News > Yap on Efficiency of Rice Production: Some Critical Observations

Yap on Efficiency of Rice Production:
Some Critical Observations

22 May 2008
Manuel F. Bonifacio*

In a television interview granted by Secretary Yap recently on what DA will do to solve the present rice crisis, he said, among others, that rice production must be efficient. In more ways than one, this statement really brought home the real issue facing our agriculture and not only rice production but production in general -- how to make production more efficient. Although the term efficiency has its own reference point, a dictionary meaning will suffice to meet the intentions of this paper. It is taken from Dictionary.com, efficiency is defined as: 1) the ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system. 2) Skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort. In other words, efficiency is viewed in term of performance effectiveness.

It seems that even though the term efficiency has not been deliberately attached to the process of technology transfer; the presumption is when it is transferred to meet production requirements, output will increase. It is taken for granted that technology can work wonders to increase the output of agriculture.

This is the main reason why AFMA although it wrongly treated technology, advocated that the modernization of agriculture must technology-driven rather than resource-driven. Despite the many negative lessons learned from the failures of technology transfer, there appears to be an unwavering drive to advocate the adoption of technologies to make agriculture efficient. In fact, it has been said that agriculture must be infused with more science. There is no need to belabor the fact that, indeed, technology is critical to production efficiency and putting more science into it, is an imperative.

If we are not mistaken, the same focal orientation will be the basis in solving our present rice crisis. More science and technology must be put in place to turn around our present rice crisis. It must be recognized, however, that the concept efficiency is broader than technology transfer. There is a need to deconstruct the statement of Secretary Yap. What does it mean to make rice production more efficient and what will it take to make it more efficient? It may not be a gross mistake to label agriculture, in general, as inefficient.

It is paradoxical that while the Philippines is the training ground for the best agricultural scientist in the region and yet, it seems that our scientists have not made full impact on meeting the requirements of our own agricultural development. It may be the most opportune time to take a look at the concept efficiency and what are its main requirements. Perhaps some of the inherent difficulties in situating the concept efficiency are linked to the failure to put it in its most appropriate context.

In the case of agriculture, efficiency is best situated in the concept farm management. To understand the concept efficiency it is best to examine it from the point of view of the overall management of the farm. This is the most appropriate context and the concept is rendered meaningful from the point of view of management.

When taken in this manner, the issue of efficiency is no longer difficult to define, put in context and therefore, rendered meaningful. In general, there is a ready agreement that efficient management of production includes what is known in management as PPBME, i.e. planning, programming, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation. This is obviously known to most people. However, what is omitted, at times, is the fact that these factors are complementary and inter-connected.

The synergistic effect of their complementation is the best indicator of efficiency. Thus, when activity coordination is high then complementation is effective. This creates the right synergy to reduce redundancies and therefore, the activity is cost-effective. This well-known in agricultural planning and yet it is fair to ask the question as to whether this is strictly followed in agricultural planning.

Perhaps the answers to this question are the three remarks recently made by Secretary Yap that 1) we have to make agriculture business; 2) adoption of an efficient business plan; and, 3) raise the performance efficiency of production. In view of this, the planning of agriculture cannot be other than holistic and systems-oriented.

It is, therefore, rather easy to understand the failure of technology transfer. It failed to utilize the holistic and systems approach in the design and transfer process. In fact, this is the inherent overall weakness of agriculture planning process. It has been and is presently commodity-focused activity. This is reflected in the case of technology transfer and the idea of technology-driven agriculture. The understanding and use of the concept efficiency cannot be viewed in isolation; to do so, will only lead to systems inefficiency.

What then is the hallmark of efficiency in agriculture production? This question must be placed in its more appropriate context, i.e., a framework. How does one visualize agricultural production system from a holistic perspective? In other words, what would constitute the overall landscape of agriculture development? In general, it has five major components and these are: social, technical, economic, environmental and political (S T E E P). It must be duly recognized that these components are interactive and complementary. When taken is this manner, one can readily detect the inherent weakness of agricultural planning and this is, its failure to fully take into consideration political issues most especially at the local level. The political classification of municipalities has major implications to agricultural planning. Recent interest in conservation activities in agriculture appears to be mainly focused on land management issues. Take note however, that matters related to land are highly politically charged concerns. The impression one gets from these interventions and similar others is that they are fragmented and do not operate on the basis of a framework. In this approach, one cannot see the overall landscape of production in its holistic and system oriented design.

It must be mentioned that agriculture development is action oriented viewed in terms of an organized activity of a community. It has its own culture and tradition. Hence, it is important to see how agricultural production is being carried out by the community. Any intervention to be implemented must be proactive in orientation. Instead of viewing production negatively, the point of entry must be based on the action being carried by the community.

The intervention must not be linear in orientation but must be multi-dimensional in nature where improvement, innovation and change are taken simultaneously. In the long term, the community must be committed to a planning scheme that combines doing the right things and doing things right.

It is clear, therefore, that to raise the efficiency of production is more than a technical issue. It is, in reality, a cultural and an attitudinal issue. This is best captured in the current production practices. In view of the limited access to resources especially those involved in small-scale production, their production attitudes are fatalistic and their value orientation is focused on fate. What is needed is to turn around their production practices from fate to faith. In other words, what is needed to do is this: through the collective action of farmers, their best practices are organized and made complementary to attain higher level of efficiency.

This is truly beginning from where they are and with what they have. The approach is actually one of confidence-building. The beginning of a new consciousness will emerge from this confidence-building. This will be a realization of their collective strength and this will be used for creating a new center of efficiency in the community. It should be noted that the approach being suggested here is not to begin from a technical intervention as such but from the current practices - best practices of farmers and demonstrating that they can do production better and more efficient!

This approach is important in the sense that it begins from a well-structured social preparation scheme. More than anything else, the farmers must be structurally prepared to embrace new tasks in relation to production. It is at this point, that the support systems must be designed responsive to the new confidence of farmers and that their best practice can be made better.

It is here where research and extension will play their most critical roles. Both must be very sensitive to the needs of the farmers not as individuals but as a community of farmers. Their complementation must be enhanced and therefore, research must be focused on action research - it must be focused on continuous improvement of the production system and as necessary, innovations must be introduced to further enhance the system of best practice. Through action research, technical intervention becomes instrumental in institutionalizing and expanding farmers' best practice and the management of production is therefore streamlined and made more efficient.

In this case, the role of extension becomes very different. It is no longer merely intended to educate farmers and their communities as in case of farm demonstrations focused on technology transfer. It will no longer perform the role of extending knowledge to the farmers. It will adopt a critical perspective on the dynamics of agricultural development. It will be a dominant carrier of farmers' interest, issues, concerns, problems, etc. In other the words, the new extension worker will be steep in his knowledge of the phenomenology of production.

This phenomenological knowledge will be organized based on the framework of resource management. It will be holistic and systems- oriented. There is no other agency that could be more strategic in terms of feedback system than the extension workers who are not only in contact with farmers but are keen observers of farmers' practices. Armed with resource management framework, the extension workers are no longer a bearer of knowledge to farmers but more of an information manager trained in the use of ICT.

Armed with organizational development and management knowledge and skills, the new extension workers will work closely with farmers as an organized group facilitating and enabling them to have access to the best support systems to enhance their production efficiency. With this new orientation toward more efficient production system, the new extension worker will therefore be responsible for the shaping of a new management system with the right attitude through the adoption of a value system geared toward efficiency and these are: Commitment, Responsibility, Accountability, Trust, Efficiency and Discipline (CRATED)

It is through the adoption of these values that the current community of practice of farmers will undergo transformation to be more result orientated and will, therefore, be more efficient.

It is hoped that in the foregoing discourse, it has been demonstrated that the idea of making production efficient cannot be treated in isolation. In must be placed in its most appropriate context and this is resource management. Without any doubt, agriculture must be treated as business and for it to be competitive it must be information-driven and must always undergo rigorous planning programming, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation. This is the only basis of claiming production efficiency.

------------------
* Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City and Senior Technical Consultant of the Management Information System Division of the Bureau of Agricultural Research, Department of Agriculture.