CHAPTER 4: Analysis of issues and recommendations relating to the revival agricultural advisory services in sub-Saharan Africa
CHAPTER 4: Analysis of issues and recommendations relating to the revival agricultural advisory services in sub-Saharan Africa I.
Governance issues relating to agricultural advisory services, and recommendations
Agricultural advisory services have an impact in a number of different areas: first, they affect family farms; then FOs, value chains and territories; and lastly, more broadly and indirectly or reflexively, agricultural policies. The choice of advisory policy is therefore closely linked to the choice of agricultural policy, giving indications about which agricultural model(s) to promote: family farming in a large sense, farming as a business, agricultural growth pole or contractual agriculture. Therefore, the issue hidden behind the governance of schemes or systems for agricultural advisory services is actually the broader issue of the governance of agricultural policies and joint development (and subsequently joint management) of public policies. Shaping the governance of agricultural advisory services may therefore be a source of tension. Although the words participation, consultation, collaboration have entered into the jargon of projects, programmes and policies for agricultural development, the agricultural profession’s participation in developing national advisory policies and in jointly managing advisory services is highly variable depending on the country. Either because the States do not really want it (in which case the place reserved for FOs is narrow, and public administrations are not yet accustomed to engaging in collaboration), or because the FOs choose not to position themselves as joint managers or do not have the capacity or the means to do so. The methods and place given to producers in the governance of agricultural advisory services differ greatly depending on the country:
52
Unsuccessful collaboration and no joint management: Broad positions are sometimes adopted, such as “agricultural advisory services are a sovereign function52 of the State”, which is a clear way of excluding the agricultural profession from being involved in the governance of agricultural advisory services and from carrying out those services in the field. The term “joint management” is simply refuted, as in the case of Morocco in 2013. In Burkina Faso, there appeared to be collaboration in 2011 to create the National System for Extension Services and Support for Agricultural Advisory Services (système national de vulgarisation et d’appui conseil agricole, or “SNVACA”), but the Peasant-Farmer Confederation of Burkina Faso, which actively participated in the process, quickly became disillusioned with the results. In 2012, Marc Gansore, then vice secretary general of CPF and secretary general of the Federation of Agricultural Professionals of Burkina Faso (fédération des professionnels agricoles du Burkina, or “FEPAB”), said: “In the initial There is no absolute definition of the sovereign functions in the agricultural sector. It depends on the school of thought and on the country.
58 | TECHNICAL REPORTS – No. 55 – MAY 2022
