A KEY CHALLENGE OF REFORMING NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION

SYSTEMS IN AFRICA

THE CASE OF UGANDA’S EXTENSION REFORM PROCESS 1996 – 2011

Patience B. Rwamigisa and Regina Birner Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries,

P.O. Box 102, Entebbe, Uganda

Paper Outline

IntroductionProblem statementMethodologyResultsDiscussionConclusions and Recommendations

IntroductionOne of the key challenges facing the

agricultural sector in Uganda is the lack of an efficient farmer-extension-research-linkage

In response to this challenge, Uganda in 2001 adopted the most far reaching agricultural extension reform in Africa, spearheaded by NAADS program

The NAADS Program adopted a decentralized, farmer owned and private sector serviced contract extension system; a complete departure from the centralized public extension system

This reform model was in line with the neoliberal policies promoted by the World Bank

Problem Statement

Studies conducted over NAADS implementation period showed mixed results regarding the performance of the program.

Some studies showed favourable evaluation (Adipala et al. 2003, Friis-Hansen et al. 2004, Scanagri UK Ltd 2005, IFPRI 2007, ITAD Ltd 2008 and IFPRI 2011)

Other studies were critical (Musemakweri 2007, Parkinson 2009, World Bank 2010 and Feder et al. 2011, Mangheni et al. 2003, Ramirez 2003 and Obaa et al. 2004)

Problem Statement Cont..

However, agricultural production statistics consistently showed a steady decline in real growth in agricultural output ( 7.9% in 2000/01 to 0.7% in 2007/08)

The national service delivery surveys conducted over the same period also revealed that only about 10% of the farmers received extension services

This study therefore, sought to establish why the NAADS reform program, which consumed over 40% of the national agricultural budget, appear not to have yielded satisfactory results

Methodology

The study focused on the policy process involved in the planning and implementation of the agricultural extension reform

The theoretical framework adopted for this study was derived from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier and Jekins-Smith 1993). The framework was enriched by the works of Birner and Resnick (2010); and also by the discourse analysis approach developed by Hajer 1995

Methodology Cont..

The study was qualitative and applied interpretive approach.

Four attributes in the policy process were selected: approach to extension reform; farmer empowerment; the role of the state and private sector; and self perception of the policy actors

The main input into the study was from 56 semi-structured interviews drawn from key policy making organs of the state, participant observation and review of documents

ResultsTwo discourse coalitions, referred to as

interest coalitions of policy actors, were distinguished with regard to the extension policy reform process in Uganda

The two coalitions differed fundamentally in their policy beliefs about the way in which extension should be reformed.

For the purposes of this study, the first coalition was referred to as “Interest Coalition A” and the second “Interest Coalition B”.

Results cont...

Attribute Interest Coalition A

Interest Coalition B

Approach to Extension Reform

Improving

agricultural

extension through

reforms within the

public sector is

impossible; new

approaches

involving the

private sector and

civil society are

needed

Extension can

only be achieved

through a

gradual reform

within the public

sector;

outsourcing

model is not

appropriate in its

presentation

situation

Results cont..Attribute

Interest Coalition A Interest Coalition B

Farmer Empower-ment

Believed that the farmer had not been given opportunity to participate in decision making with regard to the kind of extension services he/she needed. There was need to create avenues for the farmers to be heard in decision making processes; and to liberate them from the bureaucratic top-down decision making process that characterized the public sector.

Also subscribed to the farmer empowerment concept, but did not believe that the way the NAADS program was being implemented was in effect empowering the farmers. They thought that the farmers groups that had been formed perceived themselves as belonging to NAADS, but not NAADS belonging to the farmers.

Results cont..Attribute Interest Coalition A Interest Coalition B

Role of State and Private Sector

The state should be

limited to public

financing,

coordination,

facilitation and

regulation. Service

delivery should be by

the private sector,

which they viewed as

more efficient.

The public sector

should continue to

play an active role as

capacity of private

sector develops.

Private sector

participation should

be limited to areas

with demonstrated

competence.

Contracting them not

sustainable

Results Cont..Attribute

Interest Coalition A Interest Coalition B

Self Perception

True reformers;

defending farmers’

interests

True understanding of

the system; able to

identify what can workOther Perception

Defending vested

interests of

bureaucracy and

politicians

Captured by donor

and their reform

models; not open to

locally adapted

solutionsMembers

Ministry of Finance,

Donors led by World

Bank,

NAADS leadership

Ministry of Agriculture,

Local Governments,

NARO, PMA, Academia

Timing and sequencing of events

Parliament passed

NAADS Act

J une J uly2001

March2001

National elections

Dec.2000

Cabinet passed

PMASecretariatestablishedin MFPED

1998

WB Extension projects

ends (failure) Work on

design for NAADS starts

NAADS World Bank

Loan approved

May

Implementation starts in trailblazingdistricts

Feb. Aug. 1996

National elections

Movement Manifesto highlights “Transformation of agriculture “

MAAIF starts

work on PMA

1999

Paper by Kizza Besigye

criticizes lack of achievement

Agriculture high on the agenda

of both candidates

1997

PMA Steering

Committee chaired by

MFPED

Coalition A dominates and is able to exclude Coalition B from the process of creating NAADS

Sequence of events from 2004 to 2010

J une 2010

Feb.2006

National elections

President suspends NAADS

Sept2007

First multi-party electionsOpposition criticizes

government for lack ofachievement,

incl. agricultureNRM’s platform

“Prosperity for All” (PFA)

Oct2007

Cabinet decides to strengthen

extension outside NAADS

(fill vacant positions –3 extension

agents / sub-county

NAADS Mid-Term Reviewshows

positive results

2004 2005

Inputsubsidy program

starts

2008

NAADS ends; bridge

funding;Design of

ATAAS starts

President stops NAADS

funding;ATAAS Project

Appraisal Document

ready

Model approach

introduced; donors

stop funding

2007June 2009

MFPED requests that all sub-county staff placed on contract

Nov2009

MAAIF presents

policy position against

conversion

March 2010

Prime Minister directs MPS to stop conversion

PMA moved to MAAIF to implement PFA

Coalition B is able to increase its influence, but no consensus is achieved; this situation facilitates increasing direct political influence by the President

DiscussionThe established view for the failure of

the agricultural extension reforms in Uganda, is that the NAADS program was politically captured.

This study shows that the extension reform process was shaped by the interaction of two advocacy coalitions with conflicting belief systems.

The inability to achieve a consensus between these coalitions played a key role for the failure of NAADS, as it was associated with lack of ownership and lack of participation in NAADS’ design and implementation.

Conclusion

This study provides an insight into the reasons why a reform program that received worldwide attention (Chapman and Tripp 2003), could not meet expected results

As a way forward, the findings of this study suggest a need to build consensus among the policy actors to ensure ownership of the reform program, leading to its legitimacy and enhanced commitment by key institutional actors.

This need to build consensus, ownership and legitimacy in the extension reform process, may be of relevance elsewhere in Africa

AcknowledgementThe Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry

and Fisheries of the Republic of UgandaThe United States Agency for International

DevelopmentThe International Food Policy Research

InstituteDr. Prossy IsubikaluProfessor Arseni SemanaAssociate Professor Margaret N. Mangheni

THANK YOU