Organization and Performance of Cotton Sectors in Africa ... - infoDev

Improvements in the Delivery of Extension Services and Technical AssistanceThis study has shown that some sector types can provide reasonable, basic extensionservices (covering simple but fundamental agronomic messages and perhapssupport for animal traction investment) to farmers. Traditional singlechannelsystems, which directly or indirectly provide extension services to allcotton growers, delivered remarkable results until the mid-1980s. However, suchsystems have since exhibited decreasing effectiveness and efficiency as the cottoncompanies concerned have grown larger; have not been under any competitivepressure; and, in some cases, have become more politicized. Concentrated sectorsin Zambia and Zimbabwe have delivered reasonable extension support to farmers,while local monopolies can (but do not necessarily) invest in extension. TheZambian example is instructive—donor assistance was used to dramaticallyscale-up the level of technical support provided by the main company. 89 In contrast,competitive systems are struggling to deliver extension services at all. Withcompetitive systems, even the provision of basic agronomic messages mayrequire some degree of public support (from local governments or donors, ideallyin conjunction with both the cotton board and ginners’ association).In all systems, there are wider issues that the cotton sector alone is unlikelyto be able to address adequately, although it will be a beneficiary when progressis made. Soil fertility management is a long-term challenge with benefits thatextend well beyond cotton. Promotion of safe chemical application and integratedpest management are also sufficiently long-term endeavors that they arelikely to suffer from free-riding by cotton companies, except those in securemonopoly arrangements. 90 Local monopoly systems may be the only ones inwhich companies have adequate incentives to invest in the development oflocally adapted fertilizer recommendations (a particular issue in WCA, giventhe high share of gross cotton revenue that is expended on input). In addition,particularly now that former parastatals have been freed from their responsibilitiesto promote broadly based rural development in cotton areas, cottoncompanies may find it too costly to support animal traction investment byfarmers other than the medium-high performing ones (who already deliverquantities of seed cotton that make them creditworthy and able to pay offlumpy investments in reasonable time). For poorer farmers, acquisition of animaltraction assets is likely to be part of a longer-term process of asset accumulation(including better soil fertility management) in which livestock ofvarious forms play a central role. This subject links to a final area in which cottoncompanies have few, if any, incentives to contribute: developing alternative(agricultural and nonagricultural) income-earning opportunities for householdsin cotton areas that are unlikely to benefit from any of the above. In all ofthese areas, some public role beyond the cotton industry (national extension orlocal government program, with possible donor support) can be envisaged. Inmost of these cases, however, working with the cotton industry will enhance theefficiency and effectiveness of the efforts undertaken.CONCLUSIONS 169