Improving delivery of extension services in the Philippines

The primary outputs promised in the original design of this project are:

an appreciation of how extension activities happen in the devolved system;
a description and analysis of other major changes in the environment for extension (besides devolution) in the Philippines;
a framework for identifying niches for delivery of public extension; and
exposure of these outputs to Filipino practitioners and policy makers by way of conferences and workshops to be part of the ongoing assessment and debate shaping policies concerning devolution, agriculture and extension.

Appreciation of the impact of devolution

Using a range of information gathering methods including case studies, Steering Committee meetings, field visits and literature reviews, the project came to the following key findings about the devolution experience.

Continuing concerns about extension delivery are set out below.

The relative roles of central and local agencies remains unclear.
Many central agencies continue to be involved in extension resulting in:
- waste and duplication;
- extension resources being diverted from local priorities;
- continued commodity emphasis;
- maintenance of a tops down supply driven approach over one that is bottoms up and demand driven;
Training of extension officers is piecemeal and limited in terms of planning and other 'higher order' skills.
Some municipalities appeared to be too small to deliver extension services efficiently.
In those LGUs where the devolved extension service had apparently been 'successful' this success was 'hostage' to a particular leader and with the fall of that leader programs would be bought to a close no matter how successful.

On the other hand there were positive signs as illustrated below.

In some LGUs a farm system approach aimed at family incomes had replaced the old commodity driven production targets approach.
Extension partnerships with private sector, seed suppliers, universities and NGOs were being formed.
Farmers were less inclined to equate extension with subsidies and co-payments for seed, fertiliser and stock were becoming accepted.
Some LGUs were cooperating to achieve benefits of size.

These findings both confirmed and extended those emerging from other studies, for example, Cardenas et al (2003) and Contado (2004).

Environment for extension

Some of the more significant aspects of this environment for extension delivery include:

the steady diminution in farm size from 3.7ha in the 1970s to 1.7ha in the 1980s to 0.6ha in 2004;
security of tenure is weak even in agrarian reform areas and opportunities available from tenant share farming are restricted by law; and
access to the internet in isolated areas is hampered by weak communication infrastructure.

In reviewing these initial findings with the Steering Committee it was agreed that along with most studies of extension in the Philippines this first round work focussed on delivery or supply of extension and that more attention needed to be paid to demand. Consequently case study writers were asked to revisit their case study areas to assess factors affecting demand for extension. Some of the main outputs from this follow up work were:

farmers on small pieces of land had both little capacity and incentive to demand extension services;
commercial farmers including those involved in hog and boiler raising seemed to have good access to commercial extension; and
contract growing among small farmers especially landless and farm workers by way of consolidating their rented lands is emerging. This endeavour provides sustained income to small farmers.

Niches for public extension

Suggested key niches for public extension in the Philippines are:

moving away from a commodity approach towards a farm system and farm family focus;
working with low income/small farm communities with a holistic approach to promote development through cooperative farming, diversification to off-farm income and sustainable production;
focussing on practices relating to pest and disease control, water and waste management where impacts extend beyond the farm and where extension delivery may need to involve delivery from a unit larger than LGU, for example at the provincial level;
working with larger commercial producers on a copayment basis to develop the further emergence of private sector advisors;
providing packaged information, demonstrations and training packages targeted towards mass dissemination and access and informing private providers of extension and advisors of best practice;
providing feedback to research and policy makers in terms of the needs and best directions for rural/agricultural communities; and
importantly the findings stress that input subsidies are not good extension methods.

Dissemination and training

The project design explicitly provides for activities to expedite turning these outputs into outcomes. To this end the project supported and participated in dissemination activities including hands-on workshops in case study areas, presentation of papers at two national conferences and co-sponsorship and keynote paper presentation at a National Summit on Extension (see section 3.1).

Study findings suggest that:

a systematic approach be taken to training extension workers at LGU level supported by nationally developed workshops and courses;
key training areas should incorporate: relevant production technologies; project planning, management and evaluation; participative extension approaches - including facilitation skills pertinent to networking with farmers and across stakeholder groups; and holistic approaches to farming community development including cooperative farming, value adding and off-farm income;
extension should be coordinated at Provincial level to limit political interference and variability of support, to provide better career pathways and to allow the more systematic approach to training; and
attention should be given to understanding competitiveness, farm and family economics, cooperative farming, value adding opportunities or off-farm income - areas which could offer the greatest opportunities for positive development in their client group.

Outcomes

To the extent that the National Summit on Extension culminated in a proposed revised draft law on extension, this outcome met or exceeded initial expectations. However, this claim needs to be qualified in several ways. First, reflecting the competence, energy and status of Steering Committee members and the CLRG, the project was well connected into mainstream activities to do with extension policy and development and responsibility for specific outcomes in terms of actual policy or administrative change is widely diffused. Second, in terms of such outcomes, not a lot has actually occurred and many of the weaknesses identified in the course of the project still exist. This leads to a third qualification on outcomes from the Summit which is that durable policy and administrative change must be proceeded by changes in the way of thinking. In this regard in the course of conduct of the project the way extension is viewed appears to have changed in several respects - as reflected in discussion at the National Summit. No longer is extension viewed as a device to distribute subsidies. Farm or household income is increasingly seen as the core objective rather than production of a particular crop such as rice. And finally if people pay for at least some part of the cost of extension service, they are more likely to become active demanders not passive receivers. A final important change in the 'way of thinking' is that for aspects of extension delivery dealing with pest, disease, water and waste management, delivery at the provincial level may be appropriate.

The fact that people are increasingly discussing extension in these terms is a reflection of many forces - which extend well beyond the project and should not be claimed as project outcomes. But the project can reasonably claim to have been a positive and participatory presence while these things happened.