Re-designing Decentralised Rural Extension Systems:

the National Rural Extension Policy in Brazil1

Lea Vaz Cardoso

l.cardoso@ids.ac.uk

Introduction
There are many different reasons why governments decentralise and numerous forms
and degrees of that decentralisation2 can be employed. These can produce a variety of
outcomes ranging from deepening democracy to improving effectiveness or equity (Conyers,
1999, Ribot, 2003, Afzar et al., 2004, Ribot, 2007, Robinson, 2007a, Andersson et al., 2009).
Nevertheless Andersson et al. (2009:5) point out that the contexts facilitating a positive
impact of decentralisation on public-sector performance are still poorly understood.
This essay seeks to understand the conditions under which decentralisation can have a
positive impact on service provision by analysing a decentralised rural extension service
system in Brazil, the ATER system (Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural), and a new
national policy which re-designs it.
Brazil provides an interesting case study for analysis not only because agriculture
plays a major role in the national economy, but also because of the intense pressure and
mobilisation of social movements around agricultural and rural policies, and the dual
approach adopted to agricultural policies divided on two different ministries. In addition, the
country has pursued extensive devolution of authority to its local governments.
Nevertheless, most services and programmes relevant to rural development are
allocated under federal jurisdiction while a few are under the responsibility of state
government (Andersson, et al., 2009:31). The design and implications of the existing system
on the quality of service delivery will be discussed later on this essay.
Beyond decentralisation, I argue that the design of functions and the institutional
arrangements are the key to guaranteeing efficient and equitable access to services delivery.
To explore to what extent decentralisation has affected the ATER system in Brazil and how it
1
This article was produced for the Decentralisation and Local Government Course at Institute of Development
Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK (Summer Term/2009).
2
For the purpose of this essay decentralisation is seen as ‘a relationship in which linkages between local effort
and central assistance can produce a new partnership for progressive economic development’ (Leonard and
Marshall, 1982:223). It is referred here as the transfer of powers and functions from higher to lower levels of
government, as well to NGOs and CSOs.
 2

can be improved, the analysis of the actual situation and of the new national policy is made
with reference to key elements outlined by Robinson. He argues ‘the potential for
improvement rests on a combination of political, institutional, financial and technical factors’
(2007b:13).
The next section presents analytical concepts emphasising the debate surrounding the
impact of decentralisation reforms on the quality of service provision. Then arguments for
improving service delivery towards marginal groups in society are introduced. These
arguments are discussed in the followings section and sub-sections which examine the ATER
system in Brazil and the attempt of a national policy to re-design it. Finally, I comment on
future perspectives.

Decentralisation and Service Delivery

Decentralisation can take distinct forms varying from a range of administrative,
political and fiscal procedures depending on how functions and powers are decentralised, to
whom they are decentralised, the levels and the operational systems to which decentralise,
and depending on the social, economic and political context (Work, 2002, OECD, 2004,
World Bank, 2004).
Many advocate decentralisation as a way of providing more locally appropriate,
efficient and accessible public services (Crook and Sverrisson, 2003, Robinson, 2007a,
Robinson, 2007b, Andersson et al., 2009). It potentially contributes to governance in public
service provision by improving allocative efficiency, promoting accountability, reducing
corruption and improving cost recovery (Azfar et al., 2004:21). Nevertheless, the same
authors highlight the challenges that hinder realisation of these goals: the risk of elite capture
at local level and the lack of synergy between central and local governments (2004:24).
Following a review of the evidence from a number of cases, Robinson concludes that:
‘(...) decentralised service delivery has not improved poor people’s access and
improvements in quality have not resulted from a transfer of power and
responsibilities to local authorities. Decentralisation also accentuates
horizontal inequalities between richer and poorer areas as a consequence of
differential levels of administrative capacity and ability to raise local
resources’ (Robinson, 2007a:2).
The literature further explains these failures by emphasising the context-specific
environment in which decentralisation occurs. Many suggest the importance of understanding
 3

under which set of arrangements decentralisation is more likely to improve service delivery,
particularly towards the interest of marginalised groups.
In this context, Azfar et al. established a framework to examine the impact of
decentralisation on service provision. In their view, ‘the performance of decentralized service
delivery depends on the design of decentralization and the institutional arrangements that
govern its implementation’ (2004:26-27). Likewise, Jagger and van Laerhoven (2004), in
comparing Uganda and Brazil rural public services, argue the importance of institutional
requirements to be achieved if decentralisation is to benefit the poor and marginalised groups
in society, particularly in developing countries. From their perspective, differing modes of
implementing decentralisation reforms ‘will have an impact on services delivery
performance, especially participation of local actors in policy design and implementation’
(2004:8).
In order to understand in what conditions decentralisation might benefit the poor
through improvements on service delivery, particularly the ATER service in Brazil, the next
section draws on the key-factors that might make decentralisation work for the poor.

Decentralising Service Delivery towards Equity

Analysing the performance of decentralised systems for service delivery, Robinson

(2007a:2) highlights that many of the challenges ‘lie in the design and implementation of
reform initiatives and insufficient attention to the feasibility of achieving major
improvements without commensurate changes in broader governance structures and
underlying socioeconomic conditions’. He concludes that there are some preconditions for
success, such as resource availability, the capability of local governments, and effective
structures for accountability and responsiveness at the local level. In addition, he highlights
the importance of political commitment, client mobilisation, technical capacity, and adequate
financial resources (2007b:7).
Similarly, Ugaz (2001:147) discusses the issues decentralisation is meant to address
and the mechanisms for achieving success. She recommends the state provide incentives to
local governments through transfers, highlighting the importance of increased participation of
users and of establishing a clear set of rules to coordinate the actions and decisions of
different public services providers. She concludes by emphasising that combined efforts of
 4

central and local government, civil society and private sector are required to achieve a more
equitable and sustainable system of social provision (Ugaz, 2001:151).
Further on this discussion Robinson (2007b:8) highlights that:
“Public services delivery is no longer the exclusive prerogative of state
agencies in national and local governments, but involves combinations of state
and private actors, and increasingly civil society organisations that are
directly engaged in the delivery of services.”
This describes the context for the Brazilian rural extension system. A plural and
diverse system delivers technical assistance to more than 5,500 municipalities, with public-
private partnerships becoming more frequent.
In order to assess the decentralised ATER system in Brazil, this essay discusses the
key factors pointed by Robinson as the preconditions for improving equity through
decentralised service delivery: political commitment and leadership, political mobilisation of
the poor, institutionalised participation, adequacy of financial resources, and technical
managerial capacity (2007b:13-15).
The following section and sub-sections discuss each of these factors as an indicator of
how decentralised service provision ought to address the needs of marginal groups in society.
A brief background is provided and I argue that most of the necessary conditions for
improving service delivery have been taking place within the Brazilian ATER system. There
are some challenging factors that deserve more careful attention in order to make the system
sustainable. However, they are being addressed to some extent by the new national rural
extension policy.

Delivering Technical Assistance - the Rural Extension Policy in Brazil

The technical assistance and rural extension service – ATER, was initiated as a set of
developmental policies following World War II that sought to improve the livelihoods of
rural populations, and support the process of agricultural modernisation and industrialisation
of the country. Initially a private system, by mid-1970’s it became a ‘state’ service with the
implementation of the Brazilian Technical Assistance and Rural Extension System,
coordinated by the Embrater (Brazilian Technical Assistance and Rural Extension
Enterprise). This was implemented by sub-national level (states) organisations, known as
Emater. The transfer of resources from the federal government represented, on average, 40%
 5

of the total amount of resources available for the Emater. In some states, commonly the
poorest ones, the transfers represented up to 80% of their budgets (Rodrigues, 1997).
The system worked reasonably well providing free technical assistance until 1990
when the Embrater was extinct and the national system dismantled by the new government of
President Collor de Mello who adopted a strong neoliberal policy reducing the state’s role,
merging and privatising a number of state-run companies, deregulating domestic markets and
opening the Brazilian economy with varying results.
In the absence of the federal support, the 27 official Emater restructured their services
according to state priorities and resources available. The result was a plural and diverse
system provided by private companies, municipalities, unions, NGOs, cooperatives and other
farmer’s collective organisations (FAO/MDA, 2003:8).
Nevertheless, an evaluation of the current situation clearly shows that decentralisation
has failed to address the marginal groups living away from urban areas which are covered by
the official ATER institutions.
To tackle these problems and enhance the quality and, moreover, the equity of the
rural extension service, a national policy has been launched by the Ministry of Agrarian
Development – MDA (Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário) in 2007. The policy seeks to
re-design a decentralised system for implementation of rural extension and development
policies. I explore elements of design and their impacts on the quality of service delivery in
meeting the needs of the rural poor.
Institutional arrangements
The decentralised ATER system in Brazil is a hybrid form of decentralisation where
the political authority of planning and funding is centralised, while service delivery is
organised through decentralised structures at varied levels.
The existing institutional framework allows the new policy to be built on these
‘devolved’ or decentralised structures at state levels, strengthening partnerships within
municipal governments, non-governmental and civil society organisations.
In implementing the ATER National Policy, a participatory model of management
and coordination was established. The management is made by the National Council of
Sustainable Rural Development – CONDRAF (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Rural Sustentável) through one of its committees, the National Committee of Technical
Assistance and Rural Extension – ATER Committee that has among its mandate, the ability
to: propose, analyse and define priorities for the national policy. It is their role to evaluate and
 6

approve the National Programme of ATER and to establish which actions resources from the
federal government will support.
At the state level, the State Councils have the responsibility for accrediting ATER
service providers by identifying the organisational that may implement the policy. The
participation of Municipal Councils is expected to exercise social control over the activities
that will be taken.
Coordination is performed by the ATER Department – DATER, of the Secretary of
Family Agriculture – SAF, of the MDA. Figure 1 illustrates the main actors and spaces and
their interactions.
Figure 1: Design of the Decentralised Rural Extension System in Brazil.

The next sub-sections discuss the actual situation and possible impacts of the new
national rural extension policy. Due to the little availability of references addressing rural
extension service provision and decentralisation in Brazil, the analysis is based on the
appraisal of FAO/MDA (2003) and on my field experience on agricultural sector in Brazil.

Political Factors

The legal framework for rural extension service provision was established by the
Brazilian Constitution in 1988 and by the Agricultural Law in 1991 which state that the
Federal government provides public and free ATER services to smallholder farmers.
Political commitment and leadership are two of the factors Robinson (2007b)
highlights as relevant for the success of a decentralised service delivery. The supportive
environment can be evidenced by the role of MDA in fulfilling the responsibilities of ATER
 7

through the implementation of the National Rural Extension Policy. The existing
decentralised political system in Brazil also contributes to the new design of the ATER
system that can benefit from the experience of other sectors such as health and education.
However, the political support is not exceptionally strong for resources allocation for
the ATER system, as it faces competition with other sectors. The transfer of resources is
made by the MDA and the level of funding depends on resource availability and priorities of
the diverse Councils and their representatives.

Political Mobilisation

It is remarkable that the public ATER system has survived, and in some cases
expanded, because of the role of mobilisation of social movements and civil society
organisations in Brazil over the past 18 years.
A strong public and efficient ATER system is one of their major priorities for the
social movements representing rural workers, landless workers, fishermen, indigenous and
small-holder farmers. For instance the well-known landless movement – MST, have
organised themselves to provide services for their associates. They are funded by a
combination of sources ranging from international charities to federal government.
What is missing in this model is national coordination. The new ATER policy seeks
to address this as a decentralised networked ATER system, funded in great extent by the
MDA and by other agricultural policies such as micro-credit programmes. Also as far as
mobilising the poor, some important alliances have been neglected such as the national
farmers’ union, which represents commercial farmers. The ATER system would benefit from
these alliances, however the risks of elite capture from such engagements have to be
considered.

Citizen Participation

Institutionalised participation is also mentioned by Robinson (2007b) as important for

a decentralised service system. It also offers room to enhance participation of marginal
groups in society. Decentralised systems promote more scope for institutionalised
participation than centralised ones. Citizen participation is argued to be relevant for the
performance of service delivery for many reasons (Azfar et al., 2004, Conyers, 2009). It can
guarantee services are more relevant to local needs and priorities; can improve access to
services because deprived groups may have greater voice; and can increase efficiency and
effectiveness of service delivery by fostering downward accountability.
 8

In Brazil, the Rural Development Municipal Councils have emerged as an important

institutional innovation towards enhancing participation, however its existence itself does not
imply new forms of effective social control over the allocation of resources nor a privileged
space for discussion and elaboration of development public policies (Abramovay,
2001:121).The Municipal Councils are expected to exercise social control over the ATER
system, tough as illustrated in FAO/MDA (2003:27). However, among the 40 councils
researched only 3 have discussed actions regarding ATER service provision and policies.
Fortunately, local projects working in partnership with NGOs and CSOs, have paid
more attention to participatory issues and oriented their actions through demand from the
bottom (FAO/MDA, 2003:28). Nevertheless, these organisations are constrained by the lack
of resources and technical capabilities.

Adequacy of Financial Resources

As observed by Robinson, ‘the availability of financial resources is a critical

determinant of the equity, quality and efficiency of public services (...)’(2007b:14). The
adequacy and the temporal considerations are also relevant considering the seasonality of
agricultural services. A lack of financial support has hit particularly the poorest states and
their service providers, including an inability to attend to the needs of family farmers,
particularly in the Northern and North-eastern regions of Brazil. While in the Southern region
the average coverage is about 99%, in the North-eastern region, it is only 50% of the
Municipalities (FAO/MDA, 2003:34).
The figures available from the federal government for the official ATER suggest that
US$ 400million or, 13% on average, is distributed to the 27 Ematers, though unequally
distributed (FAO/MDA, 2003:iii).
Seeking to tackle the funding issue, partnerships have been made between federal
government, official ATERs, NGOs, unions, and municipalities ranging from a variety of
arrangements. However, considering autonomy and transfer of resources any coordinated
action is very difficult to be implemented.
Although each region has different set of demands, resources availability, political
willingness, and technical capacity, the challenge remains to work on standard agreements
that allow the poorest to access the ATER services and help the system to answer to national
priorities as whole.
 9

At the federal level, the transfer of resources and its monitoring should be
institutionalised if deprived rural groups are to benefit. In order to achieve this, political
commitment and alliances are needed.

Technical and Managerial Capacity

The new policy attempts to build networks where different organisations can learn
from each other. In addition, a number of training and capacity building events seek to
provide ATER workers with the necessary skills to perform under the new guidelines,
namely, agro-ecology and participation.
Other agricultural policies work by taking a significant part of the organisational
work, for instance the credit policy and turn the attention of ATER organisations towards the
credit beneficiaries instead of all farmers. Many official organisations have highlighted the
difficulties to innovate considering that their work is conditioned by the agricultural policies
regarding research, credit, insurance and so on.
Another constraint is that the plural and diverse ATER system creates a very
fragmented organisation resulting in systems with varying efficacy throughout the country.
The Northern and North-eastern regions clearly need more efforts towards capacity building.

Conclusion
Drawing from the experience of decentralisation of rural technical assistance services
in Brazil, I have sought to explore how decentralisation has affected the ATER system in
Brazil and ways in which it can be improved.
The new design has resulted in important achievements but also has a few
shortcomings. I argued that the case discussed here represents a relative success since most of
the necessary conditions for improving service delivery have been taking place within the
Brazilian ATER system. Many factors still deserve consideration such as: resources made
available at the right time and at an adequate level; participation at the local municipal level
needs to be fostered in order to guarantee a social control over the priorities and
implementation towards marginal groups in society. Moreover, the poorest regions demand
more assistance from the central government. However the new national rural extension
policy encompasses a comprehensive approach that is seeking to address these issues.
 10

The new ATER policy has been concerned with promoting sustainable rural
development, by providing technical assistance to the rural disadvantaged, and by tackling
social and economic inequality.
The success of implementation will depend on a blend of design features that this
essay considered based on Robinson’s (2007b) proposed scheme. Nevertheless, to be able to
draw solid empirical and causal findings and policy implications requires a much more
rigorous study. In addition, several important explanatory variables including cultural factors,
historical context, and exogenous macro-economic factors that play important roles in
influencing decentralization outcomes have an important role to play in future analyses.

References

ABRAMOVAY, R. (2001) Conselhos Além dos Limites. Estudos Avançados, 15, 121-140.
AFZAR, O., KAHKONEN, S., LANYI, A., MEAGHER, P. & RUTHERFORD, D. (2004)
Decentralization: Governance and Public Services: the Impact of Institutional
Arrangements. IN KIMENYI, M. A. P. M. (Ed.) Devolution and Development:
Governance Prospects in Decentralizing States. Aldershot, Ashgate.
ANDERSSON, K., DE ANDA, G. G. & VAN LAERHOVEN, F. (2009) Local Governments
and Rural Development: comparing lessons from Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Peru,
Tucson, The University of Arizona Press.
AZFAR, O., KAHKONEN, S., LANYI, A., MEAGHER, P. & RUTHERFORD, D. (2004)
Decentralization: Governance and Public Services: the Impact of Institutional
Arrangements. IN KIMENYI, M. A. P. M. (Ed.) Devolution and Development:
Governance Prospects in Decentralizing States. Aldershot, Ashgate.
CONYERS, D. (1999) Decentralisation: a Conceptual Analysis. Ministers' Conference on
Local Government in Eastern and Southern Africa. Victorial Falls.
CONYERS, D. (2009) Decentralisation, Service Delivery, Poverty Reduction and Local
Economic Development. IN DECENTRALISATION AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT COURSE (Ed.). Brighton, IDS.
CROOK, R. & SVERRISSON, A. (2003) Does Decentralization Contribute to Poverty
Reduction? IN HOUTZAGER, P. & MOORE, M. (Eds.) Changing Paths:
International Development and the New Politics of Inclusion. Ann Arbor, University
of Michigan Press.
FAO/MDA (2003) Perfil das Instituições de Assistência Técnica e Extensão Rural para
Agricultures Familiares e Assentados no Brasil. IN MUCHAGATA, M. (Ed.).
Brasília, Projeto de Cooperação Técnica FAO/MDA.
JAGGER, P. & VAN LAERHOVEN, F. (2004) Equity and Accessibility of Rural Public
Services: a Comparative Institutional Analysis of Local Governance in Brazil and
 11

Uganda. 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Indiana
University, Bloomington, American Political Science Association.
LEONARD, D. & MARSHALL, D. R. (1982) Institutions of Rural Development for the
Poor: Decentralization and Organizational Linkages, Berkeley, Institute of
International Studies.
OECD (2004) Lessons Learned on Donor Support to Decentralisation and Local Governance.
IN DAC EVALUATION SERIES (Ed.). Paris, OECD Publications.
RIBOT, J. (2003) African Decentralization: Local Actors, Powers and Accountability,
Geneva, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
RIBOT, J. C. (2007) Representation, Citizenship and the Public Domain in Democratic
Decentralisation. Development, 50, 43-9.
ROBINSON, M. (2007a) Decentralising Service Delivery: Evidence and Implications? IDS
Bulletin, 38, 1-6.
ROBINSON, M. (2007b) Does Decentralisation Improve Equity and Efficiency in Public
Service Delivery Provision? IDS Bulletin, 38, 7-17.
RODRIGUES, C. M. (1997) Conceito de Seletividade de Políticas Públicas e sua Aplicação
no Contexto da Política de Extensão Rural no Brasil. Cadernos de Ciência &
Tecnologia, 14, 113-154.
UGAZ, C. (2001) The Role of the State in the Provision of Social Services. IN MWABU, G.,
UGAZ, C. & WHITE, G. (Eds.) Social Provision in Low-Income Countries: New
Patterns and Emerging Trends. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
WORK, R. (2002) Overview of Decentralisation Worldwide:A Stepping Stone to Improved
Governance and Human Development. IN UNDP (Ed.) 2nd International Conference
on Decentralisation - Federalism: The Future of Decentralizing States? Manila,
Philippines.
WORLD BANK (2004) World Development Report, 2004: Making Services Work for Poor
People. Washington DC, World Bank.