|
Expert of the Institute for Rural Development Roman Korinets took part in the National Reform Press Club meeting “Opportunities and problems of agricultural advisory service” held on 24 March.
We propose you a run-down of the Roman Korinets’s presentation:
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY SERVICES IN UKRAINIAN REGIONS
At the turn of 2004 the Institute for Rural Development started a survey “Agricultural advisory services in Ukrainian regions” aimed to analyze opportunities and perspectives for advisory service development in different regions. The survey envisages polling of different regional advisory service representatives on the one hand and that of local authorities on the other hand.
As long as advisory services’ position is somewhat subjective, it was more interesting for us to learn about the local authorities’ position.
We asked all the oblast and rayon administrations to answer a number of questions. As a rule, the answers were given by respective agriculture departments hence it appears to be their position.
Unfortunately, the number of answers to our questionnaire is insufficient (we hope, so far) to present the survey’s results, however, it is possible to suggest certain tendencies.
The most serious problems identified by local governments’ representatives for rural people and rural areas are as follows:
• poor knowledge and skills in up-to-date farm production management (including marketing etc.);
• poor knowledge and skills in and lack of access to innovative technologies;
• lack of agricultural produce market outlets;
• underdeveloped market infrastructure, including that of information;
• unemployment;
• aggravated social problems;
• low level of social capital;
• poverty;
• legal vulnerability.
Some respondents see a problem in no mission formulated for agricultural sector development in transition economy, lack of clear rural development policy, low budget capacity at the local level; they also stress on undivided authorities of state executive and legislative (representative) power branches, and frequently mention lack of gas supply, roads, water supply etc.
The following services were identified as most needed by rural residents and enterprises:
• organization of information service provision, development of a system of dissemination and promotion of agricultural, economic, legal knowledge and information;
• procurement and sale of agricultural produce;
• establishment of service co-operatives, credit unions;
• book-keeping services;
• social services.
Some respondents set a separate category of information services related to market situation, others extend the list of basic services by including trade in agricultural inputs, long-term crediting, veterinarian services etc.
The Law of Ukraine “On agricultural advisory activity” received rather high score. On a scale of «very good-good-satisfactory-unsatisfactory” the most frequent mark is “good”, then there go marks “satisfactory”, “very good” and “unsatisfactory”.
Most respondents failed to make any specific proposals to the Law of Ukraine “On Agricultural Advisory Activity” .
This is rather high opinion, but in terms of survey negative responses are more interesting.
One of the respondents (while making public the study results we adhere to the anonymity principle) writes: “I consider the law unnecessary, there are agriculture departments fulfilling advisory service functions. It would be better to increase budget allocations for the department (agriculture and food department – R.K.) rather than set up advisory services. The more so, as such services’ financing is unclear.”
Another respondent, a village council head, expressed even more interesting idea: “It is impossible to understand who it is written for (meaning a position or positions in state or other structures etc. – R.K.), so it is not interesting and makes no sense for us”.
A rayon administration head “considers it unreasonable to create advisory service in the rayon. There is a rayon department of agriculture and food, apropos, a state structure. Therefore, it is not a statesmanlike approach, i.e. to establish another body at the cost of almost UAH 300000 when health, education and culture institutions are underfinanced. In extremis, an alternative would be a relevant section set up within the agriculture department to handle the issues that you (Institute for Rural Development – R.K.) suggest”.
Answers like these give grounds for some conclusions, i.e.:
• Officials do not always understand the essence of agricultural advisory activity as service to be rendered to agricultural producers and population.
• Officials do not always know the content of the Law of Ukraine “On Agricultural Advisory Activity”. The law does not provide for a new structure to be created specially. Quite the contrary, it envisages a programme approach to allocation of funds for advisory service provision, i.e. financing specific activities, specific services rather than “structures”, either business entities or governmental agencies.
• Officials are afraid to lose existing direct influence on agricultural enterprises, therefore, they suggest extension of their own structures for fulfilling commercial functions (alien to those of public administration).
• There are stereotypes of the past within our public administration system: some officials think that a law should be written for “certain people (positions)” rather than for resolving certain problems. Otherwise it is “not interesting and makes no sense”.
• In order to change the attitude of the part of local policy-makers towards agricultural advisory service (widely spread in most countries where they take care about their rural residents and agriculture) it is necessary to develop efficient educational activities.
As to the latter, we have envisaged some difficulties in working with a part of state power representatives. This a matter of ideology. Therefore, at the early stage of drafting the Law on Agricultural Advisory Service, the Institute for Rural Development in association with NAAASU prepared and published a brochure “Agricultural Advisory Service: Questions and Answers”. One of the key brochure’s objectives is to bring relevant information to local authorities. The brochure was sent out to all the local state administrations and councils.
It is clear that advisory services are absent in most rayons so far. The majority of respondent answered “Yes” to the question “Do you need advisory service in your oblast?”. The reason of such response is a number of rural problems to be resolved. That is, most respondents see advisory service as an efficient instrument of the rural and agriculture development and a market economy component.
However, one respondent (economy department head at a rayon administration) justified his negative response by stating that “advisory service will always be staffed with unqualified and inexperienced specialists and will be underfinanced. No self-financing is forecasted, hence no guarantee for advisory service to survive”.
It is hard to agree with the statement on advisers’ qualification, but it is hard to disagree with the idea that advisory services cannot operate efficiently without state support, especially in the making. According to practical experience, advisory services have huge state support even in the world leading economies.
Absolute majority of respondents agree with the necessity of budget financing (full or partial) of advisory services.
Opinions differ as regards the advisory service vision in Ukraine. Some respondents see it as a state structure, some did not identify their own position concerning legal status and corporate form of advisory services, there are proposals to set up communal enterprises, some respondents write that advisory services can be subjects to different corporate form and types of ownership.
Strange as it may seem, none of respondents (they are local authority representatives!) included local branches of Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in the list of their partners dealing with problems of agricultural production and rural areas. Ties between science, production and local governments do not seem strong enough. This is hard to comment. More often respondents refer to international technical assistance projects, professional associations, processing enterprises or even metallurgical works as their partners or mention none.
According to our respondents, the key constraint for advisory service development is lack of budget funding. They consider that without state support advisory services will be too expensive for peasants, farmers, and farm businesses.
Our respondents inform us that local agricultural advisory service programmes are designed and, most important, will be financed. One oblast level programme is planned to be financed in the range of UAH 1-1.2 million. Other oblasts will ensure UAH 80-250 thousand per programme. Rayon programmes are more modest. But in one and the same oblast they are planning to allocate UAH 150 thousand for these activities in one rayon while only UAH 20 thousand are planned to be allocated in another rayon.
In many regions they either do not prepare such programmes or they have no clear idea of relevant amount of finance.
It is noteworthy that in places where existing advisory services actively collaborate with local governments the authorities incline to support advisory activities.
Being a NAAAS Board Member, I am happy to note that the majority of respondents have heard about the National Association of Agricultural Advisory Services, know about its activities, although not always in details, and in some cases they write “working in close co-operation”. However, there are some knowing nothing about the Association.
Answering the question “Would you like to change anything in the Law?” a rayon agriculture department head wrote: “To carry the law into effect as soon as possible”.
|
