Investigating the impact of government intervention: the case of an alternative crops expansion and diversification programme in Papua New Guinea

Abstract

In the process of development, Government programmes have been recognised as important machinery for governments, NGOs, bilateral and multilateral agencies. Where rural development is the focus, agriculture interventions through such programmes form the base strategy. A series of important policies such as employment creation, income distribution, improved (crop/livestock) production, nutrition, poverty, urban drift, etc are amalgamated through agricultural Programmes. At the core of such interventions are the intended "beneficiaries". Programmes beneficiaries are unique, as in this study. They are known to be the largest contributors (96 percent of all agricultural produce) to agricultural production in Papua New Guinea (PNG). What's more, they posses the power to determine the success or failure of interventions which they are involved with. This study of Alternative Crops and Diversification Programme (ACEDP) in three provinces of PNG, evaluated the successes and failures through perceptions of Programme beneficiaries and government Extension Workers (EWs) directly involved with its implementation. The beneficiaries' and EWs' views of the delivery system (extension), input services, marketing and related issues affecting the Project are discussed. The study suggests that programme farmers are entrepreneurial, as many are involved in "other economic activities" ranging from agriculture export crops, livestock, food crops production (for both consumption and domestic markets) to the services activities (trade stores and transport services). The Programmes planning approach (particularly the Monitoring Stage) upon which ACEDP was developed, was assessed through a survey of beneficiaries, and identifying issues which have arisen due to inadequate monitoring. Weaknesses identified as a result of centrally planned and executed intervention (by DAL/DPI) have become evident. As a Programme planned and executed in an era when Government decentralized all development initiatives, the ACEDP is at a cross-road. With the PNG Government pursuing new political and economical reforms, the weaknesses and concerns highlighted by the farmers provide crucial benchmarks for the new Programme approach. With this reform, decentralization (political reform, "district-focus-policy") should see beneficiaries having greater participation in Programme design. Deregulation should see the current system of service-delivery improved, or otherwise make way for efficient organizations with effective delivery systems.

The potential for ACEDP to be developed into a separate entity, and to be able to support itself, hinges on effective beneficiary participation as much as improved efficiency in delivery services. Efficient extension and marketing infrastructures remain crucial under the "district-focus-policy". The natural forces of a deregulated economy, through a "free-market" environment, may be the force which will determine the future direction of many other Programmes, including ACEDP.