Dovetailing agricultural extension and poverty alleviation: opportunities in Vietnam

Reform of agricultural extension is on the agenda across the world. As markets become more integrated, what are the constraints and opportunities for pro-poor extension? Should extension services focus on traditional activities or seek to maximise export potential? Does one–size-fit-all or should the poor be specifically targeted?

An Overseas Development Institute paper suggests how Vietnam’s agricultural extension services can meet the needs of vulnerable groups. It argues for a two-tier approach to extension to protect the poor, finding much to applaud in a system characterised by a strong government role in encouraging community participation and co-ordinating a range of state, farmer and community organisations.

Many rural Vietnamese are climbing out of poverty as rice paddy production rises and animal husbandry, particularly pig raising, responds to rising local demand for meat. Extension services, land reform and price liberalisation have all boosted these traditional bases of the rural economy.

The report draws attention to vulnerable groups – ethnic minorities in the mountain areas, people in regions prone to floods and drought, those dependent on export production and workers laid-off by state-owned enterprises – that would require more adequate attention in extension services.

In mountain areas, policies to encourage a move from shifting to fixed cultivation and settlement have been problematic. Extension agents have insufficient knowledge of local production systems and often lack the kind of intimate contact they have with ethnic Vietnamese rice-growers. In minority areas, organisational linkages to the district services are less developed, along with the communication of demand and provision of services.

In a nation with a strong ideological commitment to poverty alleviation, policy-makers are working towards a system combining cost-sharing of extension services for commercial production with subsidised services in remote areas. An informal two-tier system, in which extension staff boost incomes by providing commercial services to those prepared to pay is developing informally, especially in southern Vietnam.

The report finds that high education levels, a culture of participation and a relatively equal land distribution, except in the south offer room for optimism. However, on a cautionary note, it warns that:

• Households exhorted by extension agents to focus on export production, like sugar and coffee, have been badly hit by slumps in world market prices.
• Extension messages often concentrate on strategies for income generation which require resources and knowledge not available to the poor.
• In many lowland and midland communities, where the poor are in a minority, the poor tend to have limited social capital and may experience difficulties in having their voices heard, accessing official credit and getting invited to participate in extension activities.

The paper accepts that commercialisation of extension services, cost recovery and increased private sector involvement is needed to stimulate technological development. But policy-makers must not lose sight of opportunities for pro-poor extension. The report urges them to give increased attention to the following:

• Technologies alone cannot make a difference to the poor.
• More needs to be done to strengthen the bargaining power of the poor in relation to service and input providers.
• Education, extension and provision of credit would benefit from being combined, especially for ethnic minorities who lack the numeracy and language skills to access available services.
• In mountain areas, tackling food insecurity should take priority over encouraging production for the market.

Source(s):
‘Extension, poverty and vulnerability in Vietnam: Country Study for the Neuchâtel Initiative’ by Malin Beckman, Working Paper 152, Overseas Development Institute, July 2001 Full document.
‘Living with the Floods. Coping and Adaptation Strategies of Households and Local Institutions in Central Vietnam’, Stockholm Environment Institute, by Malin Beckman, Le Van An and Le Quang Bao, 2002 Full document.

Funded by: DFID and Sida

id21 Research Highlight: 28 August 2002

Further Information:
Malin Beckman
Department of Rural Development
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
PO Box 70005
5-75007 Uppsala
Sweden

Contact the contributor: malin.beckman@lbutv.slu.se

Department of Rural Development, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Overseas Development Institute
111 Westminster Bridge Road
London SE1 5JD, UK

Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300
Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399
Contact the contributor: j.farrington@odi.org.uk

Overseas Development Institute, UK

Other related links:
'Agricultural innovation: best left to the private sector?'

'Better farming techniques? Alternatives to extension in South Africa'

'The impact of agricultural extension on farm production in resettlement areas of Zimbabwe'

'Financing the future: options for agricultural research and extension in Sub-Saharan Africa'

'Putting process into practice: operationalising participatory extension' from AGREN