The below presentation "Voice and Choice for Rural Advisory Services in Kyrgyzstan" provides learning from 20 Years of (Swiss) Development Cooperation. It raises questions related to sustainability and ownership. The main question is: What do we need to do (better) to get financially and institutionally sustainable rural advisory services?
Read the summary of the "Question and Answer Session" held between 21 and 30 November 2012 to discuss the presentation and the questions it raises.
For more information download the full study:
Voice and Choice. Rural Advisory Services in Kyrgyzstan. Learning from 20 Years of Development Cooperation
SDC, HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, 2012
PDF, 528 KB
Summary of the Question and Answer Session on "Voice and Choice"
On the basis of the publication "Voice and Choice. Rural Advisory Services in Kyrgyzstan. Learning from 20 Years of Development Cooperation", which was summarised in the above 14 minutes video, a
Question and Answer Session with five participants and twelve rich contributions took place between 21 and 30 November 2012.
The discussion points included:
- Donor led interventions versus ownership by the government.
- Harmonization of donor approaches to avoid duplications versus the value of a diversity of approaches leading to pluralism in service provision.
- Involvement of local government authorities; their capacity in the past and today; their accountability to the citizens; their role in financing rural advisory services.
- The difficulty to promote pluralistic systems in a situation of an institutional vacuum (as it was the case in Kyrgyzstan after the collapse of the Soviet Union) and the importance of continuity and patience by donors in order to let pluralism grow.
- The importance of an overarching vision for agricultural development and a strategy for rural advisory services as precondition for the development of a rural advisory services system.
The recommendations as they were presented in the video (and posted again below) were not contested. They were rather enriched with aspects such as the importance of continuity of donor funding, the importance of a well anchored policy frame etc. Or with the words of one contributor:
"Should we identify key words that could be kept in mind as lessons: Governance, patience, diversity, balance... ".
Five recommendations for extension practitioners (from "Voice and Choice"):
- Assure that farmer women and men are heard and have a say in the design and procurement of advisory services.
- Aim at multiple funding sources for advisory services right from the beginning; payment by farmers for services in the private interest is therefore a must.
- Include local government structures, both for expressing demand and funding of advisory services.
- Use the combination of extension with input and credit supply as one of the sources to finance advisory services.
- Use the link to processing and trade as one of the sources to finance advisory services.
Question and Answer Session (21 - 30 November 2012)
(Nov 30, 2012)
Hans Schaltenbrand said:
Dear Peter, yes, I do have.
Whatever RAS concepts and contextual frames may be designed – be it private, donor or governmental driven – it needs to end up in a strong and effective policy frame that serves all discussed levels and finally the small (worldwide 400 million) farming community who will profit from it. You cannot hide behind your interviewed partners saying, that these policies "remain dust collecting papers". By my own experience I assume that the latter is linked with pushy and egoistic donor-driven approaches. Without policy work nourished from proven and good field results, you will lose an extremely good and important spreading opportunity. In a fragile context (as mentioned by you) with numerous changes of people on power, it is even more essential to keep an eye on the policy part and invest energy and funds at this particular policy front. Otherwise the effect will be at random only ("Blenderprojekte"). Here again, the pro-active investment in policy work at different levels (local <-> central) – in concert to the field activities at the basis (in the field/in the villages) – from the mentioned Community Forest Program in Nepal is a good example which proves, how important this work is or how risky it is, if you concentrate only on investing in local partners at the local levels. Perhaps you will have quicker results, but in a long run (over a period of 10-15-20 years) the results will look quite differently. So, the question is: What do you/we want to achieve? Something which stands on its own feet or something which looks promising at the moment, but will vanish in a medium or long run. – Participation is okay and gains attendance and funding by donors, but it is not at all enough to achieve the complex issue called "ownership". By my own experience a well established participation also requires other attainments which are related with "accountability" at different levels and sides, e.g. the very important "enforceability" (mechanisms to sanction non-responsiveness) or the "answerability" (claiming a response of what you claimed for). For such fields, an investment also needs our eyes, ears, voice and endurance.
What I want to say with this: If we look back to the first KSAP period 1994 to 2000, we perhaps did not pay enough attention to existing (or to our eyes/ears/knowledge not visible) societal elements. Knowing a bit the Kyrgyz society from many discussions when I had the several chances to visit this loving country, I learnt, that the Kyrgyz society is consisting of thousands of such elements.
So, perhaps our main constraint during the first ten years of cooperation in Kyrgyzstan to establish an advisory system that serves local people without generation-based roots was, that we were acting under a too strong pressure to show quick tangible results (like today!!). – And that is the reason, why I do resist or call for resistance against all kind of acceptances of pressures from donor sides or of whomever when we talk about the real development of an advisory service or whatever other services.
Kind regards, Hans Schaltenbrand
(Nov 30, 2012)
Peter Schmidt said:
Dear Hans and Bertrand
You rightly stress the importance of a supportive policy framework, be it for local governance or for rural advisory services.
With regard to an extension policy we invested quite a bit in participatory processes to develop several versions of such a policy. The documents do exist. As far as I could learn from my interview partners these policies remained dust collecting papers without much effect. The reason for it is lacking ownership – in spite of participatory processes – by the responsible governmental authorities. And for this the main reason are frequent changes of the decision makers, which is one of the symptoms of a fragile context. I have really no answer to this. Do you have?
Best regards
Peter
(Nov 30, 2012)
Peter Schmidt said:
Dear Hans
thanks for the flowers and comments.
I would like to take up the question of how to initiate a pluralistic extension system in a situation of an institutional vacuum. You are right, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and during the first ten years of setting up a rural advisory system in Kyrgyzstan there were few well functioning institutions and organizations. This is true for the government institutions particularly on the local level, for civil society organizations and very much for private sector companies.
You argue that we therefore had no choice to initiate a pluralistic advisory system. Today I see this differently. We chose to try to set up ONE system. In hindsight I think we should have opted to initiate right from the beginning different intervention models, various types of service providers, various funding sources.
But I of course share your conclusion that CONTINUITY is a key to success. The Kyrgyz Government, the World Bank and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation assured this continuity. This is great!
Warm regards
Peter
(Nov 29, 2012)
Bertrand Trépanier said:
Hello Peter;
I also agree with Hans S. that, at that time, gvt rayons and even gvt central levels were not ready. However, it could have been possible, but hardly I agree, to have a more pluralistic approach. Policy is also a must. But a policy at local level needs to have ground with a national policy. That's why I mentioned the importance of having a sound agriculture policy.
Your description of the model of the local government responsible to render services to its population and having money to do so with the taxes raised within the constituency is clear, logic and fine.
About the local governments and their role with the extension services: My point or question refers mainly to the Kyrgyz situation, or similar. Unless the info I have about Kyrgyzstan is completely outdated, it seems to me that most of the kyrgyz districts are rural districts, meaning a large part of the population is engaged in rural/agricultural economic activities. Yet, the incomes and taxes out of these economic activities going to the local government are rather very limited.
As far as I know, most of the local government`s budget comes from the central level. It is probably unrealistic to expect that in the near future the local governments will be able (economically and politically) to provision most of their budget with the local taxes. In such a context and being consistent with a pluralistic approach, we do not have to consider that the local government has to hire and equip the professionals' teams to render a full set of services.
But perhaps a slight portion of it. Or may be the monitoring of the activities and results. This assuming that farmers are formally well represented within the local government. The model of the farmers councils (Koshuuns) seems not much successful but is still very young, established only since 2009. Can the identified problems be fixed with the help of donor`s funded projects or the model simply doesn't work? Or is it possible, through the local government act, to identify a model that integrates the Koshuuns (or something more or less similar) within the Ail Okrugs? In such model, would a capacity building approach donor's intervention be appropriate?
If farmers are not, for some reasons, not well represented within the state structures, that means more opportunity for the private sector with inputs supplier's credit line, for example. It is perhaps not a bad option as such but that does not give many choices to farmers. We want a pluralistic approach that will be offered to the rural population's.
It seems to me that the main challenge is to make local governments responsible (and accountable) to pay a genuine attention to farmers needs and ag markets demands. Assuming that these needs are met, the economic impact will be beneficial to farmers and local government ( Ail Okrugs) as well. Not to mention the central government. However, if the Ail Okrugs have the sometimes too easy option to raise taxes in order to finance services without being accountable to the tax payers (the farmers), I'm not sure their will be improvement.
It seems to me that with its set of achievements, success and errors too, the RAS agriculture extension services in Kyrgyzstan has now reached another step of development: To consolidate and, at the same, expand. It probably has to do so via the identification of models that fully integrates these agriculture extension services within the civil society and the state bodies, at all levels.
Best regards;
Bertrand
(Nov 28, 2012)
Hans Schaltenbrand said:
Dear Peter
As former Helvetas employee being involved in the setting up of the Kyrgyz rural advisory system between 1993 and 2003, I watched and listened with high interest to your charming Swiss-English presentation. In fact this is a very good idea to share lessons with others worldwide. Coming to your concluding remarks and the five recommendations I would like to add the following for those who go more deeply into the attached report:
1. Conclusions: During the first ten years of collaboration on the setting up of a rural advisory system in Kyrgyzstan it was simply not possible to work more in a pluralistic manner. The reason was: the various parts of a civil society system were not in place, or if they existed, they did not yet function.
My conclusion: You cannot force pluralism; it must grow out of learning lessons, and this needs time and patience. So the big advantage this project could make use of was, that donors agreed to support the process over quite a long period. In other words: Continuity in funding was a key to success. Today this is very difficult to achieve. With the slightest failures or slow progress, donors tend to withdraw.
2. Recommendations: You forgot the importance of a policy that makes local level services running. Even in a pluralistic system it needs a strong, local level supporting advisory policy. Without this, risk is high that after some years things may collapse. It's the policy that matters, not only the economy! And of course the transferring into action. I have one good example from the forest advisory side: the community forest development in Nepal (now even ongoing in Bhutan or Vietnam): The right policy at the right time was the essential kick-off towards decentralizing forest resources which today cover more than 14'000 decentralized forest user groups managing a forest area of more than 1.2 million hectare which is about the size of our Swiss forest area.
Best regards, Hans Schaltenbrand, HAFL, Zollikofen
(Nov 27, 2012)
Peter Schmidt said:
Dear Bertrand
thanks for your thoughtful comments. I share most of them, in particular your conclusion: "Should we identify key words that could be kept in mind as lessons? Governance, patience, diversity, balance..."
I would like to react to a specific point in your comments.
"So, the local governments? Certainly. But which roles should they play? How will they be accountable to farmers?"
Accountability is one of the key dimensions of good governance. To me, as a Swiss, the way how a local government is accountable to its constituency is very clear. But perhaps I am still too naive… The local constituency elects the local government. And the citizens pay taxes to the local government. The local government uses this money to provide services to its constituency. Why should these services not include rural advisory services? I don't necessarily mean that the local government should have rural advisors employed. But the local government should mandate professional service providers to render the services required by the citizens. And then the local government should periodically report about the use of the tax money, including the provision of rural advisory services.
If the constituency of the local governments are too large for a meaningful exchange, councils need to be established that represent the interest of the constituency.
Is this too idealistic? I think not.
Best regards
Peter
(Nov 27, 2012)
Bertrand said:
The following of the previous text... considered as a link to research institutions? Here I'm particularly thinking about rayons administrative units linked to the research bodies.
What about the support and the link to the credit supply? If we want larger coverage, how can we make more farmers able to get and deal with sufficient and appropriate credit? How can we develop farmers' lending capacity?
Many of the issues or questions that I put here normally find their answers or at least some ground in a well defined, sound national agricultural policy. I'm missing updated info about such policy. Nevertheless, I put these questions as issues that could be looked at. And discussed.
Should we identify key words that could be kept in mind as lessons? Governance, patience, diversity, balance...
Bertrand Trépanier
(Nov 27, 2012)
Bertrand Trépanier said:
Salut Peter!
Thanks for this report. Interesting. Very interesting. Although it is nearly ten years ago for me, the reading of it sent me back into RADS-RAS and Kyrgyzstan. I felt it as if it was yesterday.
Good report, good process. And above all, there is a set of rural services in Kyrgystan. This is an achievement!
When I opened my email box that day, I had several messages and I read the report very quickly. But I had an impression that governance would be an issue to look at. Later, during the week-end, I read it much more carefully and this impression got more ground.
My comments are not only about the financial sustainability and the ownership as such. These comments aim at giving added aspects to these issues in order to increase the chances that agriculture extension services are sustainable. Ownership? It has to belong to farmers. But at least as much, to the state. Not that it has to belong and to be funded entirely by the state, but rather that the state feels responsible to get it working for its own political and economical benefits. It is about governance.
If we look back at the reasons why we did not pay much or enough attention for working with local governments, we have to recall that in the middle of the nineties, the world of intl cooperation just came out of more than one decade of capacity building approach. With, for some, questionable results. This is particularly true for some of the organizations engaged in building, from scratch, a Kyrgyz rural extension services system all over the country. This is not an excuse and not the single reason but I think it was one of the reasons why we did not pay enough attention to the issue of involving governments.
But which governments? Central? Oblasts?, Rayons? (so called at that time). The central government was much involved in the design and, to some extend, the implementation. Governance was, to some extend, considered and taken into account. But probably not enough and not with the proper aspects. Did we considered enough the fragility of a central government struggling to establish itself, that had to struggle to make ends meet with a budget that had very limited sources of incomes, that did not always know enough how and where to strategically spend or rather, to invest? A central government that had to fulfill strict conditions and to deal with new, heavy administrative procedures in order to get the loan's money? In such conditions, no doubts that the local governments, with officers not paid during months and months, without money to make working facilities available and so on, were not enough considered as full partners to be fully involved. One other reason is that, may be, we want quick and measured results... One of the donors and implementing agencies' dilemma.
So, the local governments? Certainly. But which roles should they play? How will they be accountable to farmers?
Governance: So wide and so important but so difficult to tackle with the right angle. And as difficult to put at the right place, with the sufficient dosage within the design of a development project.
Of course, it is always much easier to analyze after than during and before programmes and projects. The work that I'm practising and that I have seen since 10 years, more linked with governance than at any time before comfort my view that governance is one key issue.
Another aspect, also linked to governance makes me consider few issues linked to the pluralistic approach that includes input suppliers and credit suppliers. Fine. But to which extend? Would the farmers accept to become 'integrated' in the supplier's value chain (and production buyers) or would they prefer to be independent? If so, what would be the limitations to prevent too much financial and production integrations? What is the government policy towards the agribusiness sector?
What kind of support the different levels of governments (or administrative units) should provide to the agricultural sector? Extension services only? Why should they not be considered as a l
(Nov 23, 2012)
Peter Schmidt said:
Dear Jamuna
Thanks for your reaction. I would like to react to your second point: "Harmonization of approaches among the development partners and avoiding duplications in terms of geographical area, thematic competencies…."
I think the Kyrgyzstan example offers a case for reflection on this aspect. The donor community and the government coordinated quite well up to the degree of a sort of a basket funding by the government, World Bank, SDC and DfID to establish this country-wide Rural Advisory Service. In order to avoid duplications in geographical areas and to have shared approaches the vision was to set up one country-wide Rural Advisory Service.
There was one donor agency that did not join this effort. Gtz (today GIZ) decided to establish with its partners in one geographic area a separate extension service provider (Training & Extension System, TES Centre). There was exchange on concepts, methods, approaches. When I was manager of the Swiss funded Kyrgyz Swiss Agricultural Project I perceived this position of Gtz as a lack of coordination and a lack of "harmonization of approaches". I experienced the decision of Gtz as competition to the joint efforts by the other actors to develop one Rural Advisory Service.
In hindsight I have changed my opinion on this question. I think we were wrong in our wish to have one Advisory Service for the whole country (even if it were legally independent units organised along the boundaries of the seven provinces in the country). Looking back, I believe that Gtz was right to create the possibility for farmers to choose among service providers. What Gtz decided was much more in line with today's thinking of pluralistic service provision than our approach of creating a service for the whole country.
With best regards
Peter
(Nov 23, 2012)
Peter Schmidt said:
Dear Chhimi
Thanks a lot for your very relevant remark. Your principal remark is that „we should always partner with the government […] for financing and institutional sustainability".
As you can imagine things were more complex than presented in the brochure and in the short video. In the case of Rural Advisory Services in Kyrgyzstan there was a continuous interaction with the central government with the following main elements:
• Formal agreement between SDC and the Government of Kyrgyzstan
• Project Steering Committee chaired by the government
• Several donors and actors were involved in the establishment of RAS in Kyrgyzstan. Besides SDC the main partner was the World Bank (which handled a grant from IFAD and provided own grants / loans). This part of the funding was managed by the Government of Kyrgyzstan.
• SDC – and other donors, e.g. Asian Development Bank and European Union – offered substantial capacity building to the Ministry of Agriculture; SDC by funding a "Policy Support Unit" within the Ministry. This unit substantially contributed to the development of agricultural policies including rural advisory strategies.
So there was "formal and informal" interaction and "partnering", as you call it. By taking a (soft)-loan to finance the establishment of Rural Advisory Services the Government did make a financial contribution. But still we faced shortcomings – on both sides.
The Swiss money was channelled from SDC to Helvetas as implementing agency directly to the Rural Advisory Service providers. Actually this was crucial because it allowed to flexibly bridge financing gaps in important moments. But in hindsight we should have channelled at least part of the funds through the government channels. This would have helped to build the required capacities in the Government structures to formulate mandates for the Rural Advisory Services and handle such mandates.
The good intentions of donors to support the government in policy development, to strengthen capacities were in my view not really fruitful. Remind the quote in the brochure that highlights the frequent changes of key personnel in the ministry and a lack of vision. This is part of a fragile situation, which – I think – we drastically underestimated.
I don't think there is an easy answer to such a situation. Looking back I think we should have worked much earlier, more systematic and with more resources with the local government structures and build their capacities to fund and steer rural advisory services.
I hope this throws some light in the discussion of the crucial question of financial and institutional sustainability.
With warm regards
Peter Schmidt
(Nov 21, 2012)
Yamuna Ghale said:
Dear all
I also could not access the video posting, however I appreciate the initiative to bring everyone in to the network for greater sharing, exchange and learning. I fully agree with Chhimi and also would like to highlight two more aspects:
1) Countries in transition to peace have different context and needs, so it requires bit of careful analysis and understanding to devise support mechanisms which can in the long run help to establish accountable state and other actors remains supportive;
2) Harmonization of approaches among the development partners and avoiding duplications in terms of geographical area, thematic competencies and increasing social cost to the recipient right holders
Together, we can create better culture of working relationships.
Yamuna
(Nov 21, 2012)
Chhimi Dorji said:
Though I could not see video presentation, I read the brochure and confirms some on my beliefs. For example that we should always partner with the government be it local or central for financial and institutional sustainability. As development partners our stay in that situation or country is limited and therefore cannot take the responsibility of implementing the intervention with a long term vision. Often we tend to sideline the government functionaries stating that they are either non-functional or inefficient. Most often the non-functionality or inefficiency is seen from the donors point of view. We imagine that with our expertise and fund we can bring big changes and improvement in the lives of the people. Many a times our intervention creates discrepancies in the benefits to the target population. The case in point in is example is the service provides trying to fulfill the criteria of donors that trying to meet needs of the target population which was not the intention of the donors.
My view is that however slow, however inefficient we must partner with the existing local and national institutions be it informal or formal so that there is sustainability of institutions and these institutions take responsibility to finance the interventions after the donors withdraw.
Best regards
Chhimi
back to rural advisory services
