 |
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation |
Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation
|| Home || Search || Contact || Publications Eshop || Privacy Statement ||
by Sally P Marsh & David J Pannell
November 2000
RIRDC Publication No 00/149
RIRDC Project No UWA-32A
Executive Summary
Australia has an excellent record in the efficient and effective provision of agricultural information to farmers, particularly technical, production-related information. A uniquely Australian situation exists in the Research and Development Corporations (RDCs), whereby Australian farmers contribute through industry-levied funding to agricultural research, development and extension and so have expectations of a degree of control.
Australia has also achieved a unique and enviable involvement of farmers in the development and implementation of sustainable farming practices through specific programs like the National Landcare Program.
The challenge now is to understand the consequences of policy change and elicit appropriate responses from all sectors of agriculture.
The conclusions of this report are that as long as key problems are addressed, the changes will lead to a system which serves Australia well, although success would require care, knowledge of potential problems, and probably a lengthy and somewhat difficult period of adjustment.
To complete the research, this report has drawn on international and Australian literature, extensive consultation with public and private sector personnel, outcomes of a key workshop held in September 1997, and personal experience.
Background
Gradual policy change in
the 1990’s has seen State departments of agriculture and primary industries
subject to a process of review and re-structuring that has affected the
nature of the services they are prepared to provide and the ways that those
services are provided.
Governments have defended
the need for change with calls for greater efficiency and effectiveness
of services provided by the public sector. However, the trend towards
privatisation also appears related to factors such as the declining relative
importance of agriculture in the economy and budget pressures on governments,
as well as the increasing influence of economists’ theories and prescriptions
within government.
Policies have included:
The result of these initiatives
has been increased private sector participation in the delivery of agricultural
extension services.
Despite the cutback in services provided by public agencies, they are all still providers of extension services, although the services provided have changed and in some cases they are moving rapidly towards becoming co-ordinators of extension service providers. Most state agencies are still generators of information through their research and have responsibilities for the dissemination of that information.
Conflicts now exist between the demands to “get information out” and to recover costs of information seen to have “private-good characteristics.”
Problems and Concerns
This report identifies a
number of concerns relating to the issues of where the public sector should
provide its services, and what initiatives are needed to achieve more efficient
and effective extension services. Central to this is the issue of
responsibility and competition between the private and public sectors.
1. Research capability and
information flows
Availability of information
is being restricted primarily by the push for intellectual property rights
and the increasingly competitive nature of research funding. Dissemination
of information is affected by the number of competing research and information
providers, which contributes to a perception of information overload among
clients.
For Research and Development Corporations and those state government agencies who see their role as information wholesalers, the amount of information which needs to be collated and efficiently delivered to a variety of extension providers presents a challenge, but one which they are currently actively addressing.
Information availability to private-sector information providers could become a problem as funds from taxpayers or farmer levies are increasingly used to resource private-sector researchers who are likely to be less willing to share the information.
There is also concern about the weakening of research/extension links. Loss of feedback from farmers to researchers could become a problem as state public-sector agencies cut back on production-oriented extension.
The problem is worsened by the lack of processes to obtain private-sector feedback to public-sector researchers. As the private sector takes more responsibility for production-oriented extension delivery, it will be more important to obtain their input into research priorities.
Barriers to obtaining this input, such as the costs to the private sector of engaging with the public sector, will need to be addressed. This is a vital issue, as even the best extension cannot compensate for irrelevant or ineffective research.
If agricultural extension
is to become dependent on commercial priorities then the directions pursued
may not be economically efficient from the point of view of society as
a whole, or may be contrary to other goals related to social welfare or
the environment.
Other concerns are that
extension may be biased towards individuals and industries better able
to pay, the corporatisation of Landcare, and industry-funded research products
being marketed by particular companies.
2. Sustainability and efficiency
of the new arrangements
It is apparent that there
has been a rapid escalation of transaction costs in the new institutional
arrangements. This is most obvious in the internal operation of Funder-Purchaser-Provider
systems, with substantially greater effort and energy needing to be devoted
to administrative tasks to keep the new system operative.
It also arises in the relationships between public and private sectors. If researchers are now more reliant on the private sector for practical feedback about their research, this clearly involves greater costs than were previously the case. Indeed the costs borne by the private sector in providing this feedback may mean that they are unwilling to do so without a clear perception that they (or at least their clients) will benefit.
Some of the increase in transaction costs is attributable to increased monitoring and evaluation to meet increased requirements for accountability. Some is due to the need for more complex systems of participation in order to achieve wide support from stakeholders. Some is due to administrative systems being poorly designed and/or implemented.
3. Market failure and the
public-good nature of agricultural information
The perception of agricultural
information as a public good, and subject to market failure, has provided
the prime argument in policy debates since the 1960s for the continued
provision of government extension services. The increasing industrialisation
of agriculture, with a consequent increased emphasis on the potential for
commercial provision of these services, has resulted in a questioning of
the public-good nature of much agricultural information.
The report argues that much agricultural information still has public good characteristics and that market failure can occur even with services clearly deemed to be private goods. This is supported by overseas experience, which indicates that areas of market failure are a reality as extension services are privatised. It raises the concern that some state governments may go too far down the road of privatisation of extension, neglecting important issues which would not be picked up by the private sector.
Government agencies are still very involved in extension, but the focus of their extension has changed. There has been a withdrawal from areas perceived to be adequately supplied, or having the potential to be adequately supplied by the private sector, partly because of funding restrictions but also because of policy directives to address areas of public rather than private good.
The growth of extension activities directed towards Landcare and human resource development reflects the amount of funding for these activities that has become available through the National Landcare Program, and also a change in philosophy about the types of public-sector extension services that should be provided to Australian farmers.
4. Extension methodology
and technology transfer
There has been a change
in extension ideology away from the “linear model” of technology transfer.
This has resulted in a move away from linear ‘top down’ approaches from scientists to farmers, towards extension methodologies that emphasise information flows, adult learning principles and participation by stakeholders.
Under the new paradigm, it is seen as appropriate that farmers should have more control over the information that they need or want and over the way it is delivered. It is held that extension should be “demand-pull” rather than “science-push”.
Increased use of farmer groups for agricultural extension has been one major change associated with this new paradigm. Extension officers now often act as facilitators rather than as experts in science or technology.
The number of groups that farmers can participate in is growing rapidly and are becoming the major vehicle used by Research and Development Corporations to disseminate the results of research that is being conducted with their funds. All state departments of agriculture now focus on farmer groups rather than one-to-one extension, and an increasing amount of publicly-funded extension is being undertaken in areas which emphasise the development of human resources.
Group-based extension done well appears to have many advantages because of its emphasis on adult learning principles and encouragement of producer “ownership” of both problems and solutions. It has also facilitated the entry of rural people other than producers into agricultural issues, particularly in the Landcare program. Concern was expressed that the current emphasis on groups may be excessive, resulting in problems relating to (a) its effectiveness in all situations, (b) its sustainability and (c) its ability to involve all who need to be involved.
Key Recommendations
Australian states
should develop a strategy to address key problems and challenges discussed
in this report, including:
 
|
