Today is :

Analysis & Opinion

The roles performed by the Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) in institutionalizing community-based resource management system are duly recognized and acknowledged. Quite a number of these organizations are very active in creating the right environment for the emergence of a new culture of authority - empowerment. Oftentimes, this idea is treated in terms of self-determination through people-based decision-making. While it would be fair to say that most NGOs are cognizant of the value of the role and impact of empowerment, oftentimes, however, the political underpinning of the concept is muted.

It seems that a new interpretation of empowerment is in order to ensure that the right environment for its appreciation and use is in place. The key to the understanding of empowerment is located in the appropriate use of authority. Its use is empowering because it is an instrument to take action that is duly recognized as legitimate and it will lead to a completion of action which is perceived to reduce inequities and injustice in society.

It is duly noted that many NGOs associate empowerment with decision-making. This is correct! It is based on collective agreement which reflects the general need of the community and is arrived at through participatory dialogue. Thus, it is through this process that the decision is made to reflect a sense of ownership. The idea of ownership needs to be expanded since it readily involves three vital psychological processes and these are accountability, responsibility and trust (A R T).

These three processes are easily institutionalized through collective action. It is through this action that the social foundation trust is developed. People, in general, will feel empowered if their collective action is mobilized and organized. In reality, trust is developed through participatory dialogue. Self-confidence emerges through this process. It is likewise true that in active participation, one can reveal and share what one knows, his needs and aspirations. This process allows for the unfolding of self-confidence that what he shares are appreciated and respected and that he can be himself.

It is in building self-confidence that mutual trust is cultivated. Responsibility and accountability are developed only through the building of mutual trust. The process, therefore, is to build self-confidence in order to develop mutual trust. A strong sense of accountability and responsibility will only take place through the building of mutual trust. Hence, trust building is the foundation of empowerment and therefore - responsible action.

From the above description, one can readily see why a number of empowerment activities did not take-off and were not institutionalized since its major focus is on active engagement in advocacy. This is best illustrated by the activist stance in a number of social issues. Demonstration is a good example of this. Yet, what apparently has been missed through the years is how to institutionalize empowerment. It is not merely a tool to get what one wants which one feels he has a right to claim! Or that something must be done immediately to overcome one's impoverished situation. Presently, empowerment is viewed mainly as an instrument to correct and rectify inequities in society. There is no question about this orientation. However this view is too limited and narrow. Hence, it must be corrected.

More than anything else, empowerment is a tool to create new consciousness and new relations in society. In other words, empowerment is transformative, both at the individual and social levels. It is a tool for improvement, innovation and change in the institutional relations in the community. In this sense, empowerment must be taken as a critical process of collectively interpreting existing condition in the community and what people, together, can do about it. It is, in theory and in practice, a case of social activism.

One can, therefore, understand why there is a need to organize the community. It is, however, not being taken that it is not organized. It is, but it can be organized better. As already indicated, empowerment is psychological and social at the same time. These are interactive and reciprocal in nature. It is a process that begins where the people are, what they have, what they can do together, where they want to go and how they want to get there.

The foregoing is best illustrated in agricultural development interventions. Approaches to promote agricultural development are not wanting. Through the years, different approaches have been developed and utilized. Perhaps the most notable are technology transfer and capacity building. Although expectations are high, very often, these interventions have limited impact. The amount of investment in these two interventions strategies through the years is huge.

In many countries, part of spending for agriculture was allotted to enhancing community participation and cooperatives development. Despite this, their impact has also been limited due to the failure of planners to put in the right context what they are trying to achieve. In other words, there is need to unravel the real intent of participation and cooperatives development. In theory and in practice, participation is woven into cooperatives development in the true sense of broadening the democratic space of action. This, however, remains to be achieved. Since this has not been attained, the search for the right approach goes on in research and development. Government programs in these two areas are still being pursued with vigor. This is evident in the current investment of the Department of Agriculture in its rice enhancement program through cooperatives development.

What should be noted as most glaring in these interventions is that through the years, the planners failed to place agriculture-related interventions in their proper context. It failed to recognize the organized nature of agriculture and situate the interventions in such organized activity. Extension activities, in particular, take the individual, groups and communities as its target audiences. Undoubtedly this has to be the case. However, its intervention strategies failed to take agriculture as an organized activity of the community. In other words, any intervention in agriculture has to be placed in the context of an organization and organized activities.

This could be the main reason why oftentimes, an intervention does not begin from an appropriate framework of action. In other words, intervention is individual action oriented that technology adoption is taken to promote higher productivity and improved welfare. These assumptions are defective in form and content. Without giving appropriate attention to the organized nature of production, program intervention will be fragmented; those who are better producers will have better access to services while those at the other end will be further marginalized. Program orientation will be fragmented and impact will be limited.

Hence, it is not difficult to understand why up to now, technology transfer is still a mystery and the search for the right approach is still going on. The two sided nature of technology has not been considered. As it is often the case, only one side is given substantial attention and this is technology as a means to increased production. The other side is the impact of technology on the relations of production. These two are naturally complementary and therefore cannot be separated. To do so, is to invite failure as this has happened through the years.

This is best illustrated in the Agriculture and Fishery Modernization Act (AFMA). Its main organizing principle revolves around the notion that agriculture must be transformed from a resource-based to technology-based industry. This pronouncement, of course, raises many issues and some of which have been tackled in the AFMA evaluation. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the intention is to promote agriculture development that is technology-driven.

When the methodological orientation is framed in this manner, i.e., without putting the technology in its most appropriate context -means and relations of production, the historical problem of technology transfer remains as it is today. Unless the two-sided nature of technology is taken into consideration, the mystery will remain unresolved.

The other side of technology transfer must be given its much needed attention with emphasis on the relations of production. In theory, the emphasis is on the social and not on the psychological. The very fact that emphasis was placed on the relations of production means that it is taken as an organized activity. Obviously, the context of technology transfer cannot be other than the organized nature of agricultural production. If the assumption is placed on the positive impact of technology on production, this, however, cannot materialize if the relations of production are ignored.

This means that production must always be taken as an organized system of farmers. It is only in this way that an appropriate framework can be developed. In the AFMA evaluation, a framework was recommended focused on management. It advocated a resource management framework. This recommendation is very timely and must be given appropriate attention by those involved in agriculture.

In view of its orientation, the framework identified five major resources that must be considered and these are: social, technical, economic, environmental, and political (S T E E P). These are interactive and complementary. Its methodological orientation is focused on management. Hence, the notion of linking technology transfer (means) to the relations of production is now placed in its most appropriate context which includes social (relations), economic, political and environmental. The context of production can be viewed in terms of constraints, opportunities and potentials.

The intervention strategies are focused on improvement, innovation and change. These strategies are interactive and complementary. However, its development bias is to begin from systems improvement to be complemented by innovation and change. In the language of management systems improvement is complemented by systems innovation. It could be taken that in the end the address of the management is systems change. Hence, the point of entry in technology transfer is to consider the natural and historical nature of agriculture as an organized activity of the community.

The other point is related to poverty alleviation and the attention given to small scale farmers especially those who are marginalized. Many efforts are being harnessed to help this sector of agriculture. However there is one critical point that must be considered and this refers to attempts to make their production competitive. The real picture of agriculture today is global competition. There is no question about rising, diversifying and developing alternative production schemes and investing in alternative commodities so that poor farmers can move into the direction of agribusiness development.

The point that has not, at all, been given attention is the fact that they are faced with organized competition in agribusiness - especially from agribusiness conglomerates. They are not only organized but organized as efficient corporate bodies with global operations. They have better access not only to technologies but to the best technologies available anywhere. They are more than capable of investing in new R and D. Moreover, they can readily commission research works that will better position them in the global market of agriculture. Where do we go from here?

As things stand today, there is nowhere to go but to organize the farmers. This becomes all the more urgent based on the pronouncement of Secretary Yap that agriculture is business. In fact, this complemented by a similar pronouncement which states that the farmers must be information sensitive. Embedded in these two pronouncements is the need to organize agriculture as agribusiness. It must be organized and an efficient management system installed. Taken in this light, one can fully appreciate the meaning of making farmers information-sensitive.

In view of the above, agriculture can no longer be viewed other than an organized management system and the issue facing us today is how to mobilize this system for profit and welfare. Hence, the demands of the farmers have become entirely different and complex. This is perhaps the main reason why the DA is moving into an intervention modality based on a unified information system. This is the right direction. It must be noted however, that the installation of a unified information system requires two other unities and these are: 1) unified management system; and 2), unified framework. When agriculture is viewed in this manner all interventions must be based on a unified framework of action.

A unified system orientation to agricultural development is akin to the holistic approach to development. The value of the former lies in calling to mind the interactive and complementary nature of the elements of the system. A new agriculture must be developed emphasizing unity. Over and above all strategies and methods to be used in agricultural development, all actions are dependent on the right RDE. There is a need for a new information system focused on innovative information management. The unified framework must be institutionalized. A more program type research must be developed and supported.

It must be noted that BAR through its two Banner Programs, CPAR and Technology Commercialization has already taken steps to address the unified approach to agribusiness development. A more unified research and development orientation is, therefore, in order.

It is the extension service that needs major attention. It has no choice but to adopt and incorporate into its major activities the resource management framework with strong emphasis on organizational development. Its major extension activities must be focused on agriculture as business and farmers must be made information-sensitive. It must put into practice these operations in order to chart the role of extension in projecting the directions of agribusiness development.

In order to do this, ATI may consider partnering with OPTISERVE, INC. a Consulting Firm actively engaged in systems-based monitoring and evaluation and related information management services. It is instructive to mention at this point that OPTISERVE is completing a two year M /E contract with BAR to monitor the performance of its banner program - CPAR. It is using the resource management framework recommended by AFMA. It is an action-oriented research and development systems which is expected to do four things: 1) collect comprehensive body of information about agriculture as community activity; 2) assess the capacity of the community to make decisions based on the research generated information system; 3) assess the uses of information for agricultural action planning in transcending the stage specific design of CPAR for agribusiness development; and 4), identify key issues requiring further research.

In theory, what OPTISERVE monitored are agriculture related activities that rightly fall into the category of RDE. It must be mentioned that while this is duly acknowledged, initial set of activities were focused on R and D. With the installation of M / E at BAR, the appropriate institutional mechanism for research has been institutionalized and the environment for making farmers information-sensitive has been installed.

The next cycle of activities is intended specifically to design a RDE system focused on Integrated Community-based Information Management System (I C O B I M S) to meet the growing requirements of agribusiness development. This is not equivalent to the so-called One Stop Shop. This will be equivalent to the Internet Café that will house computer network systems which will be used mainly for the exchange of information in agriculture. It will be an important ground breaking activity to institutionalize information-driven agriculture. This is about the best time that the complete turn around in the entire agriculture system is instituted. Integrating RDE will be a landmark contribution in hastening the trajectory of agribusiness. It is through this system that farmers and fisherfolk will be truly sensitized to information for decision-making. Production practices will be integrated to become the basis of creating an innovative management system focused on change. Hence, the process of making the farmer a business person has come of age.