Agricultural Administration and Extension最新文献

Grievances articulated by small farmers in Djibouti highlight some major problems of institutional performance of the Ministry of Agriculture. Macroeconomic policies and divisions between competing departments within the Ministry mitigate against agricultural growth. Administrative reforms are proposed intended to unify policy-making, financial, personnel and monitoring functions throughout the Ministry. A post of Secretary General is to be created, supported by two technical units, to whom all Heads of Departments will report. Improved management performance will, it is hoped, provide solutions to the bottlenecks plaguing agricultural development and encourage greater government commitment to the sector.

The purpose of a topical Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) is to answer specific questions on a subject and it does so by employing the usual RRA techniques of secondary data review, semi-structured interviewing, direct observation and workshop formation. An investigation of the prevailing low sugarcane yields in Fiji, was used to design a general structure for combining these techniques in the process of topical RRA. It also aimed to develop models (diagrammatic representations) which could be produced within this structure of techniques, in the planning and implementation of future topical RRAs. The working framework aims to provide practical guidelines for its practitioners and, by helping formalise the composition of the topical RRA, to strengthen its identity.

Exchanges of agricultural scientists are an effective means of advancing agricultural science and technology for both developed and developing countries. Three key factors need to be addressed during the planning and administration of agricultural exchanges, as they often determine the final success or failure of an agricultural exchange. The three factors essential to a successful exchange program are: (1) clarity and mutual understanding of goals and objectives; (2) understanding in dealing with the unique characteristics of the country involved, its people, and its institutions; and (3) monitoring and feedback from participants and other interested parties.

Since the end of the nineteenth century the funding and control of agricultural research and development (R&D) has usually been assumed to be a State responsibility. The contention is that the State's share of agriculture's R & D costs is excessive and its control of R&D management is unsatisfactory. It is suggested that producer associations should be responsible for R&D on tradable agricultural commodities which are capable of generating private profit. The State should retain responsibility for R&D on agricultural resources and for legislative purposes, both of which can only generate social benefit. The political advantages of commodity responsibility for R&D are considered to be reduced dependence on State funds which now have higher priorities, greater relevance of R&D to producers' needs and depoliticisation of an economic activity without loss of its social benefits. Structurally, the advantages of commodity controlled R&D are claimed to be a reduction in institutional size and in centralised bureaucracy. This would permit more rapid response to changes in R&D requirements and the setting of unequivocal goals, which improve motivation and productivity. The managerial advantages of commodity controlled R&D include release from the equity principle inherent in bureaucracies which inhibits paying for performance; ‘closeness to the customer’ which improves the relevance of R&D projects; and the ability to use change to maintain personal and organisational effectiveness. Perhaps most important of all managerial advantages is the opportunity to use a specialised and integrated extension service to promote the profitability of producers.

In Part I the conclusions were drawn that the potential of a certain area for agricultural production is, to a certain degree, the result of investments in technology development; that historic and economic factors have led to a comparative disadvantage of agricultural systems in the developing countries; and that the collective agricultural production potentials of the developing countries have not been assessed properly. As a result of differences in investments for technology development, differences in development opportunities have emerged.

This part explores some important aspects of development intervention strategies, looks at the national agricultural policies of developing countries as well as of international development agencies and presents the concept opportunity gaps as an alternative to the frequently used concept of yield gaps. Some approaches to agricultural development that may contribute to bridging the opportunity gaps are discussed: the systems approach; the use of indigenous knowledge; development of agro-ecological practices and the bottom-up approach. Included is a checklist for the analysis of opportunity gaps that could be used by planners of development interventions who want to narrow these gaps.