Tài liệu khuyên nông tiếng anh giúp các bạn học tiếng anh chuyên ngành

Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor A Documentation Review Prepared by: Hoang Xuan Thanh Nguyen Viet Khoa For the: Sub-Group on Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Group VUFO – NGO Resource Centre Hanoi – 11/2003 Foreword This review of Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor has been written on the initiative of the sub-group on Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor The sub-group is part of the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Group of the VUFO – NGO Resource Centre This documentation review is part of the INGO’s efforts to respond to and contribute to the poverty reduction efforts of Vietnam expressed in the Comprehensive Poverty Reduction & Growth Strategy (CPRGS) This review is carried out to support these poverty reduction efforts of the Vietnamese government by focusing on feed back from field experience in agricultural extension, related to the actual policy context in Vietnam In this review the INGO’s use their experiences in pro-poor agricultural extension in Vietnam The relationship between farmers and NGO’s actively involved in extension service is generally understood to be of a different nature than that between farmers and government extension services With the contribution of this reveiw, we can look at agricultural extension services from a different perspective and to bring this perspective into a debate on policies as well as implementation practices for more pro-poor agricultural extension Based on a given theoretical framework, feed back from sub-group participants (both VNGO’s and INGOs) field experience can be used and shared with DARD, MARD, and DAFE in order for INGO’s to contribute to a dialogue on how to further improve agricultural extension policies and implementation practices to be more pro-poor and ensuring the access of poor men and women, ethnic minorities and marginalized communities to appropriate agriculture extension systems With poor we mean the more vulnerable rural people who depend on natural resources We pay particular attention to women, ethnic minorities, landless, people living in remote places or in places vulnerable to natural disasters, or small-holders who largely depend on (falling) export crop prices I would like to express my appreciation to the sub-group participants and contributing organizations who made the documentation review and the publication of it possible David Payne Co-director VUFO – NGO Resource Centre Contents Foreword Abbreviations and Acronyms Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives Agricultural extension and poverty reduction 2.1 Overview of current government’s agricultural extension 2.2 Government’s Commitment on Pro-poor Extension 11 2.3 Overview of understanding and practices among NGOs and Externally supported projects on pro-poor extension 14 The gaps between current Government's extension policies/practices and the pro-poor extension 18 3.1 Targeting 18 3.2 Technical training 21 3.3 Input supply and product promotion 23 3.4 Supporting farmers' organizations 25 3.5 Extension socialization .27 3.6 Market access and market information .29 Recommendations .33 4.1 Key issues for which NGO field experiences should be collected and documented 33 4.2 Relevant strategies and opportunities for policy dialogues on pro-poor extension .35 Key References 39 Annex Terms of reference of the AE sub-group 40 Annex Terms of Reference for Documentation Review 46 Abbreviations and Acronyms ADB ASDP Circular 56 CPRGS DAFE DARD Decree 13 Asia Development Bank Agriculture Sector Development Program Used as shorthand for MARD's Circular 56/2003/TT-BNN dated April 2003 on the design of pro-poor agriculture projects within HEPR program Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy Department for Agricultural and Forestry Extension Department for Agriculture and Rural Development Used as shorthand for Government's Decree 13/CP dated March 1993 on Extension Decree 20 Used as shorthand for Government’s Decree 20/1998/ND-CP dated 31 March 1998 on Developing Trade in Mountainous and Ethnic Minorities Areas Decree 86 Used as shorthand for Government’s Decree 86/2003/ND-CP dated 18 July 2003 on the functions, tasks and organization of MARD Economic community organization Focus Group Discussion Farmers' Field School Hunger Eradication and Poverty Reduction High Yield Varieties In-depth Interview Integrated Pest Management International Support Group (at MARD) Like-Minded Donor Group Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Finance Ministry of Labor, Invalid and Social Affairs Ministry of Planning and Investment National Agricultural Extension Center Non-Governmental Organization Participatory Poverty Assessment Participatory Rural Appraisal ECO FDG FFS HEPR HYV IDI IPM ISG LMDG M&E MARD MOFI MOLISA MPI NAEC NGO PPA PRA Program 135 Program 661 PTD SANRM TAGE TOT UNDP VDR WB Government’s Program on socio-economic development of the extremely difficult communes (according to PM’s Decision No.135/1998/QD-TTg dated 31 July 1998) Government's Program on planting million of forest (according to Prime Minister's Decision No.661/QD-TTg dated 29 July 1998) Participatory Technology Development Sustainable Agricultural and Natural Resources Management Thematic Ad-hoc Group on pro-poor Extension Train(ing) - of – Trainer United Nations Development Programme Vietnam Development Report World Bank USD = 15 500 VND or dong (as of October 2003) Agricultural Extension Services for the Poor A Documentation Review Introduction 1.1 Background Although Vietnam has achieved significant economic development and poverty reduction since doi moi, poverty in Vietnam remains high Today, poverty is concentrated in rural areas, and it will become increasingly concentrated in remote and ethnic minority areas There is no doubt that off-farm employment plays a very important role in poverty reduction However, farming activities in agriculture, forestry and fishery will still be the main livelihood strategies of the poor in remote and ethnic minority areas in the years to come The coming years may be characterized by increasing inequality, too Among others, a key determinant of inequality is the unbalanced access to the basic services including agricultural extension services - between the poor and non-poor, men and women, Kinh and ethnic minorities The extension system has been set up since 1993 in all provinces However, for many reasons the system can not meet the needs of farmers, especially the poor, women and ethnic farmers In order to help addressing this problem, MARD has reviewed the agriculture extension system to make it more efficient Some donors like Asian Development Bank (ADB) also have fund to restructure the system In order to support the government and MARD to produce a more pro-poor policy for the development of agriculture extension system, SANRM working group decided to formulate a sub-group to work on agriculture extension which aims to bring good field experiences and practices to policy dialogues To guide this process, a documentation review on extension services for the poor is necessary 1.2 Objectives This paper1 is to: • • • • Review the current agriculture and forestry extension policies and practices at national and provincial levels Review the general understanding and practices from NGOs and externally supported projects regarding agriculture extension for the poor, women and ethnic people Summarize the key points on the gaps between the current agricultural extension policies/practices and the pro-poor agricultural extension Recommend the key issues for further documentation, strategies and opportunities for communication with policy makers, donors in order to advocate for a more pro-poor agriculture extension policies and practices This paper focuses on agricultural extension coordinated by NAEC, also taking into account extension of other departments within MARD (e.g PPD), where possible also including extension efforts of other ministries (e.g Fisheries) A detailed terms of reference of the sub-group and this study can be found in annexes and This documentation review is written by Mr Hoang Xuan Thanh from Ageless Consultants, and Mr Nguyen Viet Khoa from National Agriculture Extension Center (NAEC), MARD Core members of the SANRM sub-group have made this work possible with the time, expertise and financial arrangements Agricultural extension and poverty reduction 2.1 Overview of current government’s agricultural extension 2.1.1 Functions, organization and staffing The general functions of the government's agriculture extension services have been defined since 1993 (by Decree 13) as: (i) (ii) (iii) disseminating advanced techniques, and experiences from successful production models; strengthening the production management knowledge and skills for farmers; and providing market information for farmers Formally, the government's agriculture extension system has three levels: national, provincial, and district • National level: By new Decree 86, the National Agricultural Extension Center (NAEC) under the MARD is solely responsible for agricultural extension services This is an attempt to separate the 'state administration' from the 'public services' in agriculture extension2 Currently, the NAEC has 25 professional staff with different background The detailed functions and tasks of the NAEC are being revised.3 • Provincial level: There are provincial agricultural extension centers under the DARDs in all 61 provinces and cities over the country On average, each provincial extension center now has around 15-20 staff (70% of provincial extension staff have university degrees) • District level: Around 420 districts out of the total 600 over the country have established their agro-forestry extension stations with a total number of approximately 2,000 permanent extension staff Each district station has 3-5 staff who specializes in planting and animal husbandry In some provinces the extension stations at commune clusters ('cum xa') are set up • Commune and village levels: Agricultural extension network at commune and village levels is not mandatory under Government's regulations Some provinces have, with their locally raised funds, managed to set up their teams of commune extension workers and village extension collaborators who are contracted on an annual or a seasonal basis The incentive policies for commune extension workers differ significantly among the provinces - monthly stipend can range from 90,000 dong (Lao Cai) up to 300-400,000 dong (Ha Giang, Tuyen Quang) Limited capacity of the grass root extension workers is always a big concern In addition, many voluntary agricultural extension associations (groups, clubs) are established at commune and village levels by individuals and communities Some mass organizations are also involving in extension activities, thus, contributing to the increasing socialization of this work The National Agriculture Extension Centre (NAEC) was established on 26 April 2002 However at that time the Center was under the Department of agriculture and forestry extension By the new Decree 86, the NAEC now becomes a separate entity directly under the Minister (and the former Department of agricultural and forestry extension is replaced by the new Department of agriculture) By the Government's Decree 43 dated May 2003 on "functions, duties, organization of the Ministry of Fishery", for the first time a National Fishery Extension Center is established under the Ministry Figure 2.1: The vertical relations in agricultural extension mechanism Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development National level National Agricultural Extension Center (NAEC) Main responsibilities (mandatory by Decree 13 - to be revised by new Decree 86) • • • • • • Provincial level Department for Agriculture and Rural Development Centers for Agricultural and Forestry Extension • • • • • • • District level Agricultural extension policy making Development and management of national agri extension programmes Determination of economic and technical norms for national agricultural extension programmes Organization and management of transfer of advanced techniques and market information to farmers Training of agri extension workers Agri extension literature preparation Development and guidance of provincial agri extension programmes Guidance for organizations, incl private organizations, on implementation of agri extension programmes in the province Advanced techniques transfer to farmers Provide market information to farmers Provincial agri extension policy making Construction of demonstration models (in collaboration with Dept for Agri and Forestry Extension) under national agri extension programmes Monitoring and assessment of extension programmes Division for Agriculture & Rural Development Commune cluster level Agricultural & Forestry Extension Stations • • • • • • Commune level Contracted agri extension workers/collaborators or communal agricultural officers working as agri extension workers Village level Farmer household Farmers associations (groups, clubs) • • • Direct transfer of techniques to farmers Guidance on new technique application to farmers Construction of demonstration models in collaboration with farmers Training of grassroots extension workers Build the "good farmers'" clubs or interest groups Collaboration and reports to upper levels on district-level extension activities Not mandatory Responsibilities defined in contracts Some provinces have developed their provincial policies on the task and functions of commune extension workers and the role of grassroots organizations Farmer household 2.1.2 Planning and budgeting A typical up-and-down planning and budgeting can be observed in the extension system National-level extension programs using state budget are proposed by NAEC to MARD for approval This program/budget is then allocated to provincial extension centers Similarly, the provincial extension centers develop their own annual extension plans, submit to the provincial People's Committee (through DARD) for approval, and then allocate funds to district extension stations for implementation At the moment, there is little room for bottom-up participatory planning from grass root levels in the extension system Table 2.1 - Allocated central budget for national-level extension programs Year Agro-forestry Allocation extension Agricultural Forestry budget extension budget extension budget (in billion dong) (in billion dong) (in billion dong) 1993 3.7 3.5 0.2 1994 14.3 13.3 1.0 1995 17.0 15 2.0 1996 23.5 21 2.5 1997 28.5 25 3.5 1998 26.6 23.5 3.1 1999 26.7 23.7 3.0 2000 35 32 3.0 Source: Agriculture and Forestry Extension Agency, MARD In addition to the allocated central budget, the provinces also allocate their own budgets to agro-forestry extension activities (mainly for recurrent costs plus some provincial extension projects) The locally allocated budgets vary among the provinces, from several hundred million dong to around billion dong per year The provincial extension centers also receive some small extension budget from annual HEPR program (with some overlap with provincial budget), and from other agricultural programs and projects that may have a component on extension Figure 2.2 – Examples of budget sources for provincial extension centers (Tra Vinh, Lao Cai) from HEPR program 10% from Central budget 30% from Provincial budget 60% Source: OGB (2002) The planning and use of state budget in extension largely depend on the fixed 'cost norms' as regulated by various regulations of the MOFi and MARD4 For example, a district extension worker traveling more than 15 days a month can only receive a lumpsum subsistence & travel costs of no more than 100,000 dong per month (equals to 6$ per month), without any consideration of how far he/she has to travel 'within' the district (i.e go to the mountainous communes and villages for planning and M&E, then come back in the same day) The rigidity of cost norms in many cases may prevent the extension workers from going far to the remote commune and villages or using a participatory approach in extension activities In addition, Decree CP 13 stipulates that extension services at different levels are allowed to utilize other funding strategies outside state financing (i.e grants from donors/NGOs/companies) or sourcing the contribution from local people For example, Circular 2698 dated 1994 of MOFI on expenditures for extension activities; Circular 93/1998/TT-BTC dated 30 June 1998 of MOFI on cost norms for workshops; Circular 94/1998/TT-BTC dated 30 June 1998 of MOFI on cost norms for domestic travels; Decision 62/1999-QDD-BNN-KNKL dated April 1999 of MARD on temporary cost norms for technical materials in extension programs of cattle 2.1.3 Current Extension Approaches a Technology promotion This form of agricultural extension aims to promote the advanced techniques for nationwide farmers, often through the national agricultural extension programs (alternatively called oriented agricultural extension approach) The NAEC under MARD supervises the implementation of these programs through construction of demonstration models on a large scale, with little room for flexibility on implementation or budgeting The approach is designed for rapid introduction of new varieties on large homogeneous land areas and not for scattered mountainous cultivation areas Provinces maintain their own agricultural extension programs which are very similar to the national agricultural extension programs in terms of methods and recommendations Farmer’s acceptance of recommendations is considered one of criterion for program success evaluation Crop productivity index is also another criterion for program monitoring b Socio-Economic development This form implies that a technique is only one of influencing factors on agriculture and farmers' livelihoods Therefore introduction of techniques is frequently attached with support in terms of material supply, loan arrangement or infrastructure Government programs on promoting agriculture and poverty reduction at provincial levels normally employ this form of agricultural extension Examples are HEPR program, Program 135, Program 661 and Decree 20 Operation of such programs was organized in projects run by provincial People's Committee under the management of various concerned department of MARD However the financing rules of these programmes are made within the set guidelines of using state budget, and leave little room for flexibility c Risk mitigation Risk mitigation in agriculture covers management of harmful insects and diseases to livestock (stipulated in the Law for Protection of Vegetation and Veterinary Services) This function is often fulfilled by the Plant Protection and Veterinary Service systems Typical activities are training on IPM models and providing communal and village veterinary services However the concern of how to mitigate risks for the poor farmers is still hardly addressed by the government's extension system d Commercial services promotion Commercial services promotion for production materials has been done partly by the MARD and partly by corporations This form of agricultural extension claims that higher consumption of input materials leads to improved productivity and greater development of agriculture Farmers are seen as customers, who are provided with recommendations on such materials as new seeds, fertilizers as well as other kinds of materials However, farmers should pay for the materials at agreed prices The Government agricultural extension mechanism acts as a link in the promotion process and hardly acts as material distributor However in many cases there is bias among extension workers in recommending the farmers which products should be used, especially when they act as agents for the commercial companies e Agriculture commodity promotion This is a 'contract farming' promotion in which the farmers commit to sell agricultural products to the companies and in turn the farmers can receive a number of supports in terms of training, materials or credit This form of promotion is popular in areas that produce raw materials subject to processing for exports (e.g tea, coffee, fruits or high quality rice) Agriculture commodity contracts are to be concluded between the commercial companies and farmers Those companies typically have their own mechanism to provide agricultural extension services (Government’s agricultural extension normally just support but does not directly carry out this promotion) The Government is providing some preferential treatments for the commercial companies to strongly expand this contract farming in coming years (Decision 80/2002/QD-TTg dated 24 June 2002 on promoting the contract farming in agriculture) • Self-help operations of farmers' organizations at village level, for input-output services (market access); especially the groups and clubs already transformed into new kind of cooperatives Also the empowerment of farmers' groups in voicing, demanding for extension services that are suitable for them Box 4.1 A Provisional 'Wish List' for the Government's Pro-poor Extension Services Processes to adjust external relations • communications and wide/open consultation with extension constituency: farmers, (including national, provincial & district funders and donors) and the general public • national agriculture extension, forestry extension and other extension issues of ongoing government project/programs should be integrated • outreach to relevant policymakers at various levels • relationships with the private business sector to develop unbiased market relations: traders, agro-processing industries, supply agencies • increase and diversification of financial support for pro-poor extension activities: from regular national funds, HEPR program, but also from 135, drinking water program and other bilateral and multilateral funding • agriculture extension services and state management on agriculture should be separated Financial resource management processes • flexible financial and budgeting procedures and practices to maintain an appropriate balance between expenses and benefits for target-groups (anticipate on the question: "What is the benefit for the poor?") • effective participatory planning and budgeting procedures, as a component of accuracy and utility of financial reports and transparent procurement practices that support managerial propoor decision-making Human resource management process • commune-village level extension, including farmers' organizations, is formalized in the extension network (with adequate resource allocation to grass root levels) • regular staff development actions to learnt from pro-poor extension lessons • adequate staff deployment in terms of numbers and skills to plan implement pro-poor programs (i.e participatory/community development/organization development skills) • adequate reward system (salary and benefits) • human resource practices that significantly contribute to staff retention, accomplishment and morale: personnel assessment, opportunities for professional advancement, grievance and conflict resolution, supervisory practices Organizational learning processes • a culture that successfully promotes the identification of lessons learned to improve organizational performance in favor of pro-poor actions • internally generated information accessible to those who need it that is timely, useful and accurate to highly effective deployment of teams to resolve organizational issues related to propoor extension through highly participatory management practices and highly productive staff meetings Service delivery processes • high levels of involvement and participation by stakeholders, including those traditionally underrepresented in development decision-making within extension agency (poor farmers, women, commune & village representatives, farmers' groups) in "pro-poor" extension design, implementation and assessment to assure service quality • strong participatory monitoring and evaluation systems, to generate "lessons learnt" from propoor actions • high quality technical and indigenous knowledge & skills support for extension field operations for the poor Strategic management processes • a clear pro-poor mandate and vision • an extension management system that contributes significantly to the accomplishment of the "pro-poor" component of the extension organizational mission • a pattern of managerial decision-making that is highly consistent with mission, goals and philosophy • a well developed network of deliberate and strategic partnerships with other organizations: (small-scale) businesses, NGOs 34 4.2 Relevant strategies and opportunities for policy dialogues on propoor extension 4.2.1 Working at provincial level - piloting the CPRGS 'roll-out' The CPRSG is considered as a blue-print of the Government on continued pro-poor growth However, it is often argued that the real value of CPRGS relies on its core principles, i.e the 'evidence-based' and 'participatory' planning process The recent movement of decentralization in Vietnam further puts emphasis on the autonomy of provincial level in planning and budgeting for extension services, among others The experiences of NGOs and externally supported projects also show that a comprehensive, integrated approach is needed in dealing with pro-poor extension Box 4.2 The CPRGS at Provincial Levels ‘Rolling-out’ the CPRGS at provincial level presents important opportunities to bring together different strands of policy reform and planning at this level (CPRGS principles, the year SEDPs, aspects of PAR, linked to making poverty monitoring and analysis more available at this level etc.), and also this links to the design, content and implementation of operational target programs and large-scale donor financed poverty reduction and sector projects The main planning and budgeting instrument at provincial level is the 5-year and annual socioeconomic development plan There may be a limit to what can be achieved in terms of injecting a CPRGS’s evidence-based or pro-poor approach into the immediate annual planning round However, there is scope for reviewing and revising the medium-term planning up to 2005, and for the longer-term planning for the second 5-year plan (2006-2010) It will be important to link lessons from the pilot province works to wider national policy debates Opportunities for working with provincial authorities on CPRGS-based pro-poor planning may arise in the coming months in some provinces where some donors are active for CPRGS roll-out, e.g DFID in Lao Cai, LMDG in Cao Bang, UNDP in Tra Vinh, ADB in central region provinces, WB in some provinces (to be identified), also Oxfam GB partly in Lao Cai and Tra Vinh The NGOs should actively discuss/collaborate with the relevant donors and provincial authorities (DPI, DOF, DARD, DOLISA…) to incorporate the propoor extension experiences into the pilot rolling-out process Apart from (but in line with) the support of the donors on the overall strategic planning process of the province , the NGOs may choose to work with its provincial counterparts to focus in just one sector (e.g extension) or even just one policy issue within the sector (e.g extension budgeting at district level) to make it more "evidence-based" and "participatory" In fact, before any national extension policy is issued, it is usually reviewed carefully by policy makers to see whether it works well at provincial level For policy advocacy at provincial level, the following steps should be made: • Piloting the methodology in close cooperation with the district (and then provincial) extension authorities • Reviewing the methodology • Organizing province-wide workshop to make recommendations on the extension policies and methodology • Documenting the workshop report and submitting it to the provincial people’s committee for consideration and approval In addition, the ADB in their ASDP's agreements with MARD has forced strong commitments of the government in terms of budget increases for extension but more importantly about the establishment of extension platforms ("advisory councils") at 35 provincial level In the future, working closely with these extension platforms may be a key channel for policy advocacy at provincial levels 4.2.2 Establishing thematic ad-hoc group on pro-poor extension (TAGE) under/next to International Support Group (ISG), MARD The provincial experiences should be brought up to national level for Government's propoor extension policies One key channel would be a "thematic ad-hoc group on pro-poor extension –TAGE" under (or next to) ISG framework13 Our discussion with ISG management indicates that this "TAGE" is missing in the current ISG's TAGs, and it is worth to elaborate further for serious consideration of relevant partners Objectives • • • • To create an environment for extension policy makers, donors and NGOs to share experiences of extension activities, especially extension policies To serve as the coordinating unit of extension researches, of which, the results will be used as a basis to develop extension policies To provide links among international project donors and NGOs and the extension mechanism in organizing and implementing local extension projects Assist MARD in coordination of information, policies and strategy within MARD and between MARD and other NGOs Coordination • • The group has a key role to play in coordinating cooperation between MARD and NGOs and provinces The effort should include policy dialogue, capacity building, institution building related to strength pro-poor agriculture extension The group will furthermore extend coordination to provinces were NGOs have been operating pro-poor extension effectively Dialogue • • • The group will act as a platform to assist MARD, National Extension Center via ISG in strengthening the dialogue with other donors and partners and provinces The platform will exchange information, lessons learned and other relevant matters as well as provide update on on-going projects related to extension The group will moreover act as a forum for policy dialogue between ISG, partners, Extension Centers and will review and discuss present and upcoming plan, priorities and strategies Dialogues, close cooperation with ADB agriculture sector development program's PMU Possible Participants The country agriculture extension TAGE taskforce is a voluntary and informal network, which should consists of the following members: • From the Ministry for Agriculture and Rural Development: around 10 members representing the following departments 13 There are now three thematic ad-hoc groups (TAGs) under ISG framework • TAG 1: International Agro-economic Integration and Policy; • TAG 2: Support to Hydraulic Works Development, Disaster Control, and Rural Water Supply; and • TAG 3: Support the Implementation of the Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS) in Agriculture and Rural Areas; 36 • • o National Center for Agriculture Extension o Department for Agriculture o Department for Planning o Department for Accounting and Financial Management o Some other members (e.g department of legislation, PPD) From other relevant ministries: around 4-5 members coming from MPI, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Fishery, MOLISA From the international donors and NGOs: 15-20 members representing international donors of extension projects and interested international and local NGOs (1-2 representatives per each organization) Meetings • Regular meeting should be held on a quarterly basis Ad hoc and additional meetings may be called for, if deemed necessary Finance • Event-based budgets (for meetings, information dissemination…) should be contributed by NGOs, other donors, may be partly contributed by ISG budget (and some 'in-kind' counterpart contribution from MARD) Focus Some following focused activities can be coordinated by TAGE under ISG, or sometimes can be done separately (with NAEC): • Workshops and policy consultation dialogues NGOs can cooperate with NAEC to organize dialogues with policy makers, to share experiences on agriculture extension through national/regional level meetings and workshops14 o NGOs should cooperate with NAEC to prepare the workshop contents and methodology o Participants should be invited by NAEC which represents the state administering agents with regard to agriculture extension o NAEC should submit a workshop request to MARD for approval (in case of large country-level workshop) o NAEC should document the summary report of the workshops and meetings so that the documents can be used to revise the policies properly in case the workshop recommendations will actually be beneficial to the poor and be affordable to the Government Particularly, the NAEC is preparing the very last versions of the new Decree 13 on extension for submission to MARD and the government This is an important opportunity in the immediate future (end 2003, early 2004) for the interested NGOs within SANRM working group to open dialogues with NAEC to introduce the core messages and best practices on pro-poor extension in Vietnam 14 In the past, there have been country –level extension workshops organized in collaboration with international donors and NGOs The first workshop was organized in 1996 and the second one in 2002 The summary reports of the two workshops were published and disseminated throughout the country They also serve as the basis for policy makers to work on extension researches for submission to the Government 37 • Documentation, information and publication In fact, NGOs as well as some other projects have successfully piloted several agriculture extension models The models should be documented into guide books for easier replication within the extension system The documentation should be conducted in cooperation with NAEC so that the documented models and experiences can be widely disseminated in the system Then, non-project provinces can learn from and share experiences with the project provinces o Internet: websites, cooperation with the newly launched MARD's extension website (www.khuyennong.gov.vn) o Incorporate the approach into relevant educational institutions to reduce the need for on the job capacity building and train agricultural staff that fits better into the demands of the institutions • Collaboration on agriculture extension policy research Every year, MARD usually organizes a fact survey so as to modify the extension policy This is a good opportunity to cooperate with the NGOs to conduct the survey in the local areas where the pro-poor extension methodology has been applied successfully As recommended earlier, role of TAGE is important to link NGO participation into these surveys Thus, its meetings will serve as the right forums for policy makers and NGOs to discuss and work out appropriate research topics as well as discuss joint researches on extension policies 38 Key References ADB 2002 “Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on Proposed Loans to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for the Agriculture Sector Development Program”, RRP:VIE 32285, Manila Beckman.M 2001 "Extension, Poverty and Vulnerability in Vietnam", Country Study for the Neuchâtel Initiative DAFE.1993 " Extension Services: National Extension Programs" DAFE.1996 "Proceeding of National Workshop on Agriculture and Forestry Extension" DAFE.2002 "Proceeding of Participatory Agriculture Extension Methodology" DAFE 2003 "Evaluation Report on 10 years implementation of extension activities and strategies for next 10 years" Farrington J., Christoplos I et al 2002b “Can Extension Contribute to Rural Poverty Reductions“ Synthesis of a Six-Country Study”, AgRent network, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), Available at www.odi.org,uk/nrp/ Farrington, J Christoplos I et al 2002a “Creating a Policy Environment for Pro-Poor Agricultural Extension: The Who? What? and How?”, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Available at www.odi.org,uk/nrp/ Guidelines on PRA, VDP, PAEM introduced by SFDP, SNV Son La, Lai Chau.2002 Karin, Nguyen Viet Khoa.2001 "Evaluation Report on Extension Activities", SNV Oxfam GB 2002 “Report : Mid-term Rapid Review on Oxfam GB’s Agricultural Extension Program in Vietnam”, written by Thanh HX and Tuan LQ Participatory Poverty Assessment (PPA) in Lao Cai 2003, undertaken by DFID in collaboration with Lao Cai People's Committee, compiled by Thanh HX Proceeding of Workshop on Participatory Agriculture Extension Methodology (PAEM) conducted in Lai Chau by Provincial People's Committee, 2003 Shanks E., 2002 “Vietnam: Agriculture and Forestry Extension and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Uplands”, Issues paper prepared for the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Siep Littoory, Nguyen Viet Khoa, Nguyen Huu Hong.1996 " Extension and Communication in ( northern) Vietnam " Social Forestry Support Program.2002 " A case study on current status of Agriculture and Forestry Extension and expected progress" Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV) 2002 "Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy" Various Government's legal writings on extension and poverty reduction Various NGO's summary papers on practices and lessons learnt about pro-poor extension 39 Annex Terms of reference of the AE sub-group ToR and action plan of the SANRM working group sub-group on AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICES FOR THE POOR MANDATE The SANRM working group (WG) wants to contribute to improvement of farmers’ livelihood One of its tasks is to respond to the government’s Poverty Task Force's (PTF) call upon external partners, explicitly including VNGO’s and INGOs, to structure themselves and respond constructively to the Government’s vision expressed in the Comprehensive Poverty Reduction & Growth Strategy (CPRGS), and to respond to MARD’s International Support Group's intention to share information a.o with INGO’s on agricultural extension, participatory group-based approaches (see more information on this in the Annex) The mandate of this sub-group is to support these poverty reduction efforts of the Vietnamese government by focusing on feed back from field experience in agricultural extension, related to the actual policy context in Vietnam The added value of the SANRM WG's contribution is the possibility to use NGO experience in agricultural extension services The relationship between farmers and NGO’s actively involved in extension service is generally understood to be of a different nature than that between farmers and government extension services With the contribution of this WG, we can look at agricultural extension services from a different perspective and to bring this perspective into a debate on policies as well as implementation practices for more pro-poor agricultural extension MAIN AIM Based on a given theoretical framework, feed back from WG participants (both VNGO’s and INGOs) field experience can be used and shared with DARD, MARD, and DAFE in order for WG to contribute to a dialogue on how to further improve agricultural extension policies and implementation practices to be more pro-poor With poor we mean the more vulnerable rural people who depend on natural resources We pay particular attention to women, ethnic minorities, landless, people living in remote places or in places vulnerable to natural disasters, or small-holders who largely depend on (falling) export crop prices STRATEGY - - - - Dialogue is to be based on concrete examples and lessons learned from the field, which suggest realistic and feasible solutions for the improvement of extension services provided by different actors Aim to involve relevant authorities into this dialogue (evt opportunities for this, to establish working relations in early stages, can be created by ASDP/ADB, ASSP/DANIDA, ISG, Poverty Task Force, WB, GAP/ , Gender group/ADB, UNDP, FINNIDA, AusAid, or others) Feed back, dialogue, and give practical recommendations for both provincial (DARD) and national level (MARD, DAFE) actors and other relevant authorities At provincial level, opportunities for feed back and dialogue can be created by the contributing WG participants Note that use can be made of MARD’s plan to install provincial advisory councils for agricultural development (in at least 20 provinces) in which NGO’s also participate At national level, opportunities should be sought, e.g organising special meetings by or with the PTF 40 - Regional bias should be avoided as it is acknowledged that there are regional differences as to the needs for different kinds of extension services as well as different kinds of service providers TASKS Review current documented developments : a ‘Best practices’ and theoretical developments in ‘pro-poor extension’, e.g based on Neuchatel or OXFAM-UK review, and other documentation, including examination of ideas that might be of real interest in the Vietnamese context b Relevant policy agendas for agricultural extension related to poverty reduction (see a.o a summary in the Annex) Other policy documents, e.g the Hunger Eradication Poverty Reduction program, (HEPR) should also be consulted to ensure clarity about the current policy arena, including the CPRGS and decentralisation of agricultural extension service, decision 17 It is suggested that a bibliography will be created that summarises, for each document in short, relevant issues, such as details of activities, processes into which SANRM WG can feed to ensure that the topic is kept or put high on the agenda c List all the actors involved in agriculture extension activities (outside the government itself), (I/V)NGOs, private sector, farmers organisations, mass organisations, etc as well as their mandate, main interests and activities (maybe already done? e.g by ADB project?) Call SANRM WG participants to contribute their experiences on one or more focal issues (see the next page providing the theoretical framework), coordinate each participants specific contribution, and choose coordinators for each issue When possible, establish working relations with relevant authorities on specific issues to ensure their support Ensure that documentation is done in an accessible manner Dissemination of the contributions for dialogue: networking based on opportunities (relevant seminars, e.g the agenda of the PTF or other important and relevant WGs) at national and provincial levels Coordination, including financial matters (preparation of a budget, sourcing for funding) Task Review Collection of contributions Dissemination Responsible D.Q Anh (Eco-Eco) Assisted by: L.Q.Binh (Ox.-UK) Riikka Rajalahti (CRS) ADB docs Elise Pinners (VECO) GRET Riikka Rajalahti (CRS) Assisted by: D.Q Anh (Eco-Eco) SANRM participants, based on the opportunities Timing First quarter 2003 Starting soon after SANRM WG meeting on the 9th Jan (permanently) on-going, based on the opportunities Budget ready before 9th L.Q Binh (Oxfam-UK) Assisted by: Elise Pinners (VECO) for Jan budget SANRM secretary (finance) Tasks will be carried out more or less at the same time, adjusting on the way Coordination finance FOCAL ISSUES, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK SANRM WG participants are called to contribute by providing concrete examples, best practices, problems, and lessons learned from the field, which suggest realistic and 41 feasible solutions, related to the central question: (How) can agricultural extension services be pro-poor? Focal issues, that can provide a framework for contributions, can be: The governments’ commitment to reduce poverty: What is the role of extension service in poverty reduction? De-centralisation of extension: Organisational and structural issues on how decentralization affects equality - De-centralised budgeting: how much budget is available at provincial, district, and commune levels; available budget for poor communes; available budget to support and contract out more informal (non-governmental) service providers? How are budgets managed? What are the budget sources? How is money allocated for pro-poor activities? How does the local policy environment stimulate the development of de-centralised extension service providers? Possibility for farmers to choose the kind of services they need or inputs that they prefer: Taking into account poor farmers’ strategy to reduce risk, make use of local resources, and to increase control over inputs, these services meet farmers’ (strategic) needs? How have different groups of poor, such as women, minorities, landless, able to choose the kind of services they need? How they control the services provided (accountability of state services, funding arrangements, quality control of seed inputs, market forces etc.)? Different kinds of services to choose from could be classified as follows: a) Technical training: opportunities to share information and experience on farming methods b) Input supply ,and product information/promotion (different from what is mentioned under 1!) c) Support to savings and credit systems d) Support to marketing information systems, or other business related information systems (on credit possibilities, government policies) e) Organised marketing (with cooperatives, marketing associations, etc.) f) Land and water management Capacity building for farmer organisations or other agricultural extension service providers: What capacity building is provided for farmer organisations to improve their participation in local development planning (related to agricultural extension, management of land and water sources)? How can other service providers be supported to make use of their (local) human resources? What capacity building on organisational development exists for these providers to improve the services they provide? Service providers can be: a) Farmer organisations (both informal and formal ones, e.g self-help or farmer cooperative groups, clubs, associations, networks, cooperatives, etc.) b) NGO’s c) Private companies (or individuals) and SOE’s BUDGET This budget is prepared on the ideas that: Task 1, review of documents means spending some concentrated time on collection and summarising data, for this a person could be hired Task 2, the contributions from different NGO’s (task 2) can be done as part of their normal work, therefore only little budget is reserved for that 42 Task 3, dissemination, on national level it will largely depend on opportunities, and preferably making use of existing platforms for discussion (seminars organised by PWG, ICG, etc.), on provincial level it may be done, again, as part of the contributing NGO’s normal work Task 4, coordination, will require some additional funding for editing, and printing, publication BUDGET Task Budget item Review current documented developments a best practices, theoretical developments: bibliography/ summary b policy agendas: bibliography/ summary c actors in agr extension Call SANRM WG participants to contribute Dissemination Coordination Stationary, materials, documents Allowances Amount (USD) 100 1000 Stationary, materials, 300 documents Seminar 1000 600 Stationary, materials, documents Oxfam-UK and SNV representatives have indicated they will jointly take care of funding this, but other organisations are also very welcome to add their funds, for a broader base of this initiative LIST OF INTERESTED PEOPLE Thanks in advance - OXFAM-UK, L.Q Binh, lqbinh@oxfam.org.uk - VECO, Elise Pinners, fadofos-organisation@hn.vnn.vn - Eco-Eco, Dau Quoc Anh, dauquocanh@hn.vnn.vn - CRS, Riikka Rajalahti, riikka@crs.org.vn - PED/VUSTA, Vu Thi Hien, ped@hn.vnn.vn - SNV, Cor – Lai Chau seneca@hn.vnn.vn and Nico Janssen Nico_Janssen@hn.vnn.vn and Vien Vien@snv.org.vn - Joep Slaats, slaats.boeni@hn.vnn.vn - CARE, Jens Rydder, jrydder@care.org.vn and T T Duong ttduong@care.org.vn - CSDS, Van Duong, email????? - CIDSE, Mr Phuc or Mss Hoa, phuc@cidse.org.vn or hoa@cidse.org.vn - IPN farmer project, Ole Hendriksen, olehen@hn.vnn.vn - DFID, Ms Sheelagh O'Reilly, sheelagh@fpt.vn - CORD, Mr Anh, chrout@netnam.org.vn - GTZ/SFDP, Elke Forster, gtzsfdp@netnam.org.vn - Helvetas, P.Y Suter, sfsp_pys@hn.vnn.vn and helvetas@helvetas.org.vn - Josephine Moloney, surfajo2001@yahoo.com 43 Vietnam’s poverty reduction strategies v.à.v agricultural extention (summary, BY ELISE PINNERS, VECO) THE GOVERNMENTS’ COMMITMENT TO REDUCE POVERTY The government gives three broad imperatives in the fight against poverty: a poor growing out of poverty through income rise, resulting of employment and productivity growth b measures to ensure fair growth and access to services (for all) c reduce vulnerability of the poor (e.g poor harvests) The PTF paper “Eradicating Poverty and Hunger” gives further details, poverty reduction being about sustained income increase, economic growth (to be higher in poorer areas), by: - private sector development - trade reform - SOE reform - banking reform - improved public expenditure management Growth in rural areas is to by pursued by improving productivity and diversification; growth with more capital and better technology, and diversification supported by extension services For those who benefit less from growth, credit and all kinds of more or less social assistance is provided Poverty is defined and measured in terms of income and expenditure on food15 Poor are characterised, a.o., as farmers with limited education, living in rural, isolated or disaster prone areas, having small farms or no land, and limited access to credit, or labour As land remains limited, productivity is to rise by use of more capital and technology (HYV, farming methods, post-harvest technology) Extension is to get new technology to farmers (to capitalise on research results) Spending on agricultural research and extension is to rise, subsidies to SOE are to be reduced, phased out Subsidy on hybrid seed (part of DAFE, provincial & district extension service) is to terminate immediately.16 The PWG will advocate for assessment of needs and opportunities at the grassroots level.2 In 2003 MARD intends to review/evaluate its extension activities, focussing on efficiency and impact on the poor DECENTRALISATION OF EXTENSION There will be an increase of funds to train extension staff on participatory methods Local administrative reform is to make extension services more transparent, accountable to farmers On province level (starting in 20 provinces) there will be advisory councils including also NGO’s MARD will increase gender awareness, and the number of female extension staff on commune level, and develop standards for performance-based staff evaluation At all levels, sectors, women’s participation is to increase 3-5%, special attention for extension services to women, ethnic minorities Min 10% increase in no of female, ethnic minority staff, all categories in years 15 In contrast to the terms used by UNDP reports, where poverty is also defined in terms of access to resources, sustainability of livelyhoods, and being included, participating in decision making, gender equality, empowerment, etc 16 : “ASDP: Agriculture Sector Development Program”, MoU signed on July ’02 by R.Z Renfro - ADB, and Dao Trong Tu MARD 44 POSSIBILITY FOR FARMERS TO CHOOSE THE KIND OF SERVICES THEY NEED, OR INPUTS THAT THEY PREFER Farmers’ freedom to choose the crop they like is not to be restricted by local officials, so: removal of pressure on farmers to produce rice Quality of extension services is to be measured a.o by increased accessibility of these services, directed towards, adapted to local opportunites, requirements, production methods ; research is to develop low-cost technologies, also using farmers’ experience4 The Vietnamese Poverty Strategy proposes to deal with poverty also by involving the civil society, a.o through: participatory planning processes, increasing the poor’s participation in decision making and evaluation, to make public policies pro-poor, allowing poor people to help themselves out of the poverty trap, promoting the role of mass organizations and community based groups; broaden training from technical to business, management issues Farmers’ participation in planning, implementation, M&E of extension activities (a.o through advisory councils in which farmer organisations, NGOs, private sector are represented) is to be instutionalised, with a focus on group-based extension activities, and cooperatives in which farmer members are empowered CAPACITY BUILDING FOR FARMER EXTENSION SERVICE PROVIDERS ORGANISATIONS, OR OTHER AGRICULTURAL Quality of extension service is measured a.o by it’s support for private sector development, SME’s, creating a level playing field for all enterprise (private and SOE)17, to reduce monopoly of some SOEs.18 As for other services, the ASDP report19 finds that capacity and skills for agricultural extention staff at all levels (including the informal agricultural extention network at commune and village levels) is to be approved, to get the appropriate approach and methodology to work with poor and ethnic minority people 17 : “Vietnam Attacking Poverty”, VN Development Report 2000, joint report of VN Govt.-Donor-NGO Poverty W.G, December 1999 18 “The comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategy (CPRGS)”, Nr 2685/VPCP-QHQT, approved by PM in May ’02 19 “Vietnam Agricultural Sector Program (ADB TA No 3223-VIE)”, final report, ANZDEC Ltd., N.Zealand, with IFPRI and Lincoln Int 45 Annex Terms of Reference for Documentation Review Agriculture Extension for the poor, women and ethnic people Documentation review BACKGROUND Although Vietnam has achieved significant economic development since doi moi poor households in Vietnam remains extremely high: 37 per cent in 1998 and about 32 per cent in 2000 Poverty is concentrated in areas that have very poor natural resources and harsh natural conditions such as mountainous, remote and isolated areas or in the Mekong River Delta region and the Central Highland region The poverty rate is also extremely high among ethnic minority groups While accounting for 14 per cent of the total national population, the representation of ethnic minority groups among the poor is at 29 per cent Viet Nam has a big proportion of rural population (about 78%) The growth of the rural sector is one of the key factors for the growth of the country However, the development of Vietnam in general and rural areas in particular is facing a new challenge This challenge has been brought about mainly from the integration of the country economy into the regional and global markets Trade and market play a very important role in deciding what the country should invest in and what farmers should produce In order to catch up with the development of the global market, Vietnam is moving from a "food security oriented agriculture" to an "export oriented agriculture" Before, farmers were encouraged to produce rice and other food crops for national food security Now, the government is encouraging farmers to produce what market is demanding and what brings a higher returns The government's policy is to promote the "efficiency" that leads to accumulation of land, capital and resources The small farmers, who are normally poor and living in remote and mountainous areas, are being pushed out of the market and many of them have been forced into vicious poverty cycle The extension system has been set up since 1993 in all provinces with the structure down to district level, in some provinces even to communal level The functions of the agriculture extension system are defined as (i) disseminating advanced technologies, and experiences of demonstrated practices; (ii) improving and developing the production management knowledge and skills for farmers; and (iii) providing market information for farmers (Decree No13/CP dated March 2, 1993) However, due to limited resources (average number of staff/district is about 5-7 staff and 12 million VND for all related cost) the system can not meet the needs of farmers, especially the poor, women and ethnic farmers The extension staff's main job is to set up demonstrations and deliver technical training which only can cover about 10% of needs with very poor quality In order to help to address this problem, MARD has reviewed the agriculture extension system to make it more efficient Some donors, such as ADB, also have fund to restructure the system In order to support the government and MARD to produce a more pro-poor policy for the development of agriculture extension system, SANRM forum decided to formulate a sub-group to work on agriculture extension which aims to bring good field experiences and practices to policy dialogue (for details, please see the TOR of the sub-group) In order to fulfil this objective, the sub-group would want to call VNGOs and INGOs to contribute their good experiences and practices which can effectively dialogues at policy level for a more pro-poor agriculture extension policy To guide this process, a review of current polices, programmes and practices is necessary 46 CONSULTANCY OBJECTIVE The SANRM Task Force on Extension & Poverty Alleviation has a clear idea on the gaps in the current policy and field practices regarding the issues of agriculture extension for the poor, women and ethnic people with special focus on poverty reduction purposes, as well as the actors to work with, in order to select a suitable set of issues to advocate against and/or for EXPECTED RESULTS - a summary of findings after the review of documentation and stakeholder meeting a set of recommendations concerning: a) key issues for which NGO field experiences should be collected and documented b) main key players to work with for policy dialogues c) relevant strategies for policy dialogues d) main opportunities and occasions where this contribution to policy dialogue can be made METHODOLOGY - - - - - Review key documents related to agriculture extension policies at national and provincial levels This review includes the analysis of the policies (gaps) in relation with poverty reduction purposes and gender equality strategy Review key project documents (funded by the government, donors and NGOs) in relation with agriculture extension This review also analyzes the gap in terms of poverty reduction and gender equality Review available good experiences and practices from VNGOs and INGOs regarding agriculture extension for the poor, women and ethnic people which can be further documented and communicated with policy makers, donors, and poverty task forces in order to push for a more pro-poor and gender sensitive agriculture extension policies Meet with key players in the field of agriculture extension (MARD, ADB, LNGOs, INGOs) to discuss about their vision and programs Summarize the key points/analysis and gaps regarding the issues of agriculture extension for the poor, women and ethnic people with special focus on poverty reduction purposes Recommend sub-group key issues to work on, allies to work with and opportunities and occasions to exploit in order to advocate for a more propoor agriculture extension policies and practices REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSULTANT: • • • • Knowledge of extension structure and methodologies in Vietnam Knowledge on issues related to poverty alleviation and gender equality Practical experience in field level extension Analytical skills to assess the policies and other documents and come up with recommendations as requested 47 GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT • • The consultant writes a comprehensive report on the issues identified in the Methodology section The consultant is willing to discuss the progress and the draft report with the Task Force members, as well as is prepared to include changes into the report as necessary TIMEFRAME The consultancy should last for 20 days in Hanoi The report should be due at sub-group by 14 April 2003 OTHERS Sub-group will facilitate the consultancy, especially in getting in touch with other players (letters) if needed 48 ... this study can be found in annexes and This documentation review is written by Mr Hoang Xuan Thanh from Ageless Consultants, and Mr Nguyen Viet Khoa from National Agriculture Extension Center