A  KEY CHALLENGE OF REFORMING NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SYSTEMS IN AFRICA THE CASE OF UGANDA’S EXTENSION REFORM PROC...
Paper Outline <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Problem statement </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Res...
Introduction <ul><li>One of the key challenges facing the agricultural sector in Uganda is the lack of an efficient farmer...
Problem Statement <ul><li>Studies conducted over NAADS implementation period showed mixed results regarding the performanc...
Problem Statement Cont.. <ul><li>However,  agricultural production statistics consistently showed a steady decline in real...
Methodology <ul><li>The study focused on the policy process involved in the planning and implementation of the agricultura...
Methodology Cont.. <ul><li>The study was qualitative and applied interpretive approach. </li></ul><ul><li>Four attributes ...
Results <ul><li>Two discourse coalitions, referred to as interest coalitions of policy actors, were distinguished with reg...
Results cont... Attribute Interest Coalition A Interest Coalition B Approach to Extension Reform Improving agricultural ex...
Results cont.. Attribute Interest Coalition A Interest Coalition B Farmer Empower-ment Believed that the farmer had not be...
Results cont.. Attribute Interest Coalition A Interest Coalition B Role of State and Private Sector The state should be li...
Results Cont.. Attribute Interest Coalition A Interest Coalition B Self Perception True reformers; defending farmers’ inte...
Coalition A dominates and is able to exclude Coalition B from the process of creating NAADS
Coalition B is able to increase its influence, but no consensus is achieved;  this situation facilitates increasing direct...
Discussion <ul><li>The established view for the failure of the agricultural extension reforms in Uganda, is that the NAADS...
Conclusion <ul><li>This study provides an insight into the reasons why a reform program that received worldwide attention ...
Acknowledgement <ul><li>The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries of the Republic of Uganda </li></ul><ul...
THANK YOU
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

The challenge of reforming national agricultural extension systems in Africa: the case of Uganda’s policy reform process 1996–2011.

1,664 views

Published on

Published in: News & Politics, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,664
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
65
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
32
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

The challenge of reforming national agricultural extension systems in Africa: the case of Uganda’s policy reform process 1996–2011.

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Paper Outline <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Problem statement </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Results </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions and Recommendations </li></ul>
  3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>One of the key challenges facing the agricultural sector in Uganda is the lack of an efficient farmer-extension-research-linkage </li></ul><ul><li>In response to this challenge, Uganda in 2001 adopted the most far reaching agricultural extension reform in Africa, spearheaded by NAADS program </li></ul><ul><li>The NAADS Program adopted a decentralized, farmer owned and private sector serviced contract extension system; a complete departure from the centralized public extension system </li></ul><ul><li>This reform model was in line with the neoliberal policies promoted by the World Bank </li></ul>
  4. 4. Problem Statement <ul><li>Studies conducted over NAADS implementation period showed mixed results regarding the performance of the program. </li></ul><ul><li>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 ) </li></ul><ul><li>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 ) </li></ul>
  5. 5. Problem Statement Cont.. <ul><li>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) </li></ul><ul><li>The national service delivery surveys conducted over the same period also revealed that only about 10% of the farmers received extension services </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>
  6. 6. Methodology <ul><li>The study focused on the policy process involved in the planning and implementation of the agricultural extension reform </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>
  7. 7. Methodology Cont.. <ul><li>The study was qualitative and applied interpretive approach. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>
  8. 8. Results <ul><li>Two discourse coalitions, referred to as interest coalitions of policy actors, were distinguished with regard to the extension policy reform process in Uganda </li></ul><ul><li>The two coalitions differed fundamentally in their policy beliefs about the way in which extension should be reformed. </li></ul><ul><li>For the purposes of this study, the first coalition was referred to as “Interest Coalition A” and the second “Interest Coalition B”. </li></ul>
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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.
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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 work Other Perception Defending vested interests of bureaucracy and politicians Captured by donor and their reform models; not open to locally adapted solutions Members Ministry of Finance, Donors led by World Bank, NAADS leadership Ministry of Agriculture, Local Governments, NARO, PMA, Academia
  13. 13. Coalition A dominates and is able to exclude Coalition B from the process of creating NAADS
  14. 14. Coalition B is able to increase its influence, but no consensus is achieved; this situation facilitates increasing direct political influence by the President
  15. 15. Discussion <ul><li>The established view for the failure of the agricultural extension reforms in Uganda, is that the NAADS program was politically captured. </li></ul><ul><li>This study shows that the extension reform process was shaped by the interaction of two advocacy coalitions with conflicting belief systems. </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Conclusion <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>This need to build consensus, ownership and legitimacy in the extension reform process, may be of relevance elsewhere in Africa </li></ul>
  17. 17. Acknowledgement <ul><li>The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries of the Republic of Uganda </li></ul><ul><li>The United States Agency for International Development </li></ul><ul><li>The International Food Policy Research Institute </li></ul><ul><li>Dr. Prossy Isubikalu </li></ul><ul><li>Professor Arseni Semana </li></ul><ul><li>Associate Professor Margaret N. Mangheni </li></ul>
  18. 18. THANK YOU

×