Note to a Colleague

I wrote the following email to Dr. Tariq Hussain back in 2003, when I had just joined AKRSP as the new GM. The subject was how AKRSP should approach agricultural development. I reproduce it here in 2010 becuase the lessons are still relevent.

With regard to enhancing the productivity of and income from agriculture, especially for small farmers, our renewed focus should be on developing promising sub-sectors, rather than supporting farming systems across the board, which AKRSP attempted to do in the initial years. The lessons from AKRSP’s early experience, as I see it, is that we could have done more to apply the Diagnostic Approach to agricultural potential—soil surveys, water availability, cost-benefit of alternative cropping options, choice of technology, as well as market potential. We could have then designed an agricultural support package, including extension and post harvest services, credit and market development. Doc will agree that we have a general idea of what crops can profitably be grown in different niches—apples in upper Chitral, Yasin-Gupis, Skardu Valley and Central Hunza; grapes in Punyal and lower Hunza; pears in Nagar, pomegranates, cherries and summer vegetables in the settlements close to Gilgit town; seed potatoes in Yasin, upper Hunza and apricots in the majority of valleys. My feeling is that, except in a few cases (cherries and apricots), we did not make a deliberate attempt to develop these sub sectors. An illustration of this is that farmers in the NAC still don’t know how to grow grapes on scientific lines just as they do in Baluchistan or Xingjiang! The nearest ‘role model’ was FAO run seed potato project, which I think effectively integrated natural endowment with technology, extension, credit and marketing. Some of the shortcomings were:

failure to conduct proper NR surveys and classification of agro-ecological zones
failure to screen and test agricultural technologies and absence of strict quality guidelines and assurance
failure to distinguish between farm and VO level interventions
confusing equity considerations with productivity objectives
failure to identify early adapters and using them as role models for others, and
failure to effectively demonstrate the benefits of new technology and specialization

On the question of an appropriate support model, I think this should be linked to a desirable institutional structure. Though it is still too early for me to come up with my own management ‘doctrine’ for AKRSP, I am biased towards a devolved structure in which much of the ‘retail’ development support should be transferred to VO-based Area Development Organizations. This means that up to the level of professional teams in sub offices in the regions in the proposed new structure, AKRSP can share the governance responsibility with VO-based Valley Development Councils or boards. More on this latter.

On the last point of the need for greater integration within AKDN agencies for more effective coverage and outreach, let me summarise the problem as I see it. The main issue for AKDN is how to serve the entire area of AKRSP without increasing its liabilities. For an organization like AKRSP, sustainable human development is unthinkable without basic interventions in the social sectors. It is clear that AKRSP has neither a mandate nor the expertise to make these interventions. It is also clear that AKDN agencies are constrained from extending the full range of services to non-traditional areas both for political and financial reasons. A reasonable compromise therefore would be to create and support VO based structures at higher levels that can act as receiving mechanisms for the development services and inputs available from all AKDN agencies, not just AKRSP. This will also provide the needed incentive and impetus for greater coordination and integration within AKDN. An appropriate governance structure for AKDN will be the natural consequence of this process.

Best wishes

Izhar