7. The Future
The structural balance of agricultural extension in New Zealand has changed markedly, with the market place now largely determining what extension is provided, by whom and how. For the government, extension is mainly about facilitating the operation of the market place in line with government policy objectives; and for the private sector, it is a matter of commercial benefit to the organisation.
As noted by Walker (1995), this has had a number of outcomes and implications for agricultural extension in New Zealand:
- for farmers and growers seeking information and advice, their ability to do so is now largely determined by their ability to pay;
- the mix of clients for consultants has widened from farmers and growers to include local government, producer organisations, agribusiness, marketing organisations and financiers;
- there is less 1:1 contact between advisors and farmers/growers and such 1:1 contact as still occurs tends to be with larger farmers/clients — larger farms/clients tend to be more profitable, while smaller/individual farms are less attractive due to the relatively higher transaction costs;
- there are differences between sectors, dependent on their profitability and hence ability to pay. This can be counterproductive in an economic downturn as farmers may need increased advice, but cannot afford to pay. The dairy sector, however, continues to be well serviced by its own extension service, regardless of the profitability of dairy farming;
- collaboration between agencies, particularly research agencies, has reduced, resulting in less cross-discipline research and inconsistencies in databases and information distribution systems. Farmers and growers often have to access research information through several CRIs;
- on the other hand, there have been some increases in collaboration and partnerships between agencies involved in extension activities such as the TBG programme, the monitor farm programme between the Meat Research Development Council, the ANZ trading bank , and Agriculture New Zealand Ltd; and the sustainable agriculture focus farms involving MAF Policy, local government, CRIs, agribusiness and local farmers and growers.
The main inconsistency in the current research-extension mix is the question of the communication of publicly funded research. Research is still largely viewed as a public good, and the bulk of CRI funding comes from the State. If the bulk of spending on research and development is seen as a "public good", should the transfer of the information gained also be seen as a public good, i.e., should the state fund the transfer of the information? While much of the application on-farm of research and development has a private benefit, it can be argued that there is also considerable public benefit, especially with respect to research and development on environmental, social and sustainability issues relating to agriculture. This question highlights the difficulty in determining the boundary between public and private goods in many of these cases.
While the CRIs are involved in some technology transfer activities, such as field days, seminars, workshops, etc., much information is written up as scientific papers and not taken further. One difficulty for the CRIs, given their commercial focus, is to capture a commercial return on technology transfer, especially with respect to "whole farm" research and development/extension, and research and development on management systems. It is much easier to sell a discrete product or service than a management concept.
In many respects, the CRIs are still in a state of flux, with many still down-sizing and restructuring internally. Their focus therefore, tends to be more on core research competencies and opportunities. They have been moving their focus towards marketing of information, which could increase in coming years. However, this marketing will emphasise a commercial return, and it is unlikely that they will engage in public information transfer to the extent that some consider desirable on public interest grounds.
In some areas, the private sector is moving to fill the gap left by the removal of the government extension service. Where a government agency, such as MAF Policy, requires an extension effort to facilitate government policy, the model of contracting private sector consultants is well established. The question of an optimum transfer of research information to farmers, its funding and its execution, is unresolved by present structures. The importance of the application of research to agriculture and the wider economy requires that it be addressed urgently.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
