Risk Management and Agricultural Extension – A Time for Change?

Judith Ann Francis, CTA, The Netherlands

“Le Client est roi – the client is king – in the business world, but when it comes to farmers, the client is a subject to be manipulated. There needs to be much greater respect for farmers and their families and we need to recognize their importance as food producers and private-sector wealth creators”. Mamdou, Cissokho, Member of the Comite de la Securite Alimentaire Mondiale (CFS), Senegal. CTA Policy Pointers, 2012.

Introduction

For the millions of small-holder farmers in developing countries, agriculture remains a risky business, yet they persevere for want of an alternative. This is why the above quotation by Mamdou Cissokho, from the 2011 International Conference on “Innovations in Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services: Linking Knowledge to Policy and Action for Food and Livelihoods”, in Nairobi, Kenya, is relevant. Farmers, like any other investor group, take risks, if the prevailing conditions are favourable and the potential exists to make money.  Unless there is shared understanding and appreciation of the realities and aspirations of small-holder farmers and purposeful and collective action at local, national, regional and global levels, efforts at contributing to improvements in their situation will not advance. The material for this article draws primarily on the proceedings of the 2011 Nairobi international conference on extension.

Relevance of extension and realities of “risk averse” farmers

Small-holder farmers are expected to produce sufficient food for home consumption and to compete in local and international markets; where price, quality, food safety, nutrition and ethical issues determine consumer choices. They do so with limited resources - land, capital, credit and support from extension and other services and often, under very challenging circumstances which many consider as hostile to their efforts at breaking the cycle of poverty. These challenges include; unfriendly policy and institutional environments, high interest rates on loans, international trade rules, uncertain markets and stringent market requirements, fluctuating commodity prices, climatic variability/change, a depleting natural resource base (especially land and water), energy and economic insecurity, and limited access to research, education and extension services that respond to their priority needs. They need advisors and a policy and institutional framework that they can trust. Extension remains relevant, especially to the millions who are the bedrock of the agricultural supply chain.

Many times, the solutions proposed to address extension are one-size fits all and the multiple approaches that have been piloted over the past 20 years and more of reforms (e.g. training and visit, demand-driven, market-oriented and client-oriented extension, decentralization and privatization, cost recovery, private-public partnerships, farmer-field schools, ICTs, learning networks, community based extension and several other models) are too numerous to ponder. The role of public extension has diminished and several other categories of extension service providers have mushroomed: pluralism in the delivery of extension is now accepted. However, the reality is that many of these are pilot projects, often funded with external donor support which have failed to deliver transformative change or have not been taken to scale. Generally, when the project funds end, some are repackaged as new concepts to be further tested/researched and others have no further traction.

The result is that farmers become exasperated by the multiplicity of service providers and approaches and choose not to adopt recommendations or adapt practices which they see as yielding no tangible benefits. Their perceived failure to not modify their traditional practices which they consider have stood the test of time, cause them to be characterized as “risk averse”. But are they really? Investing in new technologies, adopting new or improved practices, accessing non-traditional markets or taking advantage of new market opportunities e.g. agro-tourism or FAIR trade, without adequate knowledge of the economic returns and other benefits is not an option for farmers, especially small-holders, if the necessary infrastructure is not in place to support them. They do not have sufficient or any capital to risk failure.

Revisiting the role of extension

When examined closely, the needs and desires of small-holder farmers are simple. They want affordable and easily accessible solutions which can enable them to respond to the challenges they face in fulfilling their immediate and long-term goal of earning adequate returns on their investment in agriculture. They do make substantial investments – to feed, house, clothe and educate their families, improve their social status and, perhaps, gain political influence.

What then is the role of extension agents in assisting farmers to manage risk? What have the past 20 or more years of extension reforms taught us? The Nairobi Declaration of the 2011 international extension conference states inter-alia that the “multitude of policies, strategies and approaches that have been piloted has yet to achieve the desired impact on the agricultural and rural sectors”. If traditional indicators, e.g. agricultural GDP or poverty index, are used, it is evident that small-holder farmers are no better off. Food and nutrition insecurity and poverty and hunger are still priorities on the national and global agendas. The Nairobi Declaration further states that “the renewed national, continental and global interest and commitments for increasing investment in agriculture, provide an opportunity for delivering extension and advisory services that are farmer-centred, participatory, well-funded, demand-driven and performance oriented”. Volker Hoffman, a keynote speaker at the international conference noted that while a strong argument exists for creating pluralistic services which are participatory and demand led: role conflict among public extension agents and the provision of extension services without attention to the quality of the content, should be avoided. This speaks to the issue of the importance of trust between service provider and client; an important aspect of extension and advisory services.

No blueprint for reform – are there lessons from history?

A blueprint for reforming and modernizing extension services in developing countries does not exist but what is clear, is that the plethora of pilot projects cannot continue ad nausea. If the evolution of extension services is considered, the differences in the trajectories between developed and developing countries, are immediately evident.  Extension services in Western Europe and the United States of America evolved in response to the changing needs and capabilities of farmers as well as their capacity to pay: these services are now mostly private sector driven although government support and other services such as research remain. The policy and institutional framework exists and this has developed and been refined over centuries. On the other hand, the history of extension in developing countries is more recent and is rooted in their colonial past. While relatively secure export markets existed for key commodities because of traditional ties to the “mother” countries, the public sector and commodity based extension services were adequate to the task (Box 1).

Policy and institutions matter

Improvingagricultural performance through innovation and diversification in products, processes, services and markets depends on the enabling policy and institutional environment as well as the risks that farmers are willing to take. Extension services can help, but their performance and success also depend on an enabling policy and institutional framework. They cannot support farmers in managing risks when they themselves are subjected to inconsistency and lack of clarity in government policies on agriculture, trade, economic development, education and science; non-payment of or low salaries; lack of tools, other resources and career opportunities, and limited access to up-to-date information and knowledge to list a few. How can they build trust with farming communities when they themselves are constrained? Extension services are an essential aspect of the toolkit for helping farmers to manage inherent risks in agricultural production, marketing and trade. However, extension services must be capacitated, streamlined and regulated to achieve the desired outcomes.

From the past 20 years and more of extension reform in many developing countries, one thing that we have learned is that simply changing the name and modifying the approaches is not the solution. Extension must be rooted in national realities for improving agricultural performance and geared towards addressing the needs of producers especially small-holder farmers. At the Nairobi conference, the model adopted by Brazil was lauded for the substantial gains that were achieved since 2004. Extension was defined as a continuous education service in which multiple service providers engage in providing tailor made services to meet the needs of farmers. It was well resourced from both a financial and human resource perspective and the policy and institutional mechanisms were put in place. Under those conditions, trust between farmers and advisors was assured and the substantial gains in agricultural performance and poverty reduction that were achieved have been clearly demonstrated.

Conclusion

There is need for countries to have explicit policies on extension which are embedded in or suitably aligned to the agricultural development policy and other key sectoral policies such as trade. The extension policy must respond to the goals and priorities of the national governments and other actors involved in the agricultural sector and address the issues of pluralism, funding and resource mobilization, capacity of extension service providers, quality control/assurance in the delivery of services and impact assessment. Extension agents should also be trained in the analysis of sustainable rural livelihoods and the vulnerability of their small farmer clients if they are to contribute to helping farmers manage risks.

Background Material:

• CTA Policy Pointers, 2012. Agricultural Extension – A Time for Change: Linking Knowledge to Policy and Action for Food and Livelihoods.
• CTA, 2012. Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovations in Extension and Advisory Services: Linking Knowledge to Policy and Action for Food and Livelihoods (In print).
• CTA Report, 2012. Kenya Case Study on Extension and Advisory Services.
• CTA Report, 2012. Nigeria Case Study on Extension and Advisory Services.
• Hoffmann, V., M. Gerster-Bentaya, A. Christinck, and M. Lemma. 2009a. Rural Extension. Vol 1: Basic Issues and Concepts. Margraf Publishers, Weikersheim, 251 pp.