|
Industry Development (Grape Industries), Food and Fibre Group, Primary Industries & Resources, GPO Box 1671, Adelaide, SA |
|
Introduction
The following is an abridged version of the abstract of a paper prepared by Professor Elizabeth Woods for a Bureau of Rural Sciences conference on Emerging Technologies in Agriculture that was held in Canberra in July. I have used it as an introduction because, in my view, it is an excellent assessment of the circumstances in which the farm sector finds itself today.
"The key issues facing the sector include the relative inflexibility of existing institutions and schemes, which reflect a past where agriculture was distinct from other sectors and where objectives were uni-dimensional (industry development) rather than the triple bottom line of economic, environmental and social outcomes.
There is a demand for infrastructure development, especially in relation to communication technologies to support the development of competitive human skills. In the face of rapid change, the most critical issue is to facilitate ongoing discussion of how rural people can achieve satisfying lives within the broader aspirations of Australia for economic prosperity, sustainable environments and social cohesion.
At the farm family level, discussions about learning priorities are being taken against the background of increasing diversity of income sources (farm and off farm), and of involvement in new business and community relationships which challenge traditional rural values of independence and of the differences between country and city people." (Woods, 2000)
This assessment sets the scene for what I expect to be a lively conversation about the future for agricultural extension in Australia at the 2000 APEN Forum.
Discussion
It is not my intention to summarise the changes that have occurred in the provision of extension services over the past 30 years. It’s been done recently by people well qualified for the task.
Röling (1988), for example, examined the role of research-linked extension in the context of a changing agricultural scene. In Australia, Dart et al. (1998) summarised the changing face of agricultural extension and Marsh and Pannell (1998) documented the changing role of public and private sector providers.
The point worth noting is that extension programs are becoming more participatory, with an emphasis on adult learning, with extension workers as facilitators and with a stronger focus on evaluation. "In successful [research/extension/farmer] systems, utilisers typically have considerable control over the whole process." (Röling, 1988)
Nor am I going to explore the subject of evaluation in any detail. The comprehensive study by Dart et al. (1998) does the subject far greater justice than I could ever do. It is sufficient to acknowledge that participatory extension programs require participatory evaluation.
Rather, I will speculate about the nature of government investment in extension and outline how South Australian Government resources are being used for industry development.
There is a propensity to talk about research, extension, and education and training as discreet activities with discreet outputs. The reality is that they, along with leadership, legislation and persuasion are interdependent. Each is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Further, government and the broader community are seeking outcomes, not outputs. The core issue is how to use public and private sector resources to achieve the outcomes.
However, government working with the community is a challenge, because the community is not homogeneous. We have diverse expectations and aspirations.
In October 1999, the Commonwealth Government convened a Regional Australia Summit. More than 280 delegates met to develop a national approach to the challenges facing regional Australia. These challenges included identifying opportunities for community capacity building and leadership development so communities are empowered to find solutions to the challenges they face.
It is generally accepted that significant community development only occurs when local communities are committed to investing in themselves. They need to deal with their social, economic and environmental challenges collaboratively, while having regard to the reality that there will be winners and losers.
According to the Oklahoma Community Institute (1998), effective communities are communities which:
- Educate the community in the community’s business;
- View challenges as opportunities instead of seeing themselves as victims;
- Are open to diversity of citizen involvement and perspectives;
- Create opportunities for open, respectful community dialogues;
- Have leaders who listen more than talk;
- Are willing to share decision making;
- Understand the concept of teamwork;
- Aggressively work toward collaborative problem solving and consensus building; and
- Seek win/win solutions to issues and problems.
The problem with people is that we can be hard to get on with. When we come together, we often don’t know much about each other. We need to be prepared to share information about ourselves and our circumstances. Only then can we make decisions about important things that need to happen.
Leadership is usefully described as the capacity to get people to make decisions about important things that need to happen. Too often, however, we look to the patriarchs in our communities (generally male, over 50 and with a constituency that has to sanction their decisions) to "deliver us".
Leadership needs to come from all of us if we are to build community capacity. Each of us needs to challenge the system, inspire a shared vision, enable others, model the way, and encourage the heart. This "new", transformational leadership, is about knowing the right questions to ask, not the answers.
So, how is a commitment to community capacity building and leadership development reflected in the resource allocation decisions of government?
The South Australian Government has a Community Investment Strategy which gives policy legitimacy to community capacity building at a whole-of-government level. The Strategy is about changing cultures to work differently to improve services to increase the capacity of communities. It reflects that view that government cannot be relied upon to provide solutions to the community’s problems, and has a strong focus on adult learning, facilitation and evaluation. Those familiar with agriculture recognise this as participatory extension.
Primary Industries & Resources SA (PIRSA) is an economic development agency of the South Australian government. Its role is to optimise the sustainable return from the State’s primary industries and resources sectors, working collaboratively with industry to facilitate a market driven, export ready and quality focused culture. Generally, projects must pass market failure, public/private benefit and benefit/cost tests in order to attract funding.
Within PIRSA, the Food & Fibre Group has policy, strategic planning and industry development responsibilities for the agriculture, fishing and aquaculture industries, the South Australian Research & Development Institute conducts applied research and development for these sectors while PIRSA Rural Solutions provides consultancy services in agriculture, agribusiness and natural resource management.
In recent years, PIRSA has had to pull back from activities which have traditionally enjoyed popular support. This includes extension of new technology, which, if left to itself, industry would find the means of doing, and focus on those activities which most people agree are worth doing but which private enterprise is unlikely to do for itself (the market failure rationale for government intervention). Now, services that deliver a substantially private benefit, such as one-to-one extension, are provided on a fee for service basis by PIRSA Rural Solutions.
Emerging opportunities for PIRSA are changing the mix of our research, industry development and consulting services. Similarly, increased emphasis on rehabilitation of degraded landscapes, means that new skills are needed. PIRSA will continue to align its capability and expertise profile to meet these opportunities. This has and will continue to present challenges for staff, stakeholders and customers, as PIRSA adapts to a constantly changing world. It has to be acknowledged that, despite prolonged and consistent advice to the contrary, farmers continue to argue that PIRSA should provide an extension service to them, preferably at no cost.
One major benefit of the changing nature of PIRSA’s business is that PIRSA is no longer crowding out the market for private providers of extension services. The challenge for those providers, including PIRSA Rural Solutions, is to ensure that they have the capability and expertise profile to meet the market which, as already indicated, is looking for providers who can DO WITH rather than DO TO or DO FOR (Röling, 1988). It is a fact that PIRSA Rural Solutions has inherited a tradition embedded in the diffusion approach to extension, which aligns with the DO TO strategy. This means that the culture of service providers such as PIRSA Rural Solutions must shift if they are to be effective facilitators of cultural change in the primary industries and in the broader community.
The future for agribusiness is dependent upon its ability to compete internationally. Whether in the export market or here in the Australian market place, agribusiness needs to not only keep pace with international competition, but be able to thrive.
Anderson (2000) looked at the recent success of the Australian wine industry to see if there were any lessons that might benefit other industries entering the global market. He concluded that, while export-lead expansion is possible in other industries, substantial hard work and significant investments of time, effort and money in primary production, processing, and marketing/distribution are required. "Specifically:
- a precise market niche has to be identified [rather] than simply aiming broadly at import replacement;
- a long term vision for sustainable growth, based on sound and detailed statistics, is needed to help attract investment funds;
- training courses and research need to accompany or preferably precede investments in primary production, processing plants and promotion; and
- where vertical integration is not complete, good relations between primary producers and processors/marketers need to be developed." (Anderson, 2000).
This and other research suggests that a more strategic approach is required from both Government and industry if Australian suppliers are to compete in global markets.
The South Australian Government’s Food for the Future program, which is aimed at tripling the value of the State’s food industry to $15 billion by 2010 from a base of $5 billion in 1998, has involved the development of a unique management model embracing both industry and government.
Food for the Future ensures that government agencies work in partnership with the food industry through:
- coordinating an integrated export development program;
- profiling South Australian food industry capabilities and successes;
- linking information and expertise across government and food industry sectors;
- facilitating whole of demand chain projects that demonstrate the benefits of working together along the value chain to deliver quality products to customer specifications; and
- recommending whole of government policy on systems improvements.
The program, which is managed by PIRSA, is a demonstration program for the Government’s Community Investment Strategy.
Innovation is the key to becoming and maintaining international competitiveness. Discovering how to use innovation and creating the right environment for businesses to capitalise on these opportunities was the purpose of an Innovating Agribusiness workshop series conducted in regional South Australia by the Food for the Future team.
Common themes that emerged from all four workshops were working together, leadership, risk management, improved relationships with all levels of government, utilising uniqueness and prosperity. These common themes are being incorporated into a revised South Australian Food Plan and are driving the industry development strategies of PIRSA.
The result is that PIRSA is seeking to use strategic intervention, action learning and empowerment to achieve a market driven, export ready and quality focused culture in the primary industries. Strategic intervention initiates development. Action learning is the vehicle, and empowerment gives participants responsibility for their own future. Practical examples include a group-based action learning program for the wine grape industry, a major glasshouse investment on the Northern Adelaide Plains and development of an integrated demand chain for the State’s cherry industry.
Conclusion
Government cannot be relied upon to solve the community’s problems. At best, government can facilitate the community’s resolution of these problems.
In South Australia, there is whole-of-government policy commitment to building community capacity and leadership development. For PIRSA, this commitment manifests itself in collaborative, action learning projects to achieve a market driven, export ready and quality focused culture in the primary industries.
The diffusion approach to extension has passed its use-by-date. Service providers must have the capability and expertise profile to meet the market. "For those providing new commercial products or information, education and training services, the issue is how to forge new alliances and develop new modes of delivery that better match the changing lives and needs of farm people." (Woods, 2000)
References
- Anderson K (2000) 'Export-led growth: Lessons from Australia’s wine industry.' Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, ACT.
- Dart J, Petheram R, Straw W (1998) 'Review of evaluation in agricultural extension.' Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra ACT.
- Marsh S, Panell D (1998) The changing relationship between private and public sector agricultural extension in Australia. Rural Society 8, 133-151.
- Oklahoma Community Institute (1998) 'Characteristics of effective communities' Information Sheet. Shawnee, Oklahoma.
- Röling N (1988) 'Extension science: Information systems in agricultural development.' (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge)
- Woods E (2000) Enhancing and empowering our investment in human capital. In 'Emerging technologies in agriculture: From ideas to adoption.' (Bureau of Rural Sciences. Canberra).
