Outsourcing agricultural extension
services
By
Muh Imran Azeem | Muh Salih Al-Shenaifi
BECAUSE
of the poor performance of the farm services and their lack
of ability to combat emerging challenges in agriculture,
privatisation of extension services is often proposed to
improve their efficiency and effectiveness. But empirical
evidence doesn’t support this view.
In any case, complete
privatisation is not a practical solution.
However, to cut down
expenditure and enhance delivery, outsourcing or contracting
out to specialised extension service providers might be
useful.
Extension and advisory
services play an essential role in the growth and
development of agriculture.
These services are mostly
provided under the aegis of the ministry of agriculture,
especially in developing countries.
However, public extension services is being severely
criticised. It is stated that the system is centralised in
its management and functioning.
And there is a lot of
red-tape involved in it; it lacks ability and competency to
deliver; it is inefficient and not cost-effective as it
formulates and implements extension programmes poorly;
It has insufficient
operational funds, ill-motivated staff and does not offer
any incentives; and lastly, it lacks accountability.
Complete privatisation of
farm services is not a practical solution. But to cut down
expenditure and improve delivery, outsourcing or contracting
out to specialised extension service providers might be
useful.
Moreover, due to the changing needs and focus on farming, it
is unrealistic to furnish extension services for free.
Besides, there are the emerging challenges of uncertain
climate as well as shifting export markets, declining water
availability and increasing soil degradation.
To respond effectively and to adjust to these present-day
challenges, more pluralistic approaches are needed for
extension services to broaden their focus and enhance their
capacities.
Privatisation of existing system was recently put forward as
a remedy to reform and improve extension services.
It was argued that
privatisation would give farmers more control and influence
over the quality of extension services, and that the
services would be more relevant, demand-driven and
market-oriented.
It would ensure timely supply
of such services to farmers.
Across the globe, various
countries have adopted different privatisation modalities
and institutional arrangements. Australia and New Zealand
almost completely privatised the extension services, while
the UK adopted a partial cost-recovery mechanism.
In the US and some European
countries, farmer-based organisations (FBOs) and extension
cooperatives play a significant role in providing the
extension services.
Vouchers (in some cases subsidised) distributed by the
government to hire private consultants are being used in
Chile, Costa Rica and Columbia; these vouchers are
reimbursed by the government.
In most of the developing world, Input Supply Firms (ISFs)
are actively involved in extension services.
These companies, under
contract with farmers, provide production inputs as well as
extension services, and these are termed embedded services.
However, so far, the results of privatisation in this sector
have not been very promising. While it has shown some
favourable results in some countries (especially developed
ones), the overall outcome is not quite convincing.
Empirical evidence suggests that private sector is biased
towards large-scale and commercial farmers; resource-poor,
small-scale and subsistence farmers are deliberately
neglected as they are illiterate and don’t have enough
holdings at their disposal to buy advisory services in the
open market.
The commercial orientation of
the system places small farms at a disadvantage, leaving
them uncompetitive in the long run.
Secondly, where FBOs are involved in contracting out
extension services, they may not be much interested in
dealing with the problems of poor and marginalised growers.
The leadership of FBOs is
shared, in most cases, by influential and affluent people in
the farming community.
Thirdly, in developing countries like Pakistan and India,
most of the private extension services are provided by Input
Supply Firms.
These companies provide
services mostly related to their products or the crops they
buy, just to increase their sales and maximise profits
without addressing broader concerns like poverty alleviation
and environmental sustainability.
Their services are also limited in scope. And evidence
suggests that these services are also biased.
A typical example is India,
where ISFs have established agri-clinics and agri-business
centres to provide comprehensive extension services.
However, most of these
service units are located in already prosperous rural areas,
where medium and large-scale farmers dwell.
The potential private service providers may also be
professionally less competent, especially in developing
countries, where extension providers at present are mostly
trained in generic technology issues.
And private companies would
not be tempted to allocate resources to build the
professional capacity and skills of their staff.
And where vouchers are
distributed, corruption may arise (as it did in Chile).
In Pakistan, where bulk of the growers are small-scale and
mostly uneducated, privatisation is not a feasible and
realistic solution.
The government should
maintain the existing network of agricultural branches to
furnish extension services for free.
However, there is a dire need
to expand the focus and enhance the institutional capacity
of extension service to make it more effective and relevant.
June, 2014
Source:
Dawn News