|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Dear all, I have not been able to read all papers and contributions to the discussions. If my contribution is off track, please accept my apologies. But if the main issue to be dealt with in this Forum, as I understand it, is the identification of main opportunities for local sustainable economic development and poverty alleviation, then more attention to the potentials of urban (intra- and peri-urban) agriculture and the reuse of urban organic wastes and wastewater in urban agriculture would be needed. Development of appropriate technologies for small scale urban horticulture, agroforestry, livestock keeping and aquaculture in space confined conditions, support to urban dwellers and micro-entreprises involved in production, processing and marketing (incl. street vending) of food and other agricultural products, support to decentralised collection and low cost treatment of urban wastewater and dissemination of safe reuse practices among urban farmers are some of the areas that deserve more policy attention. Local capacity development and support to participatory research, multi-stakeholder policy formulation and action planning and implementation and monitoring of projects on urban agriculture will yield positive results not only in economic and social terms but also for the urban environmental management (urban greening, waste management, urban climate regulation, buffer zones, a/o) A recent review of research on the costs/benefits of urban agriculture commissioned by FAO (and implemented by IWMI Ghana) indicates a clear positive balance. In case participants in this Forum are interested we might explore this issue in more depth. Kind regards, Ir Henk de Zeeuw Coordinator Resource centre on Urban Agriculture and Forestry (RUAF) ETC Foundation P.O.Box 64, 3830 AB Leusden, the Netherlands Phone: 0031-33-4326039 Fax: 0031-33-4940791 E-mail: <address removed> Internet: www.ruaf.org and www.etcint.org _____ From: <address removed> [mailto:<address removed> On Behalf Of Poulton, Colin D Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 4:54 PM To: <address removed> Subject: Thoughts from the Moderator - Week 3 Dear All, Once again, thank you for all your contributions over the past week. This week there have been two main areas of discussion - water and farmer organizations - plus recent contributions on price policy and contract farming. These are briefly reviewed below. I will then suggest how we may (continue to) move forward over the coming week. Water There have been three strands to this discussion. Firstly, contributions have asserted the benefits of improved water control in rainfed agricultural production systems for both food production and crop diversification. Examples of particular success stories would still be welcome here. However, it has also been observed that uptake of improved water control technologies has not (yet?) been very widespread (why is this?). Secondly, Andy Bullock has drawn attention to the importance of rehabilitating existing irrigation systems, with particular reference to Africa where "As much as 50% of the existing irrigated area in Africa requires rehabilitation and modernization." Focusing on rehabilitation of existing schemes, rather than creation of new ones, is justified by the fact that both dams for seasonal storage and the use rights for the water (at scheme level) are already in place. However, it has been suggested that it is important to find out why past experience with these schemes has not always lived up to expectations before investing in rehabilitation and modernization. Consulting the users is the best way to do this. Thirdly, the issue of wastewater recycling has been raised. This can bring benefits in terms of water availability, sludge for fertilizer and gas production (primarily for urban and peri-urban areas?). Farmer Organisations Here we have benefited from some transferred contributions from the Growth and Poverty theme, plus some direct contributions. As noted in previous summaries, there has been a lively debate on the benefit of farmer organizations and whether or not they deserve a central place in agricultural development strategies. Contributions have noted the valuable role that they can play in policy advocacy, as well as their "economic" roles (e.g. realizing scale economies, contributing to value addition), which have perhaps been the area of greatest controversy. The record of farmer organizations is clearly mixed. Some suggest that there has been more success than failure when they have been genuine "bottom up" organisations, but the record of "top down" organisations (political creations or subject to political control) is largely one of failure. A recent contribution by Andrew Palfreman to the Growth and Poverty theme suggests some technical criteria for when collective action will and will not be appropriate. Critical comments on farmer organizations point to their costs of organization and administration - linked to collective decision making processes and hence the heightened need for transparency? - which are often greater than the profit margins of private traders. Hence, private suppliers are often more efficient providers of services to rural households (smallholder agricultural producers and pastoralists). Drawing on experience in East Africa and the Horn, Andy Catley has argued that private veterinary service provision (regulated and inspected by government veterinarians) is far more efficient than service provision by farmer / pastoralist groups, whilst John Hambly has extolled the virtues of farmer joint ventures. A second criticism of farmer organizations has been their sustainability when initial donor funding (assuming that they are donor funded) ends. More case studies of experience with farmer organizations are still very much welcomed. The most successful "model" that I am aware of is that developed by CLUSA in Mali and now replicated in Zambia and Mozambique (with CARE) and also being copied by other organizations in neighbouring countries. In contrast to the focus on "own account" service provision, in competition with the private sector, that has been questioned above, this focuses on equipping rural households to link up to agribusinesses and other service providers (e.g. credit providers, extension agencies). There is a strong emphasis on training (including both functional literacy and problem solving) for empowerment and a large number of groups and associations have been established in a relatively short time in all the countries named. Options for sustainability include the creation of a local NGO to provide ongoing support services (additional training, advice or legal support?) on a contract basis or building the capacity of apex organizations to provide such services - in addition to their advocacy roles, but perhaps instead of more traditional engagement in directly "productive" activities. Are others familiar with this model or with others that are demonstrating widespread replicability at reasonable cost? Price Policy Two contributions have highlighted the importance of providing attractive prices to smallholder producers; they have argued that farmers will find a way of investing if profitable opportunities exist. The implication is that governments are still inclined to suppress prices to provide cheap food to vocal urban interests, at the expense of less well connected and organized producers. This may well be true and perhaps provides one of the justifications for farmer organizations to engage in policy advocacy. However, as Michael Lipton notes in his contribution this week to the Growth and Poverty theme, there have been "big falls in price bias against agriculture in many developing countries" since the 1980s, yet there have also been falls in yield growth in the main food staples and in the rate and spread of dollar-poverty reduction. Michael highlights investment in water control, seed research and land reform as key complements to removing price bias. Are list members happy with this as a set of priorities for DFID to invest in? Contract Farming Contract farming has been highlighted as an "institutional arrangement" worthy of further attention and support. It has potential to assist in the promotion of agricultural diversification and, more specifically, to overcome some of the barriers to smallholder participation in increasingly competitive and demanding global commodity chains (one of the subjects of the Global Trade theme). Our contributions have highlighted some pre-conditions for contract farming to deliver successful outcomes, including suitable infrastructure, a critical mass of producers (taking us back to contributions last week) and a framework to protect the rights and bargaining position of poor producers. It has also been suggested that only producers who can achieve a certain level of self-sufficiency in staple food production can/should embark on contract farming. Whilst the commodities are high value, they are also often high risk (principally due to demanding quality requirements), so may not be high profit options for producers. We welcome list members' examples of smallholders successfully and sustainably increasing their participation in global commodity chains through contract farming, plus case studies of schemes more oriented towards national and regional markets. Before looking ahead, I should also flag the paper on "Agricultural Markets and the Rural Poor" that David Orden has posted to the site. David's message this week provides a summary of the paper. In addition to issues already touched upon, this highlights the potential contribution of rural capital-intensive infrastructure to enhance producers' access to national markets. It also distinguishes three categories of producers who face different constraints to market participation - a categorization that others might find helpful to their thinking. We continue to welcome papers that shed light on particular debates within the Economic Opportunity theme. If you send them to <address removed> <mailto:<address removed>>, stating that they are for the Economic Opportunity theme, I can approve them for posting, so that all can benefit. Finally, therefore, suggestions for the week ahead. I hope that people still have contributions to make on the four areas summarized above and perhaps on others going back to the first weeks of the consultation or even to the initial moderator's introduction. To help list members track debates, perhaps we can use the four headings that I have used above when commenting on these established themes. However, we are also well into the e-consultation now, so need to begin to move from debating what the issues are (i.e. what are the key constraints to access to markets and assets for rural producers?) onto what can realistically be done to remove these constraints and, in particular, onto what DFID can best contribute to this process. On the first of these, we particularly welcome success stories of enhanced access to markets and/or assets, preferably giving an indication of impacts and drawing out the keys to success and lessons for replication. On the question of priorities for DFID investment / activities, we need to think not just what needs doing, but also how DFID can maximise its contribution, given its expertise, international position and the means at its disposal. As always, we look forward to your continuing contributions. Best wishes, Colin
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.