In the Philippines, agricultural productivity improvements since the 1960s have been slow in coming. The public delivery of extension services has largely devolved to provinces, cities, municipalities and villages as a result of the 1991 Devolution of Powers Act. Thus, answers to questions of the relative roles of private and public extension services and the financing and delivery of public extension are important. Project researchers are helping to answer these questions by defining the respective roles of public and private extension services in the Philippines. This includes the development of an economic framework for the financing, design and delivery of public extension services to farmers from central to local government level. Practical steps for adopting such a framework will then be proposed.
The primary outputs promised in the original design of this project are:
an appreciation of how extension activities happen in the devolved system.
a description and analysis of other major changes in the environment for extension (besides devolution) in the Philippines
a framework for identifying niches for delivery of public extension
exposure of these outputs to Filipino practitioners and policy makers by way of conferences and workshops to be part of the ongoing assessment and debate shaping policies concerning devolution, agriculture and extension.
Appreciation of the impact of devolution
Using a range of information-gathering methods including case studies, Steering Committee meetings, field visits and literature reviews, the project came to the following key findings about the devolution experience.
Continuing concerns about extension delivery are set out below.
The relative roles of central and local agencies remains unclear.
Many central agencies continue to be involved in extension resulting in:
- waste and duplication;
- extension resources being diverted from local priorities;
- continued commodity emphasis;
- maintenance of a tops down supply-driven approach over one that is bottoms up and demand-driven;
Training of extension officers is piecemeal and limited in terms of planning and other 'higher order' skills.
Some municipalities appeared to be too small to deliver extension services efficiently.
In those LGUs where the devolved extension service had apparently been 'successful' this success was 'hostage' to a particular leader and with the fall of that leader programs would be brought to a close no matter how successful.
On the other hand there were positive signs as illustrated below.
In some LGUs a farm system approach aimed at family incomes had replaced the old commodity driven production targets approach.
Extension partnerships with private sector, seed suppliers, universities and NGOs were being formed.
Farmers were less inclined to equate extension with subsidies and co-payments for seed, fertiliser and stock were becoming accepted.
Some LGUs were cooperating to achieve benefits of size.
Environment for extension
Some of the more significant aspects of this environment for extension delivery include:
the steady diminution in farm size from 3.7 ha in the 1970s to 1.7 ha in the 1980s to 0.6 ha in 2004.
security of tenure is weak even in agrarian reform areas and opportunities available from tenant share farming are restricted by law.
access to the internet in isolated areas is hampered by weak communication infrastructure.
In reviewing these initial findings with the Steering Committee it was agreed that along with most studies of extension in the Philippines this first-round work focused on delivery or supply of extension and that more attention needed to be paid to demand. Consequently case-study writers were asked to revisit their case-study areas to assess factors affecting demand for extension. Some of the main outputs from this follow up work were:
farmers on small pieces of land had both little capacity and incentive to demand extension services.
commercial farmers, including those involved in hog and boiler raising, seemed to have good access to commercial extension.
contract growing among small farmers especially landless and farm workers by way of consolidating their rented lands is emerging. This endeavour provides sustained income to small farmers.
Niches for public extension
Suggested key niches for public extension in the Philippines are:
moving away from a commodity approach towards a farm system and farm family focus.
working with low income/small farm communities with a holistic approach to promote development through cooperative farming, diversification to off-farm income and sustainable production.
focusing on practices relating to pest and disease control, water and waste management where impacts extend beyond the farm and where extension delivery may need to involve delivery from a unit larger than LGU, for example at the provincial level.
working with larger commercial producers on a copayment basis to develop the further emergence of private sector advisors.
providing packaged information, demonstrations and training packages targeted towards mass dissemination and access and informing private providers of extension and advisors of best practice.
providing feedback to research and policy makers in terms of the needs and best directions for rural/agricultural communities.
importantly the findings stress that input subsidies are not good extension methods.
Links:
[1] http://www.aciar.gov.au/country/Philippines
[2] http://www.aciar.gov.au/programarea/Agricultural Systems Management