Tasks, Evolution and Problems of Extension

D

Journal of US-China Public Administration, ISSN 1548-6591 May 2013, Vol. 10, No. 5, 507-513

DAVID

PUBLISHING

Tasks, Evolution and Problems of Extension Development in Poland Piotr Bórawski

Iwona Pomianek

University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn,

Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW,

Olsztyn, Poland

Warsaw, Poland

Ireneusz Żuchowski

James W. Dunn, H. Louis Moore

High Economic-Social School in Ostrołęka,

Pennsylvania State University—University Park,

Ostrołęka, Poland

Pennsylvania, U.S.

Extension is undergoing changes in Poland. Many changes in the extension service were needed because Poland introduced market economy and joined to European Union (EU) in 2004. The U.S. recognized that Poland’s extension service was weak after introducing market economy. The extension administration in Washington, D.C. sent a team from Pennsylvania State University in February 1991 to study the extension program in the Rzeszow Province. The extension system had to be adjusted to its requirements. After integration with EU, the extension system in Poland changed. Each year the demand for extension services in Poland increases. Farmers in Poland look for more specialised extension because they have to adjust their farm to the Common Market. Nowadays, extension includes legal, organizational, and economic services. Keywords: Poland extension, European Union (EU) integration, Polish-American Project

Extension is a process designed to provide practical advice, with the aim to improve the functioning of organizations and help people solve their problems. The modern and very competitive Polish economy makes good and timely decisions even more important while requiring extension services to evolve with changing circumstances. This means an evolution from general problem-solving to more specialized services, such as financial, legal, professional, technological, agricultural, and other advice (Kania, 2011). In Poland, agricultural extension has special responsibilities to aid in the development of rural areas and to reduce the technological lag between the Polish agricultural sector and that of more developed countries in the European Union (EU) or

Corresponding author: Piotr Bórawski, Ph.D., lecturer, Department of Agribusiness and Environmental Economics, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn; research fields: rural economics, multifunctional development of rural areas, extension. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]. Ireneusz Żuchowski, Ph.D., rector, High Economic-Social School in Ostrołęka; research fields: management, management styles. E-mail: [email protected]. Iwona Pomianek, Ph.D., lecturer, Department of European Policy, Public Finance and Marketing, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW; research fields: local and regional development, entrepreneurship. E-mail: [email protected]. James W. Dunn, Ph.D., professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Extension, Pennsylvania State University—University Park; research fields: rural economics, extension. E-mail: [email protected]. H. Louis Moore, Ph.D., emeritus professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Extension, Pennsylvania State University—University Park; research fields: extension, rural economics. E-mail: [email protected].

508

TASKS, EVOLUTION AND PROBLEMS OF EXTENSION DEVELOPMENT IN POLAND

elsewhere. Agricultural extension services in the world are very diverse, with both public and private consulting advisory bodies. According to Kania (2007), the agricultural advisory system in the world could be divided into the following groups: state, which included various systems, such as education, whether conventionally managed in a centralized manner or managed in a decentralized way; semi-state, characterized by partial public and private financing; semi-autonomous, which provided advisory services through institutions and with fees paid by the beneficiaries; autonomous, owned by farmers and funded by membership fees; and commercial, privately owned and fully fee driven. The knowledge-based economy requires that extension agents and employees enhance their competencies, knowledge and approach to education. These organizations must be more flexible and adjust to the changing requirements of the market. Leuci (2012) described “organizational learning as a shared process of learning that intricately links individual learning with collaborative learning as a whole”. Active participation in learning helps to achieve the “mission of the organization, to maintain its culture and history, and to deal with internally-induced and externally-imposed changes in order to survive and thrive”.

Advisory Tasks and Attributes of Agricultural Advisors in Poland and Other Countries Advisory tasks in Poland have been defined in the Act on advisory bodies of October 22, 2004 (Journal of Laws, No. 251, item. 2507). The primary purpose of entities that provide extension services for agriculture in Poland today is to implement the Common Agricultural Policy. This advice is individual as well as group and is associated with improving the skills of farmers (Kiełbasa & Krzysztoforski, 2009). According to Kujawiński (2002), the main tasks of individuals providing consulting services included: job counseling, helping farmers solve problems and improve problem-solving skills; educational tasks, through participation of farmers in training and courses; informing people about innovation and the application of modern practices in agriculture; and helping promote the diffusion of knowledge about counseling, innovation and new solutions. Extension in many developed countries is becoming more commercialized. The reasons are the increasing demands of farmers for advisory services, increased competition in the market for consulting services, greater purchasing power of farmers and decreased state support of consultancy services (Dorofiejczuk-Parady & Zawisza, 2011). What attributes are important for an agricultural advisor? According to Kujawiński (2002), the most important characteristics of agricultural advisers included a high level of moral sensitivity to the problems, diligence, and imagination. An agricultural adviser should have cognitive competence, methodological competence and communication and organizational skills. An advisor should be able to think analytically, efficiently collect and interpret data and access sources of information, and solve problems with originality. Of course, the ability to engage and communicate with farmers is essential. Advisers can be described as community leaders. Thus advisors need certain attributes. According to Norris (2008), advisers who possessed attributes such as autonomy and self-efficacy were more likely to practice self-leadership strategies. Some authors claim “it is important to understand how each of these aspects illustrates the importance of understanding oneself as a leader”. Moreover, extension educators should learn how to understand their development using management psychology and the theory of self-leadership (Ricketts,


509

Carter, Place, & McCoy, 2012). Many extension services have changed in other countries of the world as well. Lakai, Jayarathe, Moore, and Kistler (2012) claimed that extension services in the U.S. have undergone major transformation in programs, personnel and finance. Many factors contribute to the improvement of extension efficiency with delivery approach and competencies of extension agents being especially important. However, barriers can prevent extension agents from acquiring desired competencies, such as increased workload, time pressure, lack of funding, and personal cost of acquiring new extension skills. Argabright, McGuire, and King (2012) wrote that the most essential characteristic should be innovation, which built on creativity. They stated “innovation challenges the use of assumed notions in new ways”. It is necessary to think in a different way and “organizations that think differently about situations consent to creativity and innovation”. However, Kujawiński (2002) listed traits such as rigid views, a lack of flexibility, a lack of acceptance of the needs of farmers, poor contact with the farmers and the limited intellectual skills as impediments to effective extension advising.

The Evolution of Agricultural Extension Services in Poland Changes in Polish agriculture require a lot of support from both the state extension and the private sector. Currently, the need for cooperation between farmers and the advisory system is essential as continuous changes in agriculture will require better and more specialized skills. Chmura (2009) showed that because of the advisory services in Poland, more farmers were accessing secondary schools and higher education. Also, farmers who have used the services of advisory bodies function better. Farmers also use advice and expect higher quality customer service by advisers. It is therefore clear that the evolution of agricultural advisory services in Poland is heading in the right direction, and the private consulting advice supplements the deficiencies of the state advisory system. Table 1 Evolution of Extension Services in Poland Years 1944-1949 1950-1956 1957-1967

Institutions and rural organisations Agricultural chambers State rural administration Union county agricultural circles Bureau of district councils of national agricultural 1968-1972 service Communal agricultural service, regional centers of 1973-1981 agricultural progress Regional centers of agricultural progress, municipal 1982-1990 offices Agricultural advisory centers, trade and industry 1991 associations Regional advisory centers for agriculture and rural From 1999 areas Note. Source: Wawrzyniak (2002).

Positions Farm instructors County agronomist District agronomist and animal husbandry Agronomy, animal husbandry, district, county survey or guidance Director of agricultural services, agricultural instructor, specialist District manager and specialist Municipal specialist Barzkowice, Poświętne, Przysiek, Radom, Stare Pole, Wrocław, Częstochowa

Table 1 shows the evolution of the agricultural advisory in Poland. After World War II, the advisory system was approved by law. Initially, it had a more static form. Over the years, the agricultural advisory system in Poland underwent evolution from the state to more commercial advice. Today, the task of agricultural

510


extension is carried out by regional advisory centers for agriculture and rural development and other advisory centers. The type of services offered to farmers has changed. In the early days, it was strictly agricultural consulting involving the application of modern farming techniques, such as decisions about seeds, machinery, and animal health, with the extension centers often selling seeds and other agricultural inputs. Today the advice addresses legal, organizational, and economic issues. A contemporary example is a fertilizer specialist or an economist who runs accounts for farmers and prepares applications for direct payments and other support from EU funds.

The Polish-American Extension Project After Poland broke with the Soviet Union in 1989, the U.S. watched the development of democracy with great interest. Working to help Poland as much as possible, the U.S. recognized that Poland’s extension service was weak. The extension administration in Washington, D.C. sent a team from Pennsylvania State University in February 1991 to study the extension program in the Rzeszow Province. The team of Donald Evans, Thomas Brewer, and Louis Moore worked closely with Joseph Flaga, extension director, and his team for three weeks. The Polish extension offices had large land holdings, operated the farm, and sold farm supplies to those small farmers whose land had not been confiscated by the communists. They provided some educational consultation to farmers with the “right” political philosophy. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) extension administrators, after studying the Pennsylvania State report, decided to send U.S. experts to help Polish extension to make the transition to a free market service. The program was to be funded by Pl 480 funds. Over the years, Poland had received grain from the U.S. with the stipulation that it would be paid for at a later time. A specification was that Polish payments to the U.S. had to be spent in Poland. This was perfect for funding the proposed extension work. Beginning in July 1991, six teams, each made up of an economist and a general extension agent, were sent to Poland. Each team was to work closely with the Polish extension team in a province for six months. USDA recruited teams in subsequent years from across the U.S. After six months the initial teams returned to their U.S. positions and another six teams went to Poland to work in different provinces. The program was to last five years at which time each province would have had U.S. teams working with them for six months. The teams were supervised by John Raglan, an administrator on leave from the University of Kentucky. His administrative team was housed in the Ministry of Agriculture in Warsaw. There was close cooperation between Polish and U.S. personnel. At the end of five years, the project was successfully completed. During that time the extension service divested its farms and its merchandizing duties. Extension workers took on roles similar to those of U.S. workers, which were strictly educational. Henry Bahn of USDA did an evaluation of the Polish-American Extension Project and concluded that it was one of the most successful USDA projects undertaken in the post war era. Because of generous financial support from the Copernicus Society of America, Pennsylvania State was able to continue support by providing workshops, seminars, and other support of the extension service in Rzeszow. Additionally, the extension director, and local Ministry of Agriculture personnel assisted Pennsylvania State in conducting educational programs in Ukraine and Russia. These programs and the USDA Faculty Exchange Program enabled Pennsylvania State to continue its educational efforts through 2012 in Central and Eastern Europe. An additional bonus of the program was the growth expressed by the members of the U.S. teams, who returned home better educators than they were before the Polish experience.


511

Problems of Extension Development in Poland Agricultural extension is very uneven in Poland. The numbers of households per advisor and consultancy costs vary regionally. In Western Europe and the U.S., most farm owners have an advisor who helps the farmer make decisions about a variety of management and production issues. In Poland, the need for external financing for farmers has led to changes in the attitudes of farmers from passive to active. Figure 1 shows the differentiation of costs of extension services in Poland. Generally the costs of extension services in Poland depend on the number of advisers. The highest costs of extension services can be found in Pomorskie, Kujawsko-pomorskie, Lubuskie and Zachodnio-pomorskie Voivodeships (provinces). These regions are located in north and west Poland. Zachodnio‐pomorskie Wielkopolskie Warmińsko‐mazurskie Świętokrzyskie Śląskie Pomorskie Podlaskie Podkarpackie Opolskie Mazowieckie Małopolskie Łódzkie Lubuskie Lubelskie Kujawsko‐pomorskie Dolnośląskie Poland

80.9

8.4 13.4 9.3 14.2 7.6 11.9 16.6 16.3 8.5 13.6 11.6 12.5 8.6 15.3 10.8 11.0 12.1 0

20

64.1 61.4 62.2 83.2 107.5 61.1 46.7 76.2 61.8 59.3 59.4 83.6 72.5 86.8 53.2 66.6 40

Costs of extension per 1 advisor (PLN)

60

80

100

120

Number of advisors per 1 office

Figure 1. Differentiation of extension services’ development in the different regions of Poland. Source: Matuszczak (2011b).

Extension in Poland After EU Integration Poland became a member of the EU on May 1, 2004. Polish membership in the EU included participation in the Common Agricultural Policy, with its considerable rules and rewards. This created the need for counseling common to all Member States. The main document regulating the functioning of the EU advisory, Regulation No. 73/2009 of January 19, 2009, states that Member States are required to set up an Agricultural Extension System by the end of 2010. In Poland, advisory services were organized by agricultural advisory centers, chambers of agriculture and private, accredited, counseling entities (Matuszczak, 2011a). The Member States must set up an Agricultural Advisory System according to the following criteria: (1) the system should provide advisory services for agriculture; (2) agricultural services should be provided by the

512


advisory service; and (3) the states must allow the creation of new advisory bodies in addition to the existing consulting services for agriculture. According to Duczkowska-Małysz (2009), legislation by the EU was passed to facilitate the functioning of the Common Agricultural Policy and its objectives. The form of the Common Agricultural Policy has the following consequences for EU member advisory systems: (1) solutions should stimulate socio-economic development of all member states; (2) solutions should lead to the improvement of education of both the rural population and those engaged in consulting; (3) the system of training should help the Member States adapt to EU policy; (4) socio-economic advice must be provided to the agricultural population; (5) instruments aimed at improving the competitiveness of agriculture in the Member States should be introduced; and (6) increased investment in the agricultural advisory system and greater farmer participation in training should be augmented by the introduction of co-financing. Farm extension services in Poland play an important role in the implementation of the instruments of the Common Agricultural Policy. The main instruments for the development of agriculture in Poland with its source in the EU budget are among the Sectoral Operational Program and the Rural Development Program for 2004-2006 and 2007-2013 (Matuszczak & Mościcki, 2002). It is expected that the situation of Polish agriculture will improve its integration into the EU since the range of extension services has been expanded to include: helping farmers establish agricultural record-keeping and accounts; with better records farmers improve eligibility for loans; support the creation of agricultural producer groups; assist in the introduction of new technologies and means of production; assist in obtaining financial resources from the EU funds; and improve higher education and information technology.

Conclusions The preceding analysis of the collected data shows an increased importance of the agricultural advisors in Poland. More and more farmers use advisory services. The agricultural advisory choices in Poland are getting better. The Polish integration with the EU in 2004 created special demands for both state and private consultancy in order to satisfy the EU regulations and become eligible for EU programs and payments. Many projects had an impact of extension development in Poland among which Polish-American project is the most important. This project helped to introduce new rules of extension in Poland. Polish extension services became better and its range extended. However, the most crucial changes in extension development in Poland are closely linked with the process of joining EU. This fact changed Polish extension services. Most of the operation had to be adjusted to EU standards. Nowadays, extension is similar in all European member countries. All advisors are not equally valuable. Their effectiveness depends on the attitude of the advisers, their ability and competence. A good agricultural advisor should have sensitivity, empathy and understanding. The advisor also should have good theoretical knowledge and practical experience. Farm extension services in Poland have undergone the evolution from technical agricultural advisory services to specialist advice. Much of this evolution is due to the accession into the EU, but also to the many new tasks faced by farmers competing in the global economy.

References Argabright, K., McGuire, J., & King, J. (2012). Extension through a new lens: Creativity and innovation now and for the future.


513

Journal of Extension, 50(2). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2012april/comm2.php Chmura, M. (2009). Ocena działalności kujawsko-pomorskiego ośrodka doradztwa rolniczego przez doradców PZDR w Grudziądzu oraz współpracujących z nimi rolników (Evaluation of activity kujawsko-pomorskiego agricultural counseling center by advisors PZDR in Grudziądz and farmers cooperating with them). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 4, 67-78. Dorofiejczuk-Parady, J., & Zawisza, S. (2011). Ewolucja systemów wsparcia doradczego na świecie-od doradztwa państwowego do prywatnych usług doradczych (Evolution of the word agricultural extension systems from public to private extension services). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 1, 13-28. Duczkowska-Małysz, K. (2009). Miejsce doradztwa w innowacyjności sektora rolno-spożywczego (The place of extension services in innovations of agri-nutritient sector). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 4, 19-32. Kania, J. (2007). Doradztwo rolnicze w Polsce w świetle potrzeb i doświadczeń zagranicznych (Extension in Poland in the needs and experience of other countries). Kraków: Wydawnictwo AR. Kania, J. (2011). Doradztwo rolnicze wobec wielofunkcyjności rolnictwa i obszarów wiejskich (Multifunctionality of agriculture and rural development). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 2, 5-23. Kiełbasa, B., & Krzysztoforski, M. (2009). Potrzeby doradcze rolników w opinii pracowników wojewódzkich ośrodków doradztwa rolniczego (The farmers advisory leeds in opinio on of wolkers of voivodeship agricultural advisory center). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 2, 43-53. Kujawiński, W. (2002). Doradca rolniczy jako autorytet (Agricultural adviser as authority). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 3, 35-41. Lakai, D., Jayarathe, K. S. U., Moore, G. E., & Kistler, M. J. (2012). Barriers and effective educational strategies to develop extension agents’ professional competencies. Journal of Extension, 50(4). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/ 2012october/a3.php Leuci, M. S. (2012). The nature of organizational learning in a state extension organization. Journal of Extension, 50(3). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2012june/a1.php Matuszczak, E. (2011a). System doradztwa rolniczego-dotychczasowe doświadczenia i propozycje zmian (Agricultural extension system-current experience and propositions of changes). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 2, 104-118. Matuszczak, E. (2011b). Polskie doradztwo rolnicze wobec nowych wyzwań w ramach UE (Polish advisory within new requirements of European Union). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 1, 97-104. Matuszczak, E., & Mościcki, K. (2002). Doradztwo rolnicze w kontekście integracji z Unią Europejską (Agricultural advisory in the context of integration with European Union). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 3-4, 17-23. Norris, S. E. (2008). An examination of self-leadership. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 1(2), 43-61. Ricketts, K. G., Carter, H. S., Place, N. T., & McCoy, T. (2012). A look inside: Self-leadership perceptions of extension educators. Journal of Extension, 50(5). Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2012october/a3.php Wawrzyniak, M. (2002). Wizja doradztwa rolniczego w świetle projektów ustaw sejmowych (Vision of agricultural extension within the law). Zagadnienia Doradztwa Rolniczego, No. 3-4, 24-34.