Revitalizing RNR Research and Extension Services

The dependency on the agricultural sector is expected to continue as long as a sizeable portion of the work force depends on it, a substantial part of consumers' expenditure is accounted for by food and other agricultural products and foreign exchange earnings are provided by agricultural exports. With almost 70% of the population living in the rural areas, economic growth or regression cannot be divorced from the performance of agricultural sector. That situation is unlikely to change for some time given the fact that growth engines such as physical infrastructure, human and institutional resources remain largely underdeveloped. These long-term constraints require long-term strategic investments. It is essential to immediately begin sorting out priorities and plan appropriate sequence of investment and policy interventions that can create conditions for sustainable economic growth.

The agriculture research and extension system requires immediate lease of new life if it is to sustain its role as the primary agent of positive changes in the RNR sector. The government will find no reason to continue with services that cannot deliver with measurable impact on improving the rural economy largely based on agrarian ventures. An entirely new perspective is emerging within the context of a proposed SGNH that is poised to chart out an era of new-age economic activism in Bhutan. The pathway to economic justice and common-sense approaches captured within its framework strategy encompasses spatial optimization, knowledge-intensive program of action and policies to create an enabling environment to fast-track economic aspirations. The manner in which agricultural research and extension interventions are currently formulated and organized does not fit the purpose of this new vision. Research into technology generation may have to shift its focus from perpetuating subsistence agriculture to being more responsive to money-making enterprises. Priorities have to be realigned to appreciate the total factor productivity in valuing farm outputs as the direct benefit of new or improved technologies, instead of simply evaluating the volumetric aspects of economic yield.

The RNRRCs should continue not as some exclusive research centers for prolonging subsistence agriculture. There is no case for exclusive reliance on agricultural development to improve the quality of life in rural areas. It is necessary to locate research and extension support to agriculture in the wider context of rural development, and so adopt a more balanced set of roles and responsibilities. On the other hand, the promotion of rural non-agricultural employment and income cannot be made at the cost of shifting resources from the agricultural sector. The fact of the matter is, for some time to come, Bhutan cannot expect to grow mercantile centers without considering the growth in arable agriculture, livestock and forestry. Rural communities will continue to maintain agricultural assets whether their household income is reliant on it or not. The promotion of commercial, market-oriented agriculture production systems will increase the prospects of other associated enterprises becoming economically viable. A strong public sector research and extension establishment will set the context for a vibrant rural economy characterized by a diversity of highly productive farms, and serviced by full complements of input suppliers, processing and value-adding plants, credit and finance firms, marketing and transport services, knowledge and information centers.

In the longer term, all RNR functionaries under the same jurisdiction/zone can be either merged or professionally affiliated to the RNRRCs. CoRRB, the current manager of RNRRCs can reorient its functions consistent with the general appreciation for what an agricultural research council is expected to perform. It should then maintain its apex status as the national instrument of overseeing the scientific and technical conduct of agricultural research system. It should relinquish its administrative accountability for RNRRCs and assume an independent position to be able to objectively monitor and evaluate the performances of the RNRRCs. Its position can be substantiated further by functioning as an interface between the national agricultural research system and others at the regional and international level advancing intergovernmental and multilateral exchanges, cooperation and joint initiatives.

• 
  decreasing overall public investments
  
• 
  increasing criticisms of poor performance
  
• 
  emergence of other actors and service providers that can disseminate agricultural knowledge and information
  
• 
  revolution in information and communication technologies which provides new vehicles for supplying information
  
• 
  changes in agriculture and, therefore, in the information needs of farmers
  

Research and Extension services need to move toward fostering a culture of knowledge-intensive agriculture and agribusiness. The RNRRCs and the consortium of client enterprises may be viewed as the “Greenports” of GCs and EHs. Other important knowledge and innovation clusters targeting natural resources conservation and use can rally around the RNRRCs and broaden their area of interventions in technology generation and dissemination. The main strength in the concept of greenport is that functions and links are coordinated, for example including options for using each others’ waste products. It is also compatible with the schemes to concentrate capital-intensive and non-land-based agriculture in sustainably organized agricultural development areas that have been incorporated effectively into the landscape. The Dzongkhags and Geogs should designate such areas and define their boundaries in their development plans, at the same time limiting the development of these forms of agriculture outside these areas. The spatial policy is aimed at reinforcing the strength of the existing agricultural development areas and preserving the space they need.

1. 
   Develop and propagate technologies for capital-intensive forms of agriculture, including horticultural production systems that are not land-based e.g. greenhouse horticulture, cultivation in pots and containers, in-vitro mass production, hydroponics, etc. With less than 8% of the country area under agriculture, land is a scarce resource. Maximizing the use of available land must be reinforced at all times. Stall-fed and shed-bound types of animal production as opposed to free-ranging will improve productivity per unit of space by several folds. By concentrating these intensive activities in “greenports”, it is possible to achieve economies of scale and promote efficiency in transport and logistics.
   

2. 
   Agri-tourism has increasingly been proposed as a means for economic diversification and landscape preservation in agricultural regions undergoing restructuring as well as a means to satisfy increased demand for amenity countryside uses. Locally adapted technologies and sufficient knowledge pool is required to facilitate informed decision-making in promoting alternative uses of farmland with minimal environmental and ecological disturbances.
   

3. 
   The potential for practicing “civic agriculture” within the limits of GCs and EHs must be assessed carefully. This approach will lend shape and legitimacy to a diverse and growing body of creative, socioeconomic relationships – farmer’s markets, producer and service associations, co-operatives, community parks and botanic gardens, etc. As a conceptual tool, civic agriculture has the power to focus public attention on the contradictions within our industrially-modeled and corporately controlled agriculture, as well as on the potential of “relocalized” food systems. Civic agriculture moves away from a strictly mechanistic focus on production and economic efficiency and toward food and farming systems responsive to particular ecological and socioeconomic contexts. It is not only an alternative strategy for food production, distribution, and consumption but also a tool and a venue for “grounding people in common purpose” – for nurturing a sense of belonging to a place and an organic sense of citizenship.
   

4. 
   Contract farming is advocated as one solution to small land holdings, land fragmentation, and sub-optimal land utilization by presenting small farmers with an opportunity to participate in the broader market economy. Contract farming is initiated by private agri-business entities to secure access to smallholder produce. They provide services to farmers and in return receive access to some or all of the farmers’ produce. Schemes typically involve the provision of inputs (seed, fertilizers, and pesticides) on credit, often with extension advice, but may also include a range of other services such as ploughing and crop spraying. Costs are recouped when the produce is sold. Some variations of contract farming are practiced, but the farmers’ equity position and the effect on the long term quality of working assets and sustainability of land have never been investigated scientifically and economically. The research and extension effort in this area will help to address constraints and issues.
   

5. 
   Farmer Associations, Farmer Groups, Farmers-Controlled Enterprises are other mechanisms to build up economy of scale, reduce transaction costs, access credit and finance, improve their negotiating power and accrue political muscle. Farmers’ enterprises can result from cooperation through formal cooperatives, farmer associations or groups, and reap benefits for members by achieving economies of scale for a range of activities, e.g. bulking up in output marketing or storage. This important aspect of agro-economics is largely overlooked by MoA’s R&D agencies. Policy research and good practices of group formations have never been a research and extension priority. Cooperatives, associations and contract farming can be effective ways of delivering agricultural services to smallholder farmers, enabling an intensification of production and diversification into more profitable cash crops.
   

6. 
   Precision farming is the most appropriate technology for organic agriculture. This meticulous and ICT-intensive mode of cultivation is justified for any high-value cash crops, accruing enormous benefits in input reduction, better quality and high yield, natural resource conservation and protection of environment. The basic principle is the exploitation of resource capability and enforcement of variable rate production management. Research and extension aptitude is completely lacking in this sphere, while it holds great promise for advancing organic agriculture in the country.
   

7. 
   With almost three decades of applied and adaptive research behind us, the stage for assimilation and ingestion of accumulated knowledge and information is long overdue. The system of agricultural technology transfer we follow diligently is outmoded and ineffectual. Farmers and practitioners alike are inclined to experimentation by doing things on their own and not by reading top-down packages of practices. The A to Z advisories in technology applications are intimidating and breed inferiority complexes that actually distances the end users. What is really expected of the experts is contextual help in the autonomous decision process; to clear off dead ends and open up the situation to move ahead. This is what is commonly referred to as decision support system that can be implemented quite easily on a normal office or farm PC using artificial intelligence, expert system shells or modeled using mechanistic, stochastic or empirical algorithms. Given the availability of free computing power, the accumulated knowledge from our research efforts now needs to be translated into decision tools. Most of the technology generation and transfer roles of research and extension agencies can also be replaced by computers thus saving costs and professional time for other works. The RNRRCs and the extension agent must assess the feasibility and evaluate the benefits of using these tools to shorten the development period and expedite adoption of agricultural technologies.
   

A fundamental problem is that Agriculture Research & Extension institutions are typically funded by block grants whose renewal is seldom linked to performance or impact. Without such a linkage, there tends to be:

• 
  lack of client orientation;
  
• 
  lack of prioritization in line with national policy objectives;
  
• 
  failure to allocate scarce resources efficiently;
  
• 
  political interference in governance and management;
  
• 
  lack of transparency and professionalism in project selection, management and evaluation;
  
• 
  bureaucracy and over-centralization.
  

Elsewhere in the world, establishment of so-called competitive agricultural technology funds have found increasing favor with both donor agencies and some national governments. The Royal Government may like to introduce a funding modality along similar lines. The fund is a pool of money designed to support the development of agricultural technology. When it is established, a set of rules guiding its use, management and accountability arrangements are put in place in support of its objectives. The fund can cover research, technology delivery and uptake processes. There is advance identification of priority areas in which activities will be supported. The availability of funds in the agreed thematic areas is then widely advertised, and proposals are solicited. The key is open competition to work on sections of an agreed agenda for the development and delivery of agricultural technology.

• 
  Autonomous or semi-autonomous status in relation to all stakeholders.
  
• 
  Priority areas clearly derived from national policy priorities.
  
• 
  Requirement of evidence that the proposed research is demand-driven.
  
• 
  A set of rules that encourages the widest possible participation in the scheme.
  
• 
  Wide advertisement of the program and of conditions for application.
  
• 
  Peer review procedures that are clear, transparent, professional and anonymous.
  
• 
  A financial and administrative review process that balances priority and quality with cost.
  
• 
  Adequate financial provision.
  
• 
  Integrity, independence, accountability and quality of management.
  
• 
  Non-intrusive monitoring of progress by competent reviewers, and institutionalized evaluation and impact assessment.
  

The potential benefits from such funding mechanism are:

• 
  increased effectiveness by directing resources by merit;
  
• 
  increased efficiency by reducing costs, eliminating duplication, increasing accountability of research resources, and increasing utilization of infrastructure by providing operating resources;
  
• 
  closer alignment of Research & Extension with national research priorities;
  
• 
  promotion of a demand-driven national system;
  
• 
  strengthened links between research and extension organizations, agricultural production and agricultural policies;
  
• 
  induced institutional change in the national innovation system;
  
• 
  merit review and expert feedback.
  

Agriculture must become economically, environmentally and socially viable through appropriate policy support in encouraging resource-conserving technologies and practices, fostering local group and community action and reforming external institutions. These are the policies aimed at addressing some of the issues and constraints in the three areas of action to promote sustainable alternatives to conventional systems of agriculture production. The way we conduct economic activities for food and agriculture are not a set of practices fixed in time and space. The capacity to adapt and change as external and internal conditions change is fundamental to the process of introducing innovation and creativity in agriculture by creating the enabling conditions for locally generated and adapted technologies, locally available resources, and local skills and knowledge. Farmers too need supportive public policies that foster farming opportunities, remove obstacles to farm entry, and encourage farm development.

Declaring a national policy for sustainable agriculture helps to raise the profile of these processes and needs, as well as giving explicit value to alternative societal goals. It would also establish the necessary framework within which the specific actions listed below can fit and be supported.

There is a need for increased research by the MoA departments and RUB RNR colleges into resource-conserving technologies. Current practices are heavily biased towards modern agricultural practices. Where possible, farmers should be involved closely in research design and implementation, as it is they who know their local conditions best. Indigenous knowledge and management systems form an important focus for such research.

Policy 3: Grant Farmers Appropriate Property Rights

Sustainable agriculture incorporates the notion of giving value to the future availability of resources. But where there is lack of secure tenure and clear property rights, this discriminates against the long-term investment necessary for sustainable agriculture. If tenant farmers are uncertain how long they will be permitted to farm a piece of land, then they will have few incentives to invest in practices that only pay off in the long term, such as soil and water conservation, agroforestry, planting hedgerows and building up soil fertility. In some places, tenants risk eviction if they improve the land they farm — if the land becomes too productive, landlords may claim it and farm it for themselves. The best option is to grant property and titling rights through national programs for land reform and resettlement.

Offer direct financial support in return for the adoption by farmers of conservation-oriented practices and technologies. This conservation focus can be tied to existing support payments, rather than implying additional financial resources.

The opportunity exists for policies to couple food markets to the environment. There are many options including new cosmetic standards and publicity campaigns to demonstrate to consumers that poor appearance does not necessarily mean poor quality. 'Eco-labeling' of foods can also help, so that consumers may exercise greater choice.

Current methods for determining national and sectoral income are very misleading indicators of sustainable economic development. By convention, national income accounts ignore natural assets, assuming that the productivity of these resources is not relevant to national economic health. Conventional accounting effectively values natural capital at zero. When natural resource accounting is used, national income accounts are adjusted to reflect the depreciation of natural capital and the direct costs of environmental degradation.

The first action is to encourage more coordinated local action through better linkages between farmers. Six types of local group or institutions are directly relevant to the needs for sustainable agriculture: community organizations; natural resource management groups; farmer research groups; farmer-to-farmer extension groups; credit management groups; and consumer groups.

There is a need for a coordinated national approach to rural development that puts community action and social cohesion as the primary goal. These should emphasize the need for local diversity, community involvement in decisions, local added value for agricultural produce, provision of services, and good networks and communications to achieve sustainable development.

Local credit groups directly help poorer families both to stay out of debt and reap productive returns on small investments on their farms. What is needed to support these efforts is for banks to change their rules about lending. The convention has been that they only lend to individuals with collateral. But where banks have been instructed or have chosen to lend to groups as an institution, with the groups taking collective responsibility for the loans, many more poor and needy people have access to credit. They are also better at paying back loans.

Sustainable agriculture implies new thinking about teaching and learning. The central concept of sustainable agriculture is that it enshrines new ways of learning about the world. Professionals who are to work with local complexity, diversity and uncertainty need to engage in sensitive learning about the particular conditions of rapid change. Everyone involved in agriculture, including farmers, trainers, educators, researchers, extensionists and administrators becomes important, as do the relationships between them.

Agricultural research, development, and extension services have clear geographical dimensions. The larger the Dzongkhag and the more varied its agro-climatic conditions, the larger the differences between the crops grown in different farming systems. As a result, commodity-based research programs affect mostly those regions in which these commodities are the main crops, and thematic research programs affect mostly the regions that have the specific (soil, climatic, etc.) conditions which are the subject of the research. Bhutan exhibits considerable geographic diversity in agricultural production due to significant differences in climate and soil texture and composition between regions.

• 
  promote the privatization of extension in well integrated areas like GCs and EHs, switching public resources to more remote areas;
  
• 
  de-emphasize the (land) productivity enhancement objectives which have dominated agricultural extension policy hitherto, giving increased emphasis to labor productivity, employment generation and vulnerability reduction, including reduction of the impact of seasonality on incomes;
  
• 
  support the development of Dzongkhag HQs and other towns as nodal points at the interface between government, markets and rural people. Focusing on small-town development offers wider prospects of cross-sectoral integration in government strategies – especially between rural and urban strategies;
  
• 
  strengthen people’s demands on the facilities newly created in Dzongkhag HQs and other towns.