Missing Links of Nepal’s Agricultural Extension System

The organizational structure of the Ministry of Agriculture changed as part of state restructuring following Nepal’s historic transition from a unitary to a federal democratic republic in 2015. Regional directorates, district-level structures such as the district agriculture development office (DADO), district livestock service office (DLSO), and sub-district level structures such as 378 agriculture service centers (ASCs) and 999 livestock service centers (LSCs) have been abolished. Additionally, cooperative divisional offices overseeing cooperatives have also been dismantled. A Ministry of Land Management, Agriculture, and Cooperatives has been established as part of the establishment of province-level organizations. This ministry operates agriculture and livestock development-related Directorates, province-level laboratories, Agriculture Knowledge Centers (AKCs), Veterinary Hospitals, and Livestock Expert Centers  (VHLEC)  at the district level. Furthermore, the municipality’s agriculture and livestock departments have been established with sole agricultural and livestock extension responsibility.

These structural changes aim to deliver effective agricultural extension services for increased production and productivity. Seeing how the agriculture sector’s performance has deteriorated over the years is disheartening. One of the critical reasons for this poor performance is that the agriculture extension function, which is the heart and soul of agriculture growth, is missing from this structural change. This article examines the missing links in the current structure and suggests institutional reform to deliver services effectively.

Missing Links of Agriculture Extension

The private sector, a driving force in agricultural transformation, has a tangential involvement in the agricultural extension system. It is disappointing that only 25% of farmers have access to extension services, with 75% remaining out of the reach of extension service delivery.

The support system from the federal to the local level and feedback mechanism from the local to the federal level has been disrupted. Municipal-level agriculture technicians feel abandoned by provincial and federal government agencies, while federal and province-level agencies do not receive the information they require from local levels.

AKCs, which replaced DADOs, have become subsidy dispensing centers, raising concerns about flagrant subsidy misuse. Unfortunately, the crucial role of agriculture extension is missing from most AKCs, except for a few AKCs carrying out activities on the AKC chief’s own initiative.

The current research, extension, and farmer linkage mechanism is broken, paralyzing the agriculture production system. This linkage is essential for creating a demand-driven agriculture research and extension system, putting farmers at the center.

Municipal-level agriculture sections are heavily understaffed and lack the capacity to facilitate pluralistic extension for effective service delivery. Instead, the distribution of resources on populist programs has been a common trend.

Coordination, co-existence, and cooperation are the cornerstones for effective governance at all three levels of government as envisaged by the constitution and provisioned by the Federation, Province, and Local Level (coordination and interrelation) Act 2020. There is a provision for several coordination committees at the political level. Still, such a coordination mechanism is missing at the operational level, which is why agricultural institutions at the federal, provincial, and local levels are distracted and confused.

Way Forward

The organizational structures will only be functional when missing agriculture extension links are reinvigorated in the system. It is, therefore, essential to revisit and revitalize the current agriculture extension structure to enable it to provide timely, high-quality, and adequate service for solving the formidable challenges the agriculture sector faces.

 AKCs (implies to VHLECs as well) need to be restructured to serve as a nodal point for a) interacting with research, extension, and education; b) ensuring coordination and cooperation among different levels of government; c)  enhancing the capacity of municipal agriculture units, the private sector, and cooperatives.

Conventional agriculture extension considers “farmers” the only target audience, and other stakeholders engaged in the commodity value chain are generally excluded from program intervention. It is critical to recognize their contributions, assess their limitations, and consider them the target audiences for program intervention. This approach will help create a wealth-creating value chain where each value chain actor gets a fair share of the profit.

Developing and managing partnership programs engaging the private sector, cooperatives, and non-governmental entities should be the integral function of government extension, particularly at the local level. This entails a need to enhance the competence of extension staff in organizational capacity assessment, contract management, creating favorable policies and procedures, monitoring and evaluation, and coordination and linkages with other stakeholders, in addition to keeping abreast of extension communication technologies.

 Information technology (IT) has been expanding at an alarming rate. According to the Ministry of Finance (2021), 82.79% of the population in Nepal has access to Internet services. However, despite some private-sector initiatives in this area, Nepal’s extension system has yet to benefit from the digital technology surge. IT-mediated agriculture extension can revolutionize the prevailing agriculture extension system by rapidly expanding the extension coverage effectively and efficiently. Youth can play an instrumental role in the digitalization of agriculture.

Conclusion

Agricultural extension service has been disrupted after the institutional restructuring of the three tiers of government. The Constitution’s spirit of providing prompt, high-quality, and adequate services has yet to be upheld. There is a lack of coordination, cooperation, and co-existence among the three tiers of government, resulting in inefficiency in service delivery. The linkage mechanism between research and extension, which existed before restructuring to some extent, has been completely broken. The above actions will make the current structure more organic and service-oriented

Padma Singh

Cooperatives in agricultural transformation

Having the right people at the governance and management levels is critically important for the success of cooperatives.

Cooperatives in agricultural transformation
Padma Singh

Published at the Kathmandu Post: April 10, 2022 Updated at : April 11, 2022 11:26 

Cooperatives are member-driven organisations with a business mind and a social heart that are founded to satisfy immediate needs and address vulnerabilities. Cooperatives allow people to pool their resources to create their own economic opportunities, thereby changing individual risk into collective risk. Cooperatives have proven to be resilient and capable of responding to the consequences of crises like the Covid-19 pandemic and the 2008 economic crisis. Studies show that small farmers working collectively in strong producer organisations and cooperatives were better able to take advantage of market opportunities and stave off the negative consequences of food crises. 

As per the World Cooperative Monitor (2019), more than 12 percent of humanity is part of any of the 3 million cooperatives in the world, contributing to sustainable economic growth and quality employment, employing 280 million people across the globe. 

The formal development of cooperatives in Nepal dates from the establishment of the Bakhan Multipurpose Cooperative Society in Chitwan in 1957. There is a long tradition of informal community-based cooperatives in Nepal, including savings and credit associations like Dhukuti. The government enacted the first Cooperative Act in 1960, and it has since undergone several amendments, most recently in 2017. In 1992, there were 883 cooperatives in the country. The number has now mushroomed to 35,000 with 6.3 million members. Among them, about 7,230 cooperatives are engaged in core agriculture production. 

Although the efficacy of cooperatives in rural socioeconomic change is mixed, there are some encouraging examples of cooperatives being used to restructure the rural economy in Nepal and elsewhere. 

Agricultural transformation

The major constraint faced by farmers, especially small-scale farmers, is lack of marketing opportunities. Small-scale farmers are subjected to the “curse of smallness” as their output is too small to entice traders, and their input requirements are also too small to lure input suppliers. And as such, cooperatives fill in the gaps where individual business owners find it unprofitable to provide services or where farmers are unfairly exploited. The Milansar Social Entrepreneur Women’s Cooperative, which operates in Tansen, Palpa with Heifer International’s technical assistance, is a shining example of how cooperatives may help farmers connect to markets. 

Lack of access to agricultural loans is a systemic limitation to the commercialisation of the agricultural sector. Despite the regulatory requirement for banks and financial institutions to invest at least 11 percent of their total investment in agriculture, the actual figure is below 7 percent. Because of the considerable risk involved in lending to small-scale farmers, banks are willing to pay a penalty to Nepal Rastra Bank than comply with the regulation. Because cooperatives can minimise transaction costs and lessen the risk of default, they have the potential to serve as a financial intermediary for small-scale farmers. 

Inadequate and ineffective service delivery is a significant impediment to agricultural development. Because of institutional inconsistencies, political instability and poor governance, the capacity of institutions established to provide services (agriculture extension, inputs, credit, marketing) has been limited. Cooperatives have the potential to deliver services to the community. 

Cooperatives face a fundamental challenge in enhancing their economic viability and institutional sustainability. They fail due to weak governance, poor financial management, inactive members, insufficient member services, lack of working capital and lack of entrepreneurial ability.

Cooperative values and principles are the foundation of cooperatives. The challenge is to link cooperative ideals to governance operations at all levels, including the staff, members and board of directors. It has to be noted that cooperatives have a unique governance structure with the three primary constituents. The board of directors, staff and members with diverse backgrounds striving for the same goal.

Another challenge that cooperatives face globally is staying innovative and competitive. Innovation enhances the likelihood of adapting to changes and discovering new opportunities to provide members with better products and services.

Cooperatives formed with the federation of matured groups have a strong foundation of social capital that makes cooperatives strong. Most of the cooperatives in Nepal have a weak foundation of social capital, resulting in non-performing cooperatives. 

Way forward

Strengthening cooperative capacity in several domains such as governance, financial management, business management, and community and stakeholder engagement should be a significant component of the cooperative formation process. Numerous tools are available to assess and analyse capacity gaps in cooperatives. It is critical that cooperative employees and board members fully participate in the assessment process. An improvement plan should then be developed and implemented based on the capacity gaps. 

Having the right people at the governance and management levels is critically important for the success of cooperatives. Without them, no matter how much time cooperatives dedicate to capacity building, they will not achieve their anticipated results. It is critical that members are educated about the desired qualities of the board of directors and management. 

Developing smart cooperatives should be part of the strategy to make cooperative businesses competitive, innovative and capable of attracting capital and generating economic opportunities. It is important to facilitate the growth and development of economically viable, socially acceptable and environmentally friendly cooperatives.

In collaboration with NGOs, INGOs, and the private sector, national, provincial, and local governments should plan and implement a coordinated approach to building an enabling environment for cooperatives. Local governments, in particular, should prioritise the development of cooperatives by allocating resources and providing oversight. 

Cooperatives are largely business entities with a social mission that have shown to be robust in times of financial distress. Cooperatives can help commercialise agriculture as a sustainable community organisation in situations when government service delivery is poor, and the private sector is not inclined to invest in agriculture. It would be prudent for local and provincial governments to work together to create an environment that allows cooperatives to thrive as a viable instrument of community socioeconomic transformation.

Widening Agriculture Trade Deficit in Nepal*

     The conventional narrative of labeling Nepal as an agricultural country appears to be rhetoric rather than a reality, as Nepal, once a food exporting country, has now become a net food importer. Recent data from the Department of Customs bolsters previous reports that exports have stagnated while imports have skyrocketed. It is disheartening to see the import of cereals, fruits, vegetables, and animal products that can be domestically produced to be surging. As per the Customs data, import of cereal during the first six months (mid-July 2021 to mid-Jan 2022) of the current fiscal year 2021/22 has reached NRS 42.7 billion while it was 41.7 billion during the same period in the last FY 2020/21. Furthermore, cereal imports totaled NRS 79.5 billion in FY 2020/21, up from NRS 56.9 billion in FY 2019/20. Cereal exports, on the other hand, have been miserably low. The export value of cereal in FY 2020/21 was 5.4 million, down from NRS 17 million in FY 2019/20.

Imports at a high level indicate strong domestic demand and a growing economy. However, it is critical to investigate how a country pays for its imports. Because Nepal spends a significant amount of foreign currency primarily through remittances, its international trade is at risk due to the vulnerability of remittance inflows to geo-political situations and economic downturns. If the current trade deficit continues, Nepal’s food security will be jeopardized, posing a potential threat to National security. It entails an urgent call for action in reversing the trade deficit in agriculture. The subsequent discussion emphasizes the triggers of rising food imports, particularly cereals that Nepal can produce and meet the domestic demand, and puts forward actions for import substitution.

Triggers of Cereal Import

  • Increasing food imports can be attributed to low agricultural productivity, which occurs when domestic production does not keep pace with population growth. Adoption of improved technologies and production practices are critical drivers of agriculture production acceleration. According to IFPRI South Asia report Discussion paper 01781, December 2018), only 33% of households in Nepal use improved crop varieties, less than 10% use modern farm equipment, and fertilizer use is far below the South Asian average. There has been a marginal increase in crop yield during the past ten years. But it is too little and too slow. Agriculture is a labor-intensive industry, with per unit labor productivity of $794, one-fourth of that of other sectors (CBS, 2010). The weak performance of agriculture incentivizes youth to seek employment abroad. Reports from research and farmer field level demonstrations indicate a significant productivity gap between current and potential production levels.
  • One of the factors contributing to the increase in food imports is a shift in food consumption patterns. A growing rice-eating culture that deviates from traditional maize, millet, and potato consumption has increased rice demand, which now accounts for 60% of total food imports. There is also a preference for imported long-grained aromatic rice. In addition, the demand for processed foods such as noodles, burgers, and pizza are increasing.
  • Inadequate and ineffective service delivery is a significant impediment to agricultural development. Because of Institutional inconsistencies, political instability, and poor governance, the capacity of institutions established to provide services (agriculture extension, inputs, credit, marketing) has been limited. And, as a result of competing authority and jurisdiction, the federal governance structure has added to the complexity of service delivery. Farmers are still fighting for better seeds, fertilizers, credit, a fair price for their produce, and technical advice after years of political upheaval. A chronic problem impeding agricultural development is a lack of coordination among service-providing agencies.
  • The fragmented value chain of cereal crops contributes to demand and supply disruption. In moving agricultural produce from farm to fork, there is no integration of functions (input supply, production, aggregation, transportation, processing, grading, packaging, marketing, and so on). Value chains are most effective when their actors work together to produce higher-quality products and generate more income for all participants along the chain.
  • Because of the higher cost of production, Nepalese products have a lower competitive advantage. Foreign products, primarily Indian, are heavily subsidized and produced at a significantly lower cost, displacing Nepalese products in the domestic market.
  • Youth outmigration for employment has had a negative impact on local agriculture and food self-sufficiency. The agriculture sector is frequently experiencing labor shortages and land abandonment. As a result, it is estimated that one-third of the cultivated area is barren.

Call for Action

 The country’s urgent need for food security is to increase domestic production and productivity of food commodities. A shift in producers’ and agriculture service providers’ mindsets from supply-driven to demand-driven program implementation is required for long-term production growth. One example of this shift is the adoption of value chain-based commodity programs that integrate and collaborate on a variety of functions ranging from production to end-market consumers. The cooperatives and producer organizations partnering with public and private sectors as Public-Private and Producer Partnership (PPPP) further stimulates collaboration in program implementation. Increased production is inextricably linked to the capacity of service delivery institutions. It is impossible to successfully implement plans, policies, strategies, and interventions without a structurally and functionally efficient service delivery (extension, research, input, marketing, credit, etc). With the current federal governance structure, a comprehensive capacity assessment of public and private service delivery systems at the municipal, provincial, and national levels is needed to identify capacity gaps.

Contextualizing Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS), Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) targets, and national policies are critical actions that must be completed at the municipal level resulting in a municipal agriculture development plan of action with clear delineation of responsibility and accountability. Youth involvement in agriculture should be prioritized as a program package. To continue and expand the youth engagement program in agriculture and to reintegrate migrant returnees and engage youth as agri-entrepreneurs, it is necessary to reinstitute rural youth programs under the government structure.

The traditionally grown variety of nutrient-dense millets such as Kodo (Finger millet), Junelo (Sorghum), Kaguno (Foxtail), Chino (Proso millet), and Bajra (Pearl millet) used to be a staple food in many parts of Nepal but has since been replaced by rice. It is necessary to raise awareness about the nutritional value of KuAnna (Inferior grain) and dispel the traditional KuAnna myth, which will help reduce rice imports by increasing dietary diversity. In recognition of millets’ nutritional value, the United Nations General Assembly has declared 2023 the International Year of Millets

            The right to food is enshrined as a fundamental right of the people in Nepal’s constitution. The staggering food import figures indicate that food insecurity is on the horizon. Can the country go about its business as usual? How long must people wait before they realize their right to food is guaranteed in reality, not just on paper?

  • This article is publised in The Kathmandu Post on Jan 30, 2022

About me

Born in Bajhang, Nepal, worked for more than two decades with the Ministry of Agriculture, as well as the United Nations World Food Program, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Labor Organization for about eight years, and, most recently, Heifer International’s headquarters in Little Rock, Arkansas, for nearly 15 years until August 2021. Obtained B.Sc Agriculture from the Udaypur University in Rajasthan, India, an MS in extension education and rural sociology from the University of the Philippines at Los Banos, and a Ph.D. in agricultural and extension education/international community development from Michigan State University.

At Cornell University, studied international agriculture as a Hubert Humphrey scholar. Professional interests include cooperative capacity building, food security, program development, social capital, and community empowerment, as well as agribusiness development, agriculture extension, and program evaluation.

Indian Farm Laws Repeal: A Boost to Global Food Sovereignty Movement

 

November 19, 2021, marks a victory day not only for the protesting Indian farmers but also for the entire social movement advocating food sovereignty globally. PM Modi repealed the three farms laws that sparked agitation.  Farmers, primarily from  Haryana and Punjab, have been in the street since August 2020, protesting three farm laws passed by the central government through parliament. The Indian farmers’ protest has dominated global media, galvanizing broad-based and diverse advocacy groups worldwide.  The three laws are a) The Farmers Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, which aimed at allowing trade in agricultural produce outside the existing APMC (Agricultural Produce Market Committee) mandis; b) The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, which aimed to provide a framework for contract farming; c) The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020, which aimed at removing commodities such as cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion, and potato from the list of essential commodities. The three laws aimed at deregulating food price control, liberalizing the control of food stocks and trade, and giving corporations more freedom to contract farming with smallholder farmers. The core discontent of the farmers is that new laws will together bypass state-regulated agricultural markets, remove limits on stockpiling of agricultural commodities, and deregulate minimum support prices. Farmers fear this will open India’s agriculture sector to corporate control, destroy the public food distribution system and small-scale food production, and devastate farm incomes. For more than a year, Indian farmers have been enduring biting cold, scorching heat, pouring rain, tear gases, and police batons in their fight for food sovereignty through national strikes, working alongside trade unions but also reaching out to gather wider support of India’s population.  In a surprise move on Friday, Nov 19, PM Modi announced the repeal of the three laws. There may be socio-political undercurrents triggering the repeal but on the surface, it is relentless agitation that compelled the government to retreat from its stance. This blog intends to draw the lessons learned from the repeal and underscore its implications on the global food sovereignty agenda. It is not the intention here to enter into the genesis of farmer protest and take a position whether the laws are good or bad for the farmers in India.  We will touch on the conceptual underpinnings of food sovereignty hoping it will help to view the protest from the food sovereignty spectrum.

Food Sovereignty: Conceptual Underpinnings

Food sovereignty is rooted in the ongoing global struggles over control of food, land, water, and livelihoods. There is no universal definition for food sovereignty, however, it is commonly understood that people who produce, distribute, and consume food also control the mechanisms and policies of food production and distribution against government or corporations defining policies and agendas. Declaration of Nyéléni, the first global forum on food sovereignty, Mali, 2007 defined food sovereignty as  “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their food and agriculture systems. It puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations.”  It is adopted by 80 countries. Food sovereignty is a transnational social movement and advocacy network of peasants, farmers, fisherfolk, and other peoples dependent on agricultural production for their livelihoods. Originally it started in the Americas and Europe and expanded quickly to Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world as a social movement resisting the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture and its imposition of multilateral disciplines on domestic agriculture policy.

The concept was first framed by the international
 peasant movement La Via Campesina at the World Food Summit in 1996. Food sovereignty respects the right of food providers to have control over their land, seeds, and water, and rejects the privatization of natural resources.   La Via Campesina has laid out  seven principles of food sovereignty as outlined below:

  • Food: A Basic Human Right.
  • Agrarian Reform.
  • Protecting Natural Resources.
  • Reorganizing Food Trade.
  • Ending the Globalization of Hunger.
  • Social Peace.
  • Democratic control.

The thrust of the food sovereignty movement is that the control over the food system needs to remain in the hands of farmers, for whom farming is both a way of life and a means of producing food. As of now seven countries (Ecuador, Venezuela, Mali, Bolivia, Nepal, Senegal, Egypt)  have enshrined food sovereignty in their constitution. But the implementation is yet to be seen.

Lessons learned

The three farm laws in India mirror a global trend in the food sector in which corporate interests are taking over food systems and exerting their influence on food and agriculture policies at all levels. In addition, the way the laws were enacted reflects the arrogance of governing elites that they have all the solutions to the problems farming communities are facing. This is grounded on the prevailing notion that farmers are only part of the problem not part of the solution. Those who formulate policies considered agriculture a trading commodity and, perhaps, did not realize there is a cultural element attached to agriculture that needs to be approached delicately.   Farm laws were first introduced through ordinances and then passed through parliament in September 2020 without much debate, let alone having conversations with farmers, farmer unions, state government, and stakeholders. This sparked agitation and brewed mistrust between the government and farming communities. After almost 15 months long agitation PM Modi was compelled to bow down before the protestors confessing he  “could not convince farmers despite good intentions behind the laws.”  Prominent Indian economist Ashok Gulati opines that the government miserably failed to communicate the spirit of the laws to the farmers.  Whatever the justifications for enactment or withdrawal of the laws, this will be recorded as a landmark event in the history of the farmer movement in the world. It has taught lessons not only for India but also it will have far-reaching ripple effects globally.

  •  Persistent opposition to the laws and eventual withdrawal sent a clear message that any future attempts to reform the rural agricultural economy would require a much wider consultation for better design of reforms and wider acceptance. No matter how strong the government is, it cannot impose reforms if genuine democratic process of consultation is not followed. This means government should know how to introduce reform measures, not only what to reform. This entails adopting a consultative, transparent, and better communicated reform process. This is what one of the principles of food sovereignty- democratic control of the food system, refers to.
  • There is power in the collective voice of the weaker section of society, like smallholder farmers; however, it needs patience and persistence to be successful. This victorious protest has bolstered future food sovereignty movements in India and elsewhere.

Farmers’ victory in India lends credence to the food sovereignty movement.  La Via Campesina has celebrated the victory by sending congratulatory messages to alliances and global civil society. The protest has shown that the collective voice of farmers can resist government intervention if thrust against their interests. It can be speculated that the democratization of the reform process would gain traction, and farmers would have a say in shaping their food systems.

Digitalization of Agriculture: The Silver Lining of COVID 19 crisis

As COVID 19 pandemic sweeps across the world, we see a rapid change in the way we interact and do our business. Virtual existence is a new reality as we confine to our homes, do video conferences, facetime with families, zoom with teachers, and approach telemedicine, making social distancing new normal.  Technology is now a lifeline, no more a choice or luxury, even octogenarians use apps for home delivery of their daily necessities. Home delivery is not common only from retailers or groceries; farmers have organized themselves to deliver farm produce to consumers by connecting through digital platforms or mobile devices. Delivery of training packages through digital means has become popular during the lockdown. These adaptations during the crisis give some sense of optimism that resilient communities would emerge out of this horrific pandemic.

Looming Crisis

Corona has not spared any country rich or poor, north or south, first world or third world. The lives and livelihoods of millions is at peril. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) projects that globally over 140 million people could fall into extreme poverty (measured against $1.90 poverty line)  in 2020- an increase of 20% from the present level. This number may go up as we do not know how long it will take the world to return to the situation before corona.  Experts warn the health crisis is turning into a food crisis, which may be even more devastating. Indeed, 2020 will undoubtedly leave an impact for years to come in every aspect of human life.

The return of migrant workers from abroad due to the corona crisis is another nightmare for many developing countries. Governments will have to deal with two immediate challenges: a) increased food security threat due to disruption of the food supply chain; b)  socio-political ramifications of unemployment created due to the economic slow down within the country. Additionally, the return of migrant workers from abroad will have immense pressure on the governments on both fronts, food security, and employment creation. The COVID  will have a differential impact on migration for developed and developing countries. An acute shortage of migrant workers has damaged the food production system of developed countries. There will be a push to find an alternate way of doing farm operations.  The developed countries would eventually accelerate the automation capacities replacing migrant workers.  On the other hand, developing countries would see a decline in the foreign labor market. Governments will have to absorb the large labor force within the country with this shift of global migration dynamics.

The Silver Lining

 Farmers have faced new and unprecedented challenges of lockdown and disruption of the supply chain system. They cannot postpone sowing seeds in their land, unlike canceling a conference or football match. They have to sell their produce amid all odds of the pandemic.

Even though an overwhelmingly bleak situation portrayed by media, anecdotal stories show that farmers have navigated through the difficult time to deliver their produce to the doorsteps of customers using digital platforms in different parts of the world, connecting directly to consumers. Digitalization of agriculture, including the use of mobile technologies and devices, internet, digitally -delivered services, and apps, has been at the forefront of modern agriculture. However, the application of the tools has been at a limited scale in developing countries; only innovators and smart entrepreneurs have been able to benefit from these tools. There are several reasons why developing countries are not able to scale up the adoption of this technology; we will not enter into this discussion here. The forced use of digital technology has intensified the existing trend of digitalization in all walks of life, including farming.  Farmers, instead of relying on market intermediaries to collect their produce, have organized themselves to connect to the consumers.

Similarly, development workers and service providers have made digital platforms means of disseminating technical information and rendering services. Pandemic has taught us those who adapt can survive.  Digitalization has thus stood out as a silver lining of COVID 19.  And,  there is reason to believe that post-COVID agriculture will be an information-based high tech enterprise where youth can see their future.

The Development I Understood: Reflection of my development journey

This is a recollection of my understanding of development as a concept and process since my early childhood days.  My intention here is not to enter a philosophical discourse on the meaning of development; instead, try to show how my understanding of development took different shades in different phases of my life.  

Development as an Object of Free Distribution 

It was around 1962-63 for the first time I heard the word “development” meaning “Bikas” in Nepali when I was in elementary school.  My cousin, after a year-long training in Kathmandu, returned to Bajhang, my home district as Village Development Worker (Gram Bikas Karyakarta).   He was a rural development worker trained to carry out community development activities popularly known as Bikas. He used to talk about new crop varieties (Bikase Jat), chemical fertilizers (Bikase Mal), and agricultural tools (Bikase Aujar). I heard him talking about the distribution of improved seeds and fertilizers. It used to be free back then. I remember him saying all those inputs came from abroad (Videsh). The term Bikas was just becoming popular then. My understanding of Bikas was an act of distributing external inputs free of cost.

Development as a Package of Technology

After high school, my academic training in agriculture, and subsequent work with the government extension system shaped my understanding of development firmly.  I think this builds on my childhood understanding of development as an object of free distribution. My training and organizational orientation focused on changing traditional practices and adopting new technologies developed somewhere else.  It was assumed that conventional methods and practices are inferior and solution to the endemic hunger and poverty is the adoption of modern technology. Agricultural extension tools and methods grounded on diffusion theories primarily focused on the adoption of new practices by changing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of farmers.  This notion of development labeled farmers in general as ignorant while nicely dressed “experts” have all the answers.  Those who do not take the advice were considered “laggards”.  There was little analysis of why farmers say “no” to expert’s advice.  I was conditioned to believe that development will only happen if the package of technology developed by experts is transferred to “ignorant” farmers. Extension workers like me were loud on teaching and persuading the use of pesticides on crops and vegetables, enrich the soil with chemical fertilizers, and change traditional crops with modern varieties.  That was development.   I never thought of the resultant impact of adoption after 20 or 30 years.  Now I realize this was a myopic view of development.

Development as a Complex System

During the 70s, 80s, and early 90s, there was a dominance of systems thinking in the development industry. Agriculture development was conceived as one of the components of a more extensive rural development system, which included other sectors such as roads, drinking water, education, health, etc. It assumed coordination among these sectors is critically important to ensure sectoral success and,  ultimately, the development of communities. Based on this premise, integrated rural development projects (IRDPs) funded by multilateral and bilateral agencies dominated the development landscape. This development thinking subsumed the transfer of institutional blueprints as a precursor for the technology transfer process.  Even within the agriculture sector, systems thinking shaped project development mindset resulting in the design of cropping systems and later farming systems research and extension projects.  I think this was a big shift from viewing development as a linear process to a complex system of interrelationships.  In theory, people are at the center of this interrelationship. As I remember my experience with the World Bank-funded Mahankali Integrated Rural Development Project and Farming system research project in Nepal, I was elated with the new development approach in the beginning. However, I found no difference in the way I was implementing the project. Participation emerged as a buzzword. Attending meetings, joining fairs, carrying out local verification trials were celebrated as beneficiary participation and got space in progress reports.  As I understand participation now, it can be viewed in the continuum as “domestication” at one end where people are conditioned to do what they are told to do to “empowerment” where people make their own life choices at the other end.  I confess I was working in the domestication segment.

Development as a Values-based Holistic Transformation

It was only when I joined Heifer International, and observed communities, I realized I was one of the actors of “development drama” over the past several decades. I now realize the transfer of technology and the introduction of institutional innovation is necessary but not sufficient condition for lasting development. It is not my intention to discredit past work; fantastic things have happened; people have seen a change in their lives in different time and space.  I just want simply to underscore the evolution of my thinking process about development.  In the communities, I visited there has been an unbelievable transformation in the way individuals viewed their lives. The communities trapped in the dark cloud of “hopelessness” have started to see the light of “hopefulness”. The communities subjected to an intergenerational unacceptable chain of social discrimination have witnessed a rising tide of “silent revolution” breaking those chains by fostering solidarity and social harmony in the community. This transformation was possible with the unconventional approach of working with the communities. This approach is values-based holistic community development grounded on the premise that unleashing human potential is a prerequisite for socio-economic transformation.  This means human development needs to be seen from physical (relates to the quality of life), mental (relates to knowledge, skills, education), spiritual (related to values, beliefs, ethics), social (harmonious relationships), and ecological (relates to connectedness with ecosystem) perspectives.  Holistic development in these five dimensions unleashes human potential triggering transformational change. When this change process is guided by positive values ingrained in the communities, “development” becomes an organic upward spiraling process. I think this process leads to the realization of genuine development. My mission towards this genuine development through values-based holistic community development continues.