|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Thanks to all of you for your contributions during the past few days. These have been on three main topics. Firstly, Jim Miller sent in details of the successful SPFS programme in Nigeria that, in two years, has seen more than 30,000 farmers investing in a range of enterprises: poultry, rice, various crops, agro processing, livestock, artisanal fishing, aquaculture. Perhaps responding to my previous comments, Jim saw the availability of credit for carefully devised "modular packages" as key to the growth of the programme. Working with farmers in groups is also central to the programme's approach. Jim, it would be interesting to know what, if anything, the programme has had to do to assist farmers to link up with Nigeria's "huge consumer market" for the products in question. We welcome other examples of successful programmes that have enabled farmers to respond to (new) market opportunities. I would like to put out a hypothesis for affirmation or refuting: that a key to success is not just establishing links to markets (e.g. through better market information, even facilitating linkages between producers and buyers), but simultaneously equipping producers to respond to these opportunities (e.g. through access to finance, technical advice, improved local availability of the relevant inputs). Secondly, Andrew Dorward and Vinay Chand have initiated a discussion thread on achieving "critical mass" in marketed surplus, if private investment (in processing or in provision of support services) is to be forthcoming. As with the comments on success stories above, this raises questions of whether simply creating an enabling environment and providing key public goods is sufficient to stimulate private investment and market-led agricultural development. We may stray into the ground of the Growth and Poverty theme here, but thoughts are welcome! Whilst taking of the Growth and Poverty theme, in the past few days there have been lively debates there on both farmer organisation and extension - both of which are of interest to us. As noted last week, you can view these at http://dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org/theme1/theme1.htm by clicking on Archive of Discussions - even if you have not registered for Growth and Poverty - and you can always respond to them within this theme if you wish. Thirdly, thanks to Andy Bullock, John Dixon and Ian Calder for kicking us off in our second main area of interest - access to assets - with discussion on water for smallholder agriculture. Andy has argued that neither aggregate water availability nor water rights are the problem for food production in most of Africa (and that agricultural and non-agricultural uses of water should not be viewed as being in conflict in most cases). Rather, the access issue centres on the "small-scale 'infrastructure' that brings the necessary control of water into crop production". John suggests that this should not just be considered a question of irrigation, but also techniques for water control in rainfed systems, such as rainwater harvesting, and suggests that there are lessons for Africa here from the Middle East and South Asia. Ian qualifies some of Andy's statements about water availability in the context of India, but supports the point that a mix of irrigation and improved use of water in rainfed systems will be needed if international targets on food security and nutrition are to be met. Both for DFID's and my own benefit (!), perhaps I can ask what the evidence tells us about economic returns to (public) investment in these different technologies for improving water access and control (irrigation at different scales, rainwater harvesting and other similar techniques) in different areas. Looking forward to further contributions. Best wishes, Colin Poulton
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.