Content uploaded by Hamid El Bilali
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hamid El Bilali on Apr 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Role of Extension Services in Promoting Multifunctional Agriculture
and Integrated Rural Development in Serbia
S. Jankovic
1
, J. Kuzevski
1
, N. Tolimir
1
, S. Berjan
2*
, H. El Bilali
3
, R. Capone
3
, V. Tomic
1
1
Institute for Science Application in Agriculture, Bul. Despota Stefana 68b, Belgrade
11000, Serbia
2
Faculty of Agriculture, University of East Sarajevo, Vuka Karadzica 30, East Sarajevo
71123, Bosnia and Herzegovina; *E-mail: sinisaberjan@yahoo.com
3
Department
of Sustainable Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; Mediterranean
Agronomic Institute of Bari (CIHEAM–MAIB), via Ceglie 9, Valenzano 70010, Bari,
Italy
ABSTRACT
Agriculture still plays an important socio-economic role in Serbia. A large share of
the Serbian population lives in rural areas. Therefore, agricultural and rural development
(ARD) is of paramount importance for the sustainable development of the country.
Agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS) are a pillar and a building block of
any strategy for ARD. The paper aims at analysing agricultural advisory and extension
services of Serbia, with a special focus on their role in promoting agriculture
multifunctionality and integrated rural development. The work provides an overview on
Serbian agricultural advisory system’s historical development; organizational structure;
human and financial resources; field advisory methods used to meet the needs of the
different clients and service users; communication methods and media; as well as
monitoring and evaluation activities. The paper is based on an extended review of
secondary data from different sources as well as primary data collected by questionnaires
performed – by extension agents in February 2013 with 99 rural people - in Užice and
Čačak (central Serbia), Loznica (western Serbia) and Vranje (south-eastern Serbia). The
questionnaires dealt, among others, with access of rural people to and their satisfaction
with the services provided by AEAS. A special attention was devoted to services
regarding the off-farm sector and rural development i.e. beyond crop production and
animal husbandry activities. The biophysical and socio-cultural diversity of Serbian rural
areas as well as the increasing diversification of the rural economy represents a challenge
that AEAS have been trying to address through the modernisation of their extension
approaches and communication media as well as the diversification and decentralisation
of their services. Nevertheless, there are still some weaknesses that should be properly
overcome in order to move towards a rural innovation system that prepares Serbian
agriculture and rural areas to the European Union’s accession.
Keywords: extension, rural development, multifunctionality, Serbia
INTRODUCTION
Serbia is characterised by favourable natural conditions, land resources and climate
resulting in a high diversity of agricultural production. The share of agricultural land in
total territory is 66 % i.e. about 5.1 million hectares (Bogdanov and Bozić 2010). Primary
2
production from agriculture, hunting, forestry and fisheries accounted for over 10% of the
gross domestic product (GDP) in 2009 (EC 2011). Livestock production accounts for
about one-third of the value of agriculture (Bogdanov and Bozić 2010). The share of the
food, beverage and tobacco industry in GDP is 5.5% on average (Bogdanov and Bozić
2010). Agricultural exports contributed about 24% of total Serbian exports in 2009 (EC
2011).
In Serbia, “rural area” is defined as an area, whose main physical and geographical
characteristic is the primary use of the land for agriculture and forestry. According to this
definition, about 70% of Serbia can be subsumed under the rural areas. In these areas
lives about 43% of the total population (RDNS 2010). Around a third of the active
population depends at least partly on agriculture for their livelihood (EC 2011). In rural
areas more than 45% of the active population is employed in agriculture, forestry, hunting
and fishing (Stevanović et al. 2005).
Many structural problems and constraints hinders agricultural and rural
development in Serbia (Table 1).
Table 1. Main problems faced by Serbian farmers and rural dwellers.
Problems in agriculture sector Problems in rural areas
Inadequate levels of investment
Low inputs
Inadequate technology
Difficult access to credit
Use of uncertified seeds
Low yields and productivity
Increased imports
Fragmented and complex farm structure
(i.e. small agricultural holdings and plots)
Outdated mechanization
High production costs
Declining number of agricultural holdings
Intensive migration
Low levels of economic diversification
High unemployment and lack of job
opportunities
Inefficient service delivery
Difficult access to credit for investment
and support services
Weak market infrastructure
Underdeveloped institutional (social
welfare, education) and physical
infrastructure
Source: Adapted from European Integration Office-Serbia 2011; Arcotrass et al. 2006;
Bogdanov and Bozić 2010; Jankovic S. pers. commun.
Agricultural and rural development (ARD) is of paramount importance for the
sustainable development of Serbia. Agricultural extension and advisory services (AEAS)
are a pillar of any strategy for ARD. One can simply say that “extension is getting
knowledge to farmers so that they will make a positive change” (USAID 2012). Advisory
service is commonly used as an alternate term for extension services. Apart from their
conventional function of providing knowledge and technology to improve agricultural
productivity, agricultural advisory services are also expected to link farmers to markets,
promote sustainable production techniques, etc. (Swanson and Rajalahti 2010).
Good extension is recognized as a key to agricultural development. Agricultural
extension is the defining metaphor for all technology transfer activities and models. For
extension to be successful, it needs to include credible content, effective delivery and be
relevant to and applicable by clients (USAID 2012).
Generally speaking, the performance of the agricultural extension system is
strongly correlated to that of the research, development, education (formal, non-formal
3
and informal) and training (including vocational training) systems. The Agricultural
Knowledge and Information System (AKIS) model (Röling 1996; Engel 1997) describes
how knowledge generation functions, and how it is disseminated and applied. The actors
at the knowledge policy level are the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministries of
Science and Education. The knowledge generation level encompasses research institutes
and institutes of higher education (FAO 2011).
The paper aims at analyzing extension and advisory services in Serbia and at
exploring their contribution to sustainable agricultural and rural development.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The paper is based on an extensive review of secondary data as well as primary
data collected by questionnaires performed - by extension agents in February 2013 with
99 rural people - in Užice and Čačak (central Serbia), Loznica (western Serbia) and
Vranje (south-eastern Serbia). Taking into consideration the livelihood strategies of the
interviewed households, about two thirds can be classified as agricultural (68.7%) while
the remaining can be considered as non-agricultural or mixed.
Secondary data were collected from different sources such as the FAO Regional
Office for Europe and Central Asia; the European Commission (EC); USAID; Arcotrass
GmbH; Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe
(IAMO); the European Integration Office of the Republic of Serbia; the Rural
Development Network of Serbia (RDNS); the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (IBRD); etc.
The work provides an overview on Serbian agricultural advisory system’s historical
development; organizational structure; human and financial resources; field advisory
methods; communication methods and media; as well as monitoring and evaluation
activities.
Questionnaires dealt, among others, with access of rural people to services provided
by AEAS. A special attention was devoted to services regarding the off-farm sector and
rural development.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Serbia has a comprehensive agricultural education system, which is organized
through a number of agricultural schools and university faculties. The whole system is
under the authority of the Ministry of Education, which is responsible for the design and
the implementation of the curricula (Arcotrass et al. 2006). Secondary schools provide
basic agricultural knowledge but course are little practice oriented. Agricultural faculties
(e.g. Belgrade, Novi Sad, Cacak) provide comprehensive and multidisciplinary
agricultural studies.
In the Western Balkans, current agricultural extension structures have been
developed mainly within the last two decades with the help of international donors (FAO
2011). Serbia is an exception as agricultural extension service started its initial
development during the 50s of the last century. In fact, in the period 1953-1960 was sat
up a network of agricultural stations. During this period was formed the Centre for the
Improvement of Agricultural Production and the Department of Livestock Breeding
(Zivkovic et al. 2009). Nowadays, the legal successor of the Centre and the Institute is the
Institute for Science Application in Agriculture.
4
As for the institutional setup of public extension, Serbia has a national structure
with direct field branches at the regional level. These cover a number of municipalities.
The network of professional extension services in Serbia is coordinated by the Institute
for Application of Science in Agriculture, which is under the auspices of the Ministry of
Science. About 231 field advisors and administration staff are employed by the Serbian
public extension. Agricultural extension and advisory system in Serbia is composed by
public extension and private advisory services.
The development of advisory services in the Western Balkans started after the years
of crisis and war with the strong support of international donor projects. Donor projects
are still active at national level in Serbia (i.e. World Bank project). The common strategy
of all donor projects was to establish and support advisory structures (public and private)
in order to select and train advisors and to provide them with the necessary tools and
materials for their everyday work. In almost all cases the establishment of potentially
workable extension structures can be called successful. Extension agents have been
provided with a sound base of technical (and partially methodological) knowledge and
skills, before being left on their own (FAO 2011).
Support for public services in agriculture (e.g. extension service, veterinary and
phytosanitary services, etc.) in Serbia is provided but the share of agricultural budgetary
funds dedicated to these services is small (Volk 2010). Within the general services sector,
the greatest proportion of support funds is directed to extension services or to financing
agricultural expert service (34-56 %) (Bogdanov and Bozić 2010; Arcotrass et al. 2006).
Extension organisations emerged from the former extension systems for state
owned and individual farms. The majority of the field staff within the system are
agricultural experts from the former system. In fact, the majority of advisors are over 40
years. This strengthens two biases: the strong focus that is still directed towards
production techniques and the relative preference given to large farms with respect to
small and medium holdings (FAO 2011).
Serbian public agricultural extension is mainly addressed to commercial family
farms and lesser attention is paid to small producers. Usually, small producers must go by
themselves to ask for advice. Moreover, extension agents prefer, generally, to work with
farmers with whom the cooperation is easier, who are more interested in extension
support and who have more financial means to put into practice their production and
management advice (Petrović et al. 2009).
Almost all the interviewed households (94.9%) use services provided by extension
service. Surprisingly, all non-agricultural and mixed households use extension services
while only 92.6% of agricultural households do. That may be explained by the fact that
livelihood diversification means engaging in activities that are more knowledge-intensive
and for which information support is more necessary with respect to the traditional crop
production activities.
Only about a half of the interviewees (56.6%) declared that they need extension
agents advice. This relatively low percentage may be due to the fact that some
interviewees are not knowledgeable and well informed about the advisory services
provided by the public extension and/or that they do not consider support provided so
helpful for solving problems they face. That is particularly the case regarding non-
agricultural households.
Advice needed differ according to the household type. Agricultural households
need mainly advice on the following issues: animal health, cooperative establishment,
animal husbandry, fruit growing, subsidies programmes, production and processing of
5
agricultural products, plant protection, logistic issues, infrastructure, access to market, and
legal issues. Mixed households needs in terms of advice regard mainly fruit pruning, plant
protection, animal health, organic production and agricultural products processing.
Apart from extension services, the interviewed households rely on different
agricultural information sources. However, the most important ones are TV, Radio and
the internet (Fig. 1). Some of the interviewees mentioned also agricultural institutes such
as Zemun Polje and Novi Sad.
4.0%
1.0%
1.0%
4.0%
5.1%
6.1%
9.1%
13.1%
20.2%
25.2%
28.2%
No answer
Agricultural institutes
Buyers
Visits to other agricultural producers
Seminars
Expert books
Dialogue with neighbours
Newspapers
Internet
Radio
TV
Fig. 1. Main sources of information used by the interviewed agricultural producers and
rural dwellers.
Approach to farm families is based mainly on individual contacts (sample farmer).
Direct display methods include demonstration plots, field visits, field days and
workshops. Extension workers also organise public lectures. Different media are used in
information dissemination such as leaflets, brochures, Radio, TV and the internet.
The weaknesses of the present public advisory systems are most obvious when we
look at advice to farm families and on farm management. Extension for integrated farm
development is not covered by public extension in the region. Advisors in the public
systems do not have the time, means and/or the training for it. What are missing are skills
in the socio-economic assessment of farms, in the calculation of profitability of
investments, risk assessments and in the management of farm development projects.
However, as for the gross margin calculation, the Serbian Institute for Science
Application in Agriculture (ISAA) went a step ahead in the few last years with a project
to provide reliable average figures on production gross margins.
Most Western Balkan countries started to develop an information system on
markets, but are not able to fully implement it. This is partially due to the scarcity of staff
or to conceptual mismatches meaning that information reaches the farmers only by
chance and often much too late. Serbia is a step ahead in terms of a working data
collection, interpretation and publishing system.
As for linkages of the advisory services with other actors in the AKIS, public
extension has an intensive cooperation with applied research institutions. Moreover,
extension stations do applied research themselves. There is a regular cooperation with
6
universities especially in Vojvodina, where a university department developed and
implements an extension monitoring system in the autonomous province.
Most stakeholders in the Western Balkans do not yet understand the concept of
rural regional development as integrating the social, economic and environmental
development of a region including the creation and strengthening of regional value added
chains. However, there are NGOs that are going in this direction and there are individual
public advisors who support farmers’ associations in their efforts for processing and
marketing their produces. Serbia went a step ahead with the creation of regional
development offices, staffed by NGOs and with a mandate to identify potential for rural
development and to support regional processes accordingly.
Extension agents provide information and advice on national subsidy programs.
Nevertheless, according to FAO (2011), the Serbian public extension provides farmers
and rural dwellers only partially with information and support on rural and agriculture
tourism. However, Serbian extension services recently started providing information on
national and international rural development programs by the initiation of Rural
Development Offices. As a matter of fact, most of the interviewees (89.9%) consider that
they are enough or well informed about programs of state help for agriculture and rural
development. Mixed households seem having the best access to information on subsidies
programmes as 92.7 of them consider that they have enough information. Rural
Development Offices and individual municipal advisors provide also support for the
initiation of processing and marketing associations.
Until 2010 no systematic training was on offer for Serbian field advisors. The
ISAA performed practical training courses to extension agents but they were not regular
and to a large extent production technology oriented. The Serbian Transitional
Agriculture Reform project (STAR) takes up training activities in 2010 preparing for the
provision of an advisor training program. The Institute for Science Application in
Agriculture started educational activities of extension agents – with the support of World
Bank project and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management of Serbia
– and become a national training and support institute for agricultural advisory services.
As of 2011 (FAO 2011), Serbian extension agents needed training sessions mainly
on the following issues: extension methodology; farm economy, farm management and
whole farm development; marketing, market development and value chains; national rules
and regulations; EU regulations relating to production, marketing and product quality;
supporting farmer groups and associations; specific computer programs; and foreign
languages. The Institute for Science Application in Agriculture (ISAA) started in 2010
training activities dealing with most of these issues in the whole country.
Monitoring of advisory work is fairly advanced in Serbia, having a considerable
database on advisors’ activities, farmers’ needs and the results of on-farm research.
However, monitoring is more about examining the activities of advisors than
documenting the impacts of advisory work. Moreover, the data that is collected is not
used to its full potential for supporting the advisory system management (FAO 2011).
Serbia has many best practices that can be shared with neighbouring countries.
Examples of this include (FAO 2011): the development of a training institution, the
functioning of a market information service, and the functioning of a monitoring system
as a steering instrument for extension management. Nevertheless, Serbian extension
services face many problems in dealing with producers as well as finance, management,
technical support problems, overload with non-extension activities, low number of
extension agents, etc. (Petrović et al. 2009).
7
CONCLUSION
Serbian rural areas diversity as well as the increasing diversification of the rural
economy represents a challenge for agricultural advisory services. Moreover, advisory
services face many financial, management and technical problems. Funds available for
field-level extension activities and in-service training courses for the extension staff are
limited. Given the high exposure of Serbian agricultural producers and rural entrepreneurs
to TV, radio and the Internet extension services should consider relying more on these
communication media for disseminating agricultural- and rural-related knowledge,
information and advice. Moreover, public extension should pay more attention to
thematic issues that are just partially served by the current extension system such as non-
farm income-generating activities and farming system management skills. The
programme for continuous training of field advisors should be strengthened and
upgraded.
All in all, higher attention should be paid to supporting Serbian extension and
advisory services to allow them to assume fully their role in the promotion of rural
innovation, diversification, multifunctionality and sustainability. The need for supporting
Serbian agricultural advisory services is significant bearing in mind the institutional
weakness of the sector and the technical and technological unpreparedness of farmers and
rural people to meet complex requirements associated with agricultural and rural policy
reform needed to align the agricultural and rural development policy and practice in
Serbia with the European acquis.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Authors would like to thank all extension agents that conducted the face-to-face
structured interviews and all agricultural producers and rural entrepreneurs that
participated in the field survey. Special thanks go to the Institute for Science Application
in Agriculture (ISAA) that provided logistic and organisational support and the staff of
the ISAA that provided valuable comments and feedback.
LITERATURE CITED
Arcotrass et al. (2006) Study on the state of agriculture in five applicant countries: Serbia country
report. Study undertaken by Arcotrass GmbH (Germany), in association with Vakakis
International SA (Greece), EuroCare GmbH (Germany) and AKI (Hungary).
Bogdanov N, Bozić D (2010) Review of agriculture and agricultural policy in Serbia. In
Agriculture in the Western Balkan Countries (Volk T. ed.). Leibniz Institute of Agricultural
Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), Halle.
EC (2011) Serbia - Agriculture and Enlargement. European Commission (EC), Brussels.
Available online at:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/enlargement/countries/serbia/profile_en.pdf
Engel P (1997) The social organization of innovation. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam.
European Integration Office-Serbia (2011) Needs of the Republic of Serbia for International
Assistance in the Period 2011-2013. European Integration Office, Government of the
Republic of Serbia, Belgrade. Available online at:
http://www.evropa.gov.rs/Documents/Home/DACU/12/74/NAD%20final%20eng.pdf
FAO (2011) Assessment of the human capacity development needs for, and gaps in, the
agricultural advisory services in Western Balkans. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations; Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia; Budapest.
8
Petrović Ž, Janković D, Čikić J (2009) Problems in the extension work and farmers’ needs in
Serbia. Proceedings of the 113th EAAE Seminar “The role of knowledge, innovation and
human capital in multifunctional agriculture and territorial rural development”; December 9-
11, 2009; Belgrade,.
RDNS (2010) Action Plan 2011-2015. Rural Development Network of Serbia (RDNS). Available
online at: http://www.ruralinfoserbia.rs/dokumenta/action plan 2011 - 2015 - rural
development network of serbia.pdf
Röling N (1996) Towards an interactive agricultural science. Journal of Agricultural Education
and Extension, 2/4, pp. 35-48.
Stevanović D, Jelić S, Jovanović T (2005) Socio-demographical structure of population in Serbia.
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade.
Swanson B, Rajalahti R (2010) Strengthening agricultural extension and advisory systems:
procedures for assessing, transforming, and evaluating extension systems. Agriculture and
Rural Development Discussion Paper 45. The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, Washington D.C.
USAID (2012) Expert Consultation on the G8 New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition ICT
Extension Challenge. October 11-12, 2012; Final report. Washington D.C..
Volk T, ed. (2010) Agriculture in the Western Balkan Countries. Studies on the Agricultural and
Food Sector in Central and Eastern Europe; volume 57; Leibniz Institute of Agricultural
Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), Halle. ISBN 978-3-938584-51-4.
Živković D, Jelić S, Rajić Z (2009) Agricultural extension service in the function of rural
development. Thematic proceedings: “The role of knowledge, innovation and human capital
in multifunctional agriculture and territorial rural development”, 113th seminar of the EAAE,
9-11 December 2009, Belgrade. pp. 517-524.
