Study attacks “waste” in Agriculture

First it was the often controversial Agriculture Store Corporation. Now government appears to be readying the country’s extension services for the privatisation chopping block as well.

A study for the World Bank continues calls for at least partial privatisation of the country’s Agricultural extension services that support farmers in the field. It also warns that previous attempts at privatisation in other countries have led to “social problems”.

But it’s final conclusion states: “This study supports privatisation to allow free market competition, despite some concerns raised by various stakeholders.”

“M.A.F’s extension service should be subcontracted to the private sector, as practised in Zimbabwe and Chile, to provide the service with a small degree of costsharing between the State and farmers.”

Written by Faletoi Suavi Tuilaepa from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the study builds on a series of presentations over the years, including one to an international conference on extension services in Kenya in 2011. In that presentation, Tuilaepa notes spending of $8 million over the previous four decades on strengthening extension services by introducing various systems.

That figure is absent from the study released this month. Budget figures for individual ministries are not publicly available online, with documents at Parliament only giving the overall amount for the whole of government. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries website was not working yesterday.

What the study does provide is solid criticism of the existing extension services, despite decades of funding, reviews, aid, and training.

“Treasury and P.S.C. officials indicated that people are poorly motivated and work performance is low in government ministries.

“M.A.F. officials felt that the extension service is often controlled by personal agendas which result in a multitude of unnecessary services.

“Several officials complained that the quality of the E.O.s’ work was poor, there was little understanding of research results and often the wrong message was delivered to farmers,” wrote Tuilaepa, referring to Extension Officers.

MAF’s extension service has long been perceived as being “a waste of State resources” because farmers already “have access to the main office when requiring assistance.”

Extension officers “have been accused of being dishonest in performing their jobs,” notes Tuilaepa.

Officers usually did not live in houses provided at extension stations. It has been suggested to ‘remove houses as it’s a waste of money on leases/casuals’.

Commercial producers argued that MAF’s extension service “is non-existent and they would benefit from working with exporters.”

The general view was that the extension system should be restructured. Treasury and P.S.C. officials claimed that a new output performance budget system would improve the efficiency of M.A.F’s extension function in terms of accountability and ensure the efficient utilisation of State resources.

There was concern from within the ministry that a new budget system might reduce efficiency, if there were budget cuts and staff redundancies. Extension officers also argued that they had ‘no transport/living allowances’, and that housing conditions at extensions stations were poor; “the houses were unfurnished, with no electricity or water supply.”

In response, said Tuilaepa, the government’s decision “was to utilise its limited financial resources more efficiently.”

The study does not state how “more efficiency” was achieved. Instead Tuilaepa points overseas for examples of what might be achieved in future, citing examples from New Zealand, Chile, Norway, Ecuador and Zimbabwe.

“Privatisation of the extension function in New Zealand created an opportunity for private consultancy services to employ the redundant staff.”

He suggests that costs be split half-half between farmers and the ministry through C.B.Os, community based organisations.

“To be consistent with new economic policies on the promotion of agricultural commercialisation and partnership with the private sector, a public cost recovery system, as practised in Chile and Norway, should be initiated through C.B.Os and progressive farmers, leading to a 50:50 cost sharing arrangement.

Government “can pay the staff salaries with the remainder funded by farmer membership fees.”

“Sharecropping, as experienced by farmers in Ecuador, is another option where the production and transportation costs can be shared,” said Tuilaepa.

“These joint ventures would serve as demonstration plots and farmers would have access to inputs and better information.

M.A.F’s extension service should be subcontracted to the private sector, as practised in Zimbabwe and Chile, to provide the service with a small degree of costsharing between the State and farmers.”

However, he also notes that privatisation of the extension service in the Netherlands caused social problems. Local policy-makers argued that MAF’s extension service and the private consultancy service practised in New Zealand are “incompatible” with Samoa.

“Only commercial farmers in Samoa may be able to afford private consultancy services, as the majority of Samoan small-holder farmers are reliant on State assistance.”

From a private sector perspective, the ministry was seen as “competing” with business by providing goods and services through its Agriculture Store Corporation, first set up in 1975.

The study is the latest in years of reports dating back to 1988 that recommend privatisation of the corporation and other services. Last year, government passed the Agriculture Store Corporation Repeal Act, requiring the transfer of assets to a private company.