Back and Next - Back and NextTowards food self-sufficiency operational strategies: relevant issues
Friday, August 1, 2008
One of the steps that need to be taken to equip the national farm advisory technicians for the increased demand of their job for generating productivity growth, is a programme that I have outlined as “changing the change agent.”
This is based on the simple assumption that “one cannot teach what one does not know.” Besides competence in subject matter and manipulative skills, a by-product of this approach is actually a new work ethic essential to the farmer’s as well as the nation’s awakened enthusiasm. S. B. Wawa Jaiteh, ‘06.
Objectives of Food Self-Sufficiency Policy
Food self-sufficiency policy can only be formulated on the basis of clearly defined development goals and objectives and in terms of decisions concerning the type and volume of food crops that need to be produced and the resources to be mobilized and deployed. In this context, the production of cereals (digitaria (findo), maize, rice, sorghum) the main constituents of our daily diet plus the sweet potato such as the Centennial, Julian, and Javel varieties which are rich sources of vitamin A, could be considered the package of crops for the attainment of food self-sufficiency.
This production objective can only be facilitated by the provision of institutional support services, consistently applied in all fronts. Self-sufficiency in whatever undertaking and/or form is not a cheap process but, in the final analysis, the end justifies the means.
The food self-sufficiency policy of the country should be guided by a common goal, namely, the desire to exercise greater control over our social, economic and agro-rural development through the promotion of self-reliance, a precondition for meeting the basic material needs of the resource poor smallholder farmer and under-privileged masses.
Policies should address the problem of making available standard recommended varieties and inputs on the one hand and of stimulating the adoption of standard on-farm practices on the other. This implies the effective integration of two main streams: the “input stream”, with its emphasis on the selection and acquisition of the required inputs and their subsequent use; and the “capacity stream”, with its emphasis on the development and promotion of learning and creating capacities.
The output of this interaction is productivity growth which consistently generates surplus production, the basis for poverty reduction as well as the creation of independent and self sustaining communities.
Our emphasis in the past, though challenging and partly productive has, however, not been adequately programmed, because the development and use of recommended varieties, inputs use-rate and use-efficiency, prerequisites to productivity growth and poverty reduction, received only scant attention. The determining objective, therefore, of any food self-sufficiency policy, is to harmonize inputs-use rates, learning and creating capacities.
Attempts at harmonizing these activities need to recognize, however, that the three streams are not independent or mutually exclusive, but rather interactive at different levels. It also be possible to tackle the problems associated with each stream within different time frames. The development of the capacity to control input use-rate and use-efficiency, learning and creating capacities should be accorded determining importance in a targets-based productivity approach.
Beneficiary capacity building should, in this regard, take two cropping seasons under irrigated conditions and two crop years under rainfed conditions. With appropriate planning, these period should be enough to create and stabilize the required productive capacities. Without such capacities, the self-sufficiency policy and the attendant production process aimed at fostering skills development and stabilizing domestic production anchored on the capacity to innovate are likely to be continuously undermined.
This unfortunate scenario is the unintended situation in the food and agriculture sector of sub-Saharan African countries and, hence, their inability for quick response to the current food crisis.
A framework for national action
A framework for national action in the approach to food self-sufficiency consists of four interrelated steps:
(a) a broad consensus on the desired mix of production inputs and the pattern of national production capabilities;
An assessment of the present production capabilities and identification of gaps and shortcomings;
(c) Strategy formulation in terms of policies, programmes and institutions, together with the financial and manpower resources needed for implementation;
A re-assessment of the coherence of ends and means as well as arrangements for coordination and monitoring.
The purpose of the framework is not to present a step-by-step approach to the formulation of a policy specific for food self-sufficiency but to list what might be termed indicative issues. Rather, the purpose is to foster the awareness that food self-sufficiency, like in other self-sufficiency efforts, is a process and that there is continuous need for clarity in the relationship between the end and the means.
The framework is based upon the three essential pillars of policies, programmes and institutions. Policies by themselves can only act like levers or valves that can be used to channel or to cut off the flow of national resources or energies. The specific orientation of resources and energies is conditioned by programmes of action. Institutions are the instruments that formulate and implement policies and programmes. Excessive reliance on any one of these three pillars and/or systematic weakness of any of the three should be avoided.
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Development Options
One of the purposes of multiple objective planning and evaluation in agro-rural development is to provide a systematic framework with which to compare various intervention options or scenarios, with respect to their effect on the goals that society seeks to achieve through productivity growth. The purpose is not to recommend, suggest or imply which scenario or option should or should not be implemented. Rather, the purpose is to illustrate the application of the comparative analysis procedure in multiple objective evaluation for the benefit of the producers and society.
The technical potential for food self-sufficiency can only be translated into practical realization through substantial investment and development, so that the major constraints that apply to both rainfed and irrigated agriculture will need to be considerably reduced. The required measures are the consistent provision of institutional support services, scheduled and supervised on-farm activities, use of recommended drought/salt tolerant high yielding short/medium duration varieties, high input high output (HIHO) production system and religiously adhering to an agreed upon production calendar and on-farm practices that should be detailed in a comprehensive memorandum of understanding (MOU).
From a number of production system possibilities, either singly or in combination, three possible scenarios are initially considered, and considerable analysis was done on them. All of the three scenarios have hidden potentials to contribute to the country’s food self-sufficiency drive, over a target-time frame, using a targets-based production approach.
The scenarios represent similar possibilities for the development of increased food production and productivity, and yet provide a focus for comparing the net benefits of each. These serve to highlight the kinds of issues which planners, decision- and policy-makers must grapple with as a basis for making conclusions. The scenarios are outlined below.
Scenario 1 (Rainfed Production System)
While there are substantial resources of rainfed land (upland, inland swamps, saline mangrove swamps and fresh water swamps), the country cannot generate food self-sufficiency from rainfed production system alone at the current low input low output (LILO) production technology. This ecology is environmentally marginal, with an average reference growing season of less than 120 days and is, essentially, unreliable. The assumption under this scenario is that, if we can consistently adopt medium to high input production technology while cultivating 35% of the country’s 558,000 ha. arable land and producing a targets-based average yield of 2 tons/ha. of upland cereals including rice (plus an average yield of 10 tons/ha. of rice-based vegetable production system), to be supported by a consistently high input exploitation of the existing irrigation perimeters, may lead to a lessening of the year-year production variations and risks and, thus, close the food requirement gap.
Facilitators for scenarios
2 & 3.
Any irrigation plan for the country should be formulated around the concept of controlling salinity in the lower reaches of the Gambia River. Due to lower river flows associated with drought that began in the early 1970s and the extraction of fresh water from the river for irrigation, saline water in the estuary intrudes further upstream during the dry season than had been the case previously, which caused some reduction in rice production, mainly from swamp rice which depended on tidal action of the estuary. A barrage was identified as a possible measure to control the salinity front and to provide fresh water for irrigated agriculture in the lower basin.
A plan for a bridge-barrage at about Balingho/Yellitenda was formulated in an attempt to satisfy the salinity control measure as well as facilitate communication along the TransGambian highway. This was the original plan for the formation of the Gambia River Basin Development Organization (OMVG). However, the very negative environmental consequences of the proposed barrage at this site, created the possibility for the use of the autonomous operation of a site in Kekreti. This is the most environmentally friendly and one of the least cost approaches to achieving self-sufficiency in rice in the country, pending the provision of certain prerequisites.
Scenario 2 (Pump Irrigation System)
Under this scenario, the extent to which the irrigation production system can help the country to achieve rice self-sufficiency would depend on the OMVG putting in place measures for controlling salinity in the lower reaches of the Gambia River. A barrage was identified as a possible measure to control the salinity front and to provide fresh water for irrigation (through pump extraction), up to 24,000 has. in the lower basin. Sometimes in the late 1980s, salinity was felt above Kuntaur due to extensive dry season pump irrigation activities.
The extent to which pump irrigation could help achieve food self-sufficiency in the country would depend on the rate at which farmers invest in irrigation for food crop production, which would depend on the profitability to farmers of the production system and their inclination to do intensive irrigated farming. Double or triple cropping is possible, with average annual yields of 10-12 tons/ha. Indications to date give reason to doubt that this would happen very rapidly without a binding memorandum of understanding (MOU).
It seems likely that, without an MOU supporting a targets-based surplus production approach, most of the food produced would be consumed in the local areas. To the extent that farmers are supervised to produce more than they consume and sell the balance to other consumers, the approach would help to initiate the achievement of self-sufficiency.
Pumping of fresh water from the river for any newly developed pump irrigation perimeter would cause the salt front to move further upstream. As a result of this saline intrusion risk, it has been decided to limit the pump irrigated perimeters to 3000 hectares until a high dam is built by the OMVG that can release adequate water during the dry season for irrigation.
In the face of the spiraling oil prices, this scenario calls for maximum expertise in production planning and water use management, if we are to harvest our unique comparative advantage to enable us produce and sell pump irrigated rice cheaper than any of our importing countries in Asia and Latin America. .
Scenario 3 (Tidal Irrigation system)
More than 35,000 hectares between Dankunku and Jangjangburay has a good potential for tidal irrigation and that, with some certainty, up to 25, 000 hectares could be developed without any serious effect on the salinity front of the Gambia River. Out of this total, about 10 - 15,000 hectares could be conveniently double/triple cropped.
The water requirements of the tidal irrigated areas are minimal. Research has estimated that during the months of June and April following an intensive cultivation system, the salt front would move upstream 2 kms. and 8 kms. respectively, with 15,000 hectares of tidally irrigated rice; whereas with 10,000 hectares of pump-irrigated rice the salt front would advance upstream 50 kms in April and 40 kms in June. Compared with other forms of growing rice, development of tidal irrigation for rice cultivation is attractive on technical grounds (water consumption), as well as on a cost basis (construction cost), and on the operation side (no pumping) as well as on a yield potential basis, between 5 -10 tons/ha/annum.
The way forward and Conclusion
Our national need for productivity growth as a basis for sustainable food self-sufficiency, is constrained by the decline of our institutional infrastructure for agricultural and rural development, which has gone so far that serious doubt must be expressed about our capacity as presently constituted to capture this objective. As a national issue, there is no substitute to learning from experienced people. Even where we are prepared to enter into a salvage, it is not at all clear that the recovery is going to take place.
Whichever scenario, or scenarios, would be considered for initial detailed planning or design, a more precise definition of the extent of the production strategy and a well-thought-out implementation plan for a targets-based approach are needed. The number of hectares to be developed must be planned alongside the fertilizer requirement of 4 to 8 bags per/ha. It will be difficult to challenge farmers who cannot provide their own seeds nor apply more than 20 kilograms of fertilizer per hectare to feed themselves, their families and the nation. This challenge can be facilitated by a consistent and stable institutional support guided by closely supervised on-farm activities.
The short-term proposals outlined during the “launch” of the “Farmer Managed Rice Irrigated Project” made me pessimistic about the ability of our farmers to feed the country. The problem was approached at the farm level. Assuming that, from 60 to 75 percent of the population of the country are farmers.
The primary goal of the average farmer is to feed his family well. If the farmer can be supervised on a targets-based approach to produce enough food to feed his family well and sell the balance, the national problem would be about 60 to 75 percent solved! If the farmer can then be closely supported and supervised to produce enough surplus food for one more household (assumed to be 8) and for market supply, the food problem as well as that of poverty reduction, export promotion, rural employment, national food security and the empowerment of the farmers of the country would be solved.
From a national cereal based diet of 175 kilograms per capita, this does not seem such a difficult goal for a targets-based production approach consistently supported and supervised on all fronts, to capture. The implicit assumption here is that, production intensification should be the operational norm in all the production perimeters (tidal as well as rehabilitated pump irrigated perimeters) to be supported by a consistent rice based cropping system in the transition zones (inland swamps), with special emphasis in the Western Region.
Many are concerned about the “protein gap” and are pessimistic about the possibilities for closing it by conventional agricultural techniques. I share their concern about the seriousness of the “protein gap” especially among nursing mothers, infants and children.
In view of my experience with protein production with soy beans, sweet potato and rice in multiple cropping systems as well as in rice-based cropping systems discussed above, however, I do not share their pessimism about the possibilities for producing the amounts needed on the farms of the area. If 60 to 75 percent of the population are farmers and if one farmer can produce enough supplemental protein to feed 20 households of eight for 1 year, where is the problem? I am convinced that the percentage of animal protein recommended by nutritionists can also be supplied in the same way. I shall discuss this in more detail in a later write-up.
The challenge facing the country in meeting the food and poverty alleviation requirements is a serious one. It has village, district, regional as well as national components, and quick action is urgently needed. Although public pronouncements give high priority to agricultural and rural development, actual implementation capacities have often been inconsistent with such pronouncements. Determined commitment is needed.
This is based on the simple assumption that “one cannot teach what one does not know.” Besides competence in subject matter and manipulative skills, a by-product of this approach is actually a new work ethic essential to the farmer’s as well as the nation’s awakened enthusiasm. S. B. Wawa Jaiteh, ‘06.
Objectives of Food Self-Sufficiency Policy
Food self-sufficiency policy can only be formulated on the basis of clearly defined development goals and objectives and in terms of decisions concerning the type and volume of food crops that need to be produced and the resources to be mobilized and deployed. In this context, the production of cereals (digitaria (findo), maize, rice, sorghum) the main constituents of our daily diet plus the sweet potato such as the Centennial, Julian, and Javel varieties which are rich sources of vitamin A, could be considered the package of crops for the attainment of food self-sufficiency.
This production objective can only be facilitated by the provision of institutional support services, consistently applied in all fronts. Self-sufficiency in whatever undertaking and/or form is not a cheap process but, in the final analysis, the end justifies the means.
The food self-sufficiency policy of the country should be guided by a common goal, namely, the desire to exercise greater control over our social, economic and agro-rural development through the promotion of self-reliance, a precondition for meeting the basic material needs of the resource poor smallholder farmer and under-privileged masses.
Policies should address the problem of making available standard recommended varieties and inputs on the one hand and of stimulating the adoption of standard on-farm practices on the other. This implies the effective integration of two main streams: the “input stream”, with its emphasis on the selection and acquisition of the required inputs and their subsequent use; and the “capacity stream”, with its emphasis on the development and promotion of learning and creating capacities.
The output of this interaction is productivity growth which consistently generates surplus production, the basis for poverty reduction as well as the creation of independent and self sustaining communities.
Our emphasis in the past, though challenging and partly productive has, however, not been adequately programmed, because the development and use of recommended varieties, inputs use-rate and use-efficiency, prerequisites to productivity growth and poverty reduction, received only scant attention. The determining objective, therefore, of any food self-sufficiency policy, is to harmonize inputs-use rates, learning and creating capacities.
Attempts at harmonizing these activities need to recognize, however, that the three streams are not independent or mutually exclusive, but rather interactive at different levels. It also be possible to tackle the problems associated with each stream within different time frames. The development of the capacity to control input use-rate and use-efficiency, learning and creating capacities should be accorded determining importance in a targets-based productivity approach.
Beneficiary capacity building should, in this regard, take two cropping seasons under irrigated conditions and two crop years under rainfed conditions. With appropriate planning, these period should be enough to create and stabilize the required productive capacities. Without such capacities, the self-sufficiency policy and the attendant production process aimed at fostering skills development and stabilizing domestic production anchored on the capacity to innovate are likely to be continuously undermined.
This unfortunate scenario is the unintended situation in the food and agriculture sector of sub-Saharan African countries and, hence, their inability for quick response to the current food crisis.
A framework for national action
A framework for national action in the approach to food self-sufficiency consists of four interrelated steps:
(a) a broad consensus on the desired mix of production inputs and the pattern of national production capabilities;
An assessment of the present production capabilities and identification of gaps and shortcomings;
(c) Strategy formulation in terms of policies, programmes and institutions, together with the financial and manpower resources needed for implementation;
A re-assessment of the coherence of ends and means as well as arrangements for coordination and monitoring.
The purpose of the framework is not to present a step-by-step approach to the formulation of a policy specific for food self-sufficiency but to list what might be termed indicative issues. Rather, the purpose is to foster the awareness that food self-sufficiency, like in other self-sufficiency efforts, is a process and that there is continuous need for clarity in the relationship between the end and the means.
The framework is based upon the three essential pillars of policies, programmes and institutions. Policies by themselves can only act like levers or valves that can be used to channel or to cut off the flow of national resources or energies. The specific orientation of resources and energies is conditioned by programmes of action. Institutions are the instruments that formulate and implement policies and programmes. Excessive reliance on any one of these three pillars and/or systematic weakness of any of the three should be avoided.
Comparison of Self-Sufficiency Development Options
One of the purposes of multiple objective planning and evaluation in agro-rural development is to provide a systematic framework with which to compare various intervention options or scenarios, with respect to their effect on the goals that society seeks to achieve through productivity growth. The purpose is not to recommend, suggest or imply which scenario or option should or should not be implemented. Rather, the purpose is to illustrate the application of the comparative analysis procedure in multiple objective evaluation for the benefit of the producers and society.
The technical potential for food self-sufficiency can only be translated into practical realization through substantial investment and development, so that the major constraints that apply to both rainfed and irrigated agriculture will need to be considerably reduced. The required measures are the consistent provision of institutional support services, scheduled and supervised on-farm activities, use of recommended drought/salt tolerant high yielding short/medium duration varieties, high input high output (HIHO) production system and religiously adhering to an agreed upon production calendar and on-farm practices that should be detailed in a comprehensive memorandum of understanding (MOU).
From a number of production system possibilities, either singly or in combination, three possible scenarios are initially considered, and considerable analysis was done on them. All of the three scenarios have hidden potentials to contribute to the country’s food self-sufficiency drive, over a target-time frame, using a targets-based production approach.
The scenarios represent similar possibilities for the development of increased food production and productivity, and yet provide a focus for comparing the net benefits of each. These serve to highlight the kinds of issues which planners, decision- and policy-makers must grapple with as a basis for making conclusions. The scenarios are outlined below.
Scenario 1 (Rainfed Production System)
While there are substantial resources of rainfed land (upland, inland swamps, saline mangrove swamps and fresh water swamps), the country cannot generate food self-sufficiency from rainfed production system alone at the current low input low output (LILO) production technology. This ecology is environmentally marginal, with an average reference growing season of less than 120 days and is, essentially, unreliable. The assumption under this scenario is that, if we can consistently adopt medium to high input production technology while cultivating 35% of the country’s 558,000 ha. arable land and producing a targets-based average yield of 2 tons/ha. of upland cereals including rice (plus an average yield of 10 tons/ha. of rice-based vegetable production system), to be supported by a consistently high input exploitation of the existing irrigation perimeters, may lead to a lessening of the year-year production variations and risks and, thus, close the food requirement gap.
Facilitators for scenarios
2 & 3.
Any irrigation plan for the country should be formulated around the concept of controlling salinity in the lower reaches of the Gambia River. Due to lower river flows associated with drought that began in the early 1970s and the extraction of fresh water from the river for irrigation, saline water in the estuary intrudes further upstream during the dry season than had been the case previously, which caused some reduction in rice production, mainly from swamp rice which depended on tidal action of the estuary. A barrage was identified as a possible measure to control the salinity front and to provide fresh water for irrigated agriculture in the lower basin.
A plan for a bridge-barrage at about Balingho/Yellitenda was formulated in an attempt to satisfy the salinity control measure as well as facilitate communication along the TransGambian highway. This was the original plan for the formation of the Gambia River Basin Development Organization (OMVG). However, the very negative environmental consequences of the proposed barrage at this site, created the possibility for the use of the autonomous operation of a site in Kekreti. This is the most environmentally friendly and one of the least cost approaches to achieving self-sufficiency in rice in the country, pending the provision of certain prerequisites.
Scenario 2 (Pump Irrigation System)
Under this scenario, the extent to which the irrigation production system can help the country to achieve rice self-sufficiency would depend on the OMVG putting in place measures for controlling salinity in the lower reaches of the Gambia River. A barrage was identified as a possible measure to control the salinity front and to provide fresh water for irrigation (through pump extraction), up to 24,000 has. in the lower basin. Sometimes in the late 1980s, salinity was felt above Kuntaur due to extensive dry season pump irrigation activities.
The extent to which pump irrigation could help achieve food self-sufficiency in the country would depend on the rate at which farmers invest in irrigation for food crop production, which would depend on the profitability to farmers of the production system and their inclination to do intensive irrigated farming. Double or triple cropping is possible, with average annual yields of 10-12 tons/ha. Indications to date give reason to doubt that this would happen very rapidly without a binding memorandum of understanding (MOU).
It seems likely that, without an MOU supporting a targets-based surplus production approach, most of the food produced would be consumed in the local areas. To the extent that farmers are supervised to produce more than they consume and sell the balance to other consumers, the approach would help to initiate the achievement of self-sufficiency.
Pumping of fresh water from the river for any newly developed pump irrigation perimeter would cause the salt front to move further upstream. As a result of this saline intrusion risk, it has been decided to limit the pump irrigated perimeters to 3000 hectares until a high dam is built by the OMVG that can release adequate water during the dry season for irrigation.
In the face of the spiraling oil prices, this scenario calls for maximum expertise in production planning and water use management, if we are to harvest our unique comparative advantage to enable us produce and sell pump irrigated rice cheaper than any of our importing countries in Asia and Latin America. .
Scenario 3 (Tidal Irrigation system)
More than 35,000 hectares between Dankunku and Jangjangburay has a good potential for tidal irrigation and that, with some certainty, up to 25, 000 hectares could be developed without any serious effect on the salinity front of the Gambia River. Out of this total, about 10 - 15,000 hectares could be conveniently double/triple cropped.
The water requirements of the tidal irrigated areas are minimal. Research has estimated that during the months of June and April following an intensive cultivation system, the salt front would move upstream 2 kms. and 8 kms. respectively, with 15,000 hectares of tidally irrigated rice; whereas with 10,000 hectares of pump-irrigated rice the salt front would advance upstream 50 kms in April and 40 kms in June. Compared with other forms of growing rice, development of tidal irrigation for rice cultivation is attractive on technical grounds (water consumption), as well as on a cost basis (construction cost), and on the operation side (no pumping) as well as on a yield potential basis, between 5 -10 tons/ha/annum.
The way forward and Conclusion
Our national need for productivity growth as a basis for sustainable food self-sufficiency, is constrained by the decline of our institutional infrastructure for agricultural and rural development, which has gone so far that serious doubt must be expressed about our capacity as presently constituted to capture this objective. As a national issue, there is no substitute to learning from experienced people. Even where we are prepared to enter into a salvage, it is not at all clear that the recovery is going to take place.
Whichever scenario, or scenarios, would be considered for initial detailed planning or design, a more precise definition of the extent of the production strategy and a well-thought-out implementation plan for a targets-based approach are needed. The number of hectares to be developed must be planned alongside the fertilizer requirement of 4 to 8 bags per/ha. It will be difficult to challenge farmers who cannot provide their own seeds nor apply more than 20 kilograms of fertilizer per hectare to feed themselves, their families and the nation. This challenge can be facilitated by a consistent and stable institutional support guided by closely supervised on-farm activities.
The short-term proposals outlined during the “launch” of the “Farmer Managed Rice Irrigated Project” made me pessimistic about the ability of our farmers to feed the country. The problem was approached at the farm level. Assuming that, from 60 to 75 percent of the population of the country are farmers.
The primary goal of the average farmer is to feed his family well. If the farmer can be supervised on a targets-based approach to produce enough food to feed his family well and sell the balance, the national problem would be about 60 to 75 percent solved! If the farmer can then be closely supported and supervised to produce enough surplus food for one more household (assumed to be 8) and for market supply, the food problem as well as that of poverty reduction, export promotion, rural employment, national food security and the empowerment of the farmers of the country would be solved.
From a national cereal based diet of 175 kilograms per capita, this does not seem such a difficult goal for a targets-based production approach consistently supported and supervised on all fronts, to capture. The implicit assumption here is that, production intensification should be the operational norm in all the production perimeters (tidal as well as rehabilitated pump irrigated perimeters) to be supported by a consistent rice based cropping system in the transition zones (inland swamps), with special emphasis in the Western Region.
Many are concerned about the “protein gap” and are pessimistic about the possibilities for closing it by conventional agricultural techniques. I share their concern about the seriousness of the “protein gap” especially among nursing mothers, infants and children.
In view of my experience with protein production with soy beans, sweet potato and rice in multiple cropping systems as well as in rice-based cropping systems discussed above, however, I do not share their pessimism about the possibilities for producing the amounts needed on the farms of the area. If 60 to 75 percent of the population are farmers and if one farmer can produce enough supplemental protein to feed 20 households of eight for 1 year, where is the problem? I am convinced that the percentage of animal protein recommended by nutritionists can also be supplied in the same way. I shall discuss this in more detail in a later write-up.
The challenge facing the country in meeting the food and poverty alleviation requirements is a serious one. It has village, district, regional as well as national components, and quick action is urgently needed. Although public pronouncements give high priority to agricultural and rural development, actual implementation capacities have often been inconsistent with such pronouncements. Determined commitment is needed.
Author: by Suruwa B. Wawa Jaiteh
See Also - See Also