We have a chance to improve NAADS
Aug 29, 2010
IN spite of the recent major milestones in the services and industrial sectors, the agricultural sector remains Uganda’s springboard for economic and national development. As such policy interventions in the agricultural sector generate a lot of enthusiasm and expectations among farmers and stakeh
By Christopher Bukenya
IN spite of the recent major milestones in the services and industrial sectors, the agricultural sector remains Uganda’s springboard for economic and national development. As such policy interventions in the agricultural sector generate a lot of enthusiasm and expectations among farmers and stakeholders at all levels.
The shortcomings and challenges experienced over the years of the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) implementation have tended to overshadow NAADS’ achievements.
This raises the question: Is NAADS a missed opportunity?
At its launch in 2001 the NAADS programme did not only generate enthusiasm and expectations among stakeholders, but was seen by some as ambitious and controversial.
Among the enthusiasts NAADS was expected not only to deliver advisory services, information and technology inputs, but also provide the much desired production inputs like fertilisers and pesticides.
NAADS was also expected to create markets.
Those who looked at NAADS as controversial, believed the banning of the elected political leaders by the NAADS Act from direct involvement in implementation programme was likely to create a problem. This restriction somewhat accounts for instances of ‘bad blood’ between NAADS implementers and the political officials todate.
Yet such tensions were not limited to the politicians and technicians, but also featured at the farmer institution level. The earlier excitement and challenges aside, the real test of NAADS should be on its technical aspects that is design and approach.
NAADS should also be judged based on the actual implementation and performance in terms of the quality of services and actual benefits realised by the farmers.
Assessment of NAADS on these technical grounds and on accomplishment of its mandate has yielded mixed results and reactions.
On a positive note, NAADS has been credited by farmers for improving access to advisory services —— services like grassroots-based communal training sessions and, to a certain extent, technology inputs. These services have empowered farmers to participate and have a say in the procurement of supplies.
Yet NAADS has been criticised for its greater emphasis on advisory services. NAADS has also been criticised for focusing primarily on production-related advisory services and technologies in the earlier years and failure to adequately integrate advisory services with other agricultural support services. Things like inputs and output markets and production credit; as well as failing to be responsive to the farming needs of women and the youth.
In an effort to address some of the earlier shortcomings and challenges cited above, NAADS has undergone several reviews, including the political review backed by a technical review around 2007/08.
These reviews resulted into a greater emphasis on technology inputs, a relatively broader focus of NAADS support, to include value addition and processing activities. The reviews recommended community participation in the NAADS procurement process.
But as stakeholders waited to see the outcome of the above interventions, they were awakened to what had, perhaps, until then been a ‘silent killer’ of NAADS —— the misuse of NAADS funds by the implementers.
Fortunately, within the newly launched National Development, the NAADS programme has been mainstreamed in the Development Strategy and Investment Plan of the agriculture ministry. This gives hope that the programme will benefit from increased political supervision during the implementation of the second phase.
Coming back to the question is NAADS a missed opportunity? In my opinion it is not. As the programme enters into the second phase the following points may offer some way forward.
There is need for NAADS management to consolidate the achievements realised thus far. Achievements in advisory, technology services and farmer empowerment. There is need to strengthen strategies for moving these accomplishments forward.
NAADS implementers at all levels
should ensure the programme is responsive, particularly to the needs of the socially and economically vulnerable groups — women and the youth.
Finally, farmers should stop depending on government programmes and take full responsibility of programmes emphasising demand-driven, farmer-centred planning and top-down accountability.
Lecturer of agricultural extension, Makerere University
IN spite of the recent major milestones in the services and industrial sectors, the agricultural sector remains Uganda’s springboard for economic and national development. As such policy interventions in the agricultural sector generate a lot of enthusiasm and expectations among farmers and stakeholders at all levels.
The shortcomings and challenges experienced over the years of the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) implementation have tended to overshadow NAADS’ achievements.
This raises the question: Is NAADS a missed opportunity?
At its launch in 2001 the NAADS programme did not only generate enthusiasm and expectations among stakeholders, but was seen by some as ambitious and controversial.
Among the enthusiasts NAADS was expected not only to deliver advisory services, information and technology inputs, but also provide the much desired production inputs like fertilisers and pesticides.
NAADS was also expected to create markets.
Those who looked at NAADS as controversial, believed the banning of the elected political leaders by the NAADS Act from direct involvement in implementation programme was likely to create a problem. This restriction somewhat accounts for instances of ‘bad blood’ between NAADS implementers and the political officials todate.
Yet such tensions were not limited to the politicians and technicians, but also featured at the farmer institution level. The earlier excitement and challenges aside, the real test of NAADS should be on its technical aspects that is design and approach.
NAADS should also be judged based on the actual implementation and performance in terms of the quality of services and actual benefits realised by the farmers.
Assessment of NAADS on these technical grounds and on accomplishment of its mandate has yielded mixed results and reactions.
On a positive note, NAADS has been credited by farmers for improving access to advisory services —— services like grassroots-based communal training sessions and, to a certain extent, technology inputs. These services have empowered farmers to participate and have a say in the procurement of supplies.
Yet NAADS has been criticised for its greater emphasis on advisory services. NAADS has also been criticised for focusing primarily on production-related advisory services and technologies in the earlier years and failure to adequately integrate advisory services with other agricultural support services. Things like inputs and output markets and production credit; as well as failing to be responsive to the farming needs of women and the youth.
In an effort to address some of the earlier shortcomings and challenges cited above, NAADS has undergone several reviews, including the political review backed by a technical review around 2007/08.
These reviews resulted into a greater emphasis on technology inputs, a relatively broader focus of NAADS support, to include value addition and processing activities. The reviews recommended community participation in the NAADS procurement process.
But as stakeholders waited to see the outcome of the above interventions, they were awakened to what had, perhaps, until then been a ‘silent killer’ of NAADS —— the misuse of NAADS funds by the implementers.
Fortunately, within the newly launched National Development, the NAADS programme has been mainstreamed in the Development Strategy and Investment Plan of the agriculture ministry. This gives hope that the programme will benefit from increased political supervision during the implementation of the second phase.
Coming back to the question is NAADS a missed opportunity? In my opinion it is not. As the programme enters into the second phase the following points may offer some way forward.
There is need for NAADS management to consolidate the achievements realised thus far. Achievements in advisory, technology services and farmer empowerment. There is need to strengthen strategies for moving these accomplishments forward.
NAADS implementers at all levels
should ensure the programme is responsive, particularly to the needs of the socially and economically vulnerable groups — women and the youth.
Finally, farmers should stop depending on government programmes and take full responsibility of programmes emphasising demand-driven, farmer-centred planning and top-down accountability.
Lecturer of agricultural extension, Makerere University