingly being contracted out to the private sector especially through NGOs. Most of NGOs doubt the capacity of the poor to succeed in accessing international market under globalisation. There has been a ‘projectisation’ of rural development in Nicaragua with the obviously limited capacity of the government to coordinate various projects. Limitations and Suggestions In view of the limited role of the extension services for alleviation of poverty and vulnerability reduction, the reform of public sector extension service has been suggested in the context of the technology poverty reduction and globalisation link, systemic collapse, uncivil society and weak governance. Neither laissez-faire market mechanism nor populist participatory schemes will help the poor and vulnerable. Reform must start with identification of the poor, where are the poor and what is the capacity of governmental, civil society, donor and private sector organisations in poverty alleviation and vulnerability reduction in the process of rural development in the phase of globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation. The scope of extension services has to move from a commodity focus to livelihood approach with large number of changes ranging from commitment, accountability and incentives to staff involved in extension services, decentralisation in relation to incentive structures, resource flows and legitimacy of local government, civil service and civil society institutions and analysing and supporting the information, advisory and training needs of a wider range of actors around the agricultural sector rather than producers alone. All this has to be done for creating and supporting opportunities for the poor. The book makes interesting suggestions for extending the scope and area of operation of extension services in rural areas. A forceful plea is made to broader extension services for agriculture to include rural development to help the poor especially for poverty alleviation, vulnerability reduction and provide an effective exit for the poor away from (unviable) agriculture. While analysing the poor/non-performing extension services, considerable emphasis has been laid on factors such as inadequate coverage, lack of governance, financial crunch and lack of empowerment of the poor and vulnerable, though little efforts are made to discern factors which have led to better performance in some regions described in the case studies, especially in Vietnam and India. In literature on social change and especially in radical literature, building of peasant-workers alliance in the rural areas and building of organisations based on this alliance have paid rich dividends in tacking poverty and vulnerability reduction in the Indian states like Kerala [Thomas and Frank 2000] and West Bengal [Ghatak and Ghatak 2002]. The World Bank Report 2004 also gives some indications as how to make reforms pro-poor. It is stated that “managing politics then often implies curbing unsustainable populism, promoting universal public services and building coalitions among the poor and the middle class so that there is broad support for the reforms”. The question of the organised strength of the poor at grassroot level and its influence in country’s politics are determining factors in tackling issues of poverty, vulnerability reduction and improving governance of the programmes for the poor. The book does not throw any light on these issues. Rather one finds in the book glimpses of the increasing the role of private sector at the grassroot level in the face of the acute financial resource crunch faced by governments. It is suggested that scarce resources for extension services can be saved by withdrawing from the privileged areas and well-off sections and can be diverted to remote areas and for the poor people. The book does not question the basic premises of the modern capitalist economies based on brazen exploitation of the poor and the vulnerable. A plea is made to adjust with the unjust policies originating from capitalist globalisation and NGOs are considered more important than peasant and agricultural labourers organisations. In fact the role of latter organisations in participatory development has not even been mentioned. The editors of the volume and authors of the case studies show preference for NGOs and decentralised governance in rural development. The failure of the extension services is attributed to limited coverage and administrative

weakness/break down, but no relation is established with the rural power structure that generates a lack of political will to convert the services to the poor and vulnerable sections of population. In areas where the local power structure is strongly dominated by relatively well-off sections, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to make the system work in favour of the poor and vulnerable sections. For the success of pro-poor and pro-vulnerable programmes, a countervailing organised power of the poor is of utmost significance. In absence of this, these programmes are hijacked by the rich. The NGOs have no capacity to create necessary countervailing power in the rural areas on a large scale. This task can only be performed by organised political movement of the poor. The significance of this book lies in the empirical foundations of five case studies from Asia, Africa and Latin America. It focuses on the issues of the poor and vulnerable sections of population to make them partners in development. In this context it makes a useful addition to the literature on the poor and vulnerable sections in developing countries. Email: [email protected] References Farrington, John, Rashid Sulaiman, Suresh Pal (1998): ‘Improving the Effectiveness of Agricultural Research and Extension in India’, Policy paper 8, National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi. < Ghatak, Maitresh and Maitreya Ghatak (2002): ‘Recent Reforms in Panchayat System in West Bengal: Towards Greater Participatory Governance’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXXV, Nos 21-22, May 27-June 2. Isaac, T M Thomas and Rochard W Frank (2000): Local Democracy and Development: People’s Campaign for Decentralised Planning in Kerala, Leftword Books, New Delhi. Sen, Amartya and J Drezê (1989): Hunger and Public Action, Clarendon Press, Oxford. World Bank (2003): World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for the Poor, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004.