|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Thanks to David Orden, Peter Robbins, Andy Catley and Andrew Parnell for this week's contributions. A summary and a few thoughts follows: Peter and Andrew return to the commodities issue, and in particular Supply Management (SM). Peter is adamant that SM is the key to resolving the Commodity crisis. 'Supply must be curtailed' he says, and advocates various ways of doing this, including export taxes and quotas, re-establishing marketing boards and international OPEC-style agreements. He also advocates vertical diversification, and a more participatory approach to SM, things with which it is hard to disagree, but could we have some successful examples please? I'd be interested in people's views on what is holding back vertical diversification * how much of a real barrier is tariff escalation? If tariff escalation ended tomorrow, how much of a difference would it make? Are the real problems access to technology, standards, poor infrastructure, proximity to markets etc? Peter gives a tantalising insight into the world of commodities traders (he used to be one) and said any credible SM system would lead to immediate price boosts through traders shifting from short to long positions. Could he explain this for the uninitiated? So far, though, (and I'm only a third of the way through Peter's book) I am sceptical of SM as some kind of 'magic bullet'. On the problems I raised in my last summary, Peter is dismissive of free riders on any agreement, but merely urges the diplomats to try harder; he gets over the problem of escalating buffer stocks by focussing on cutting production; he doesn't discuss what to do about new entrants * do you simply say 'sorry guys, the quota's full, you can't grow coffee'? The discussion on standards progresses with a fascinating example from Andy Catley showing how the unthinking application of northern veterinary standards is squeezing out more appropriate, community-based veterinary services in East Africa. He shows how blanket import bans under animal health rules are inflicting excessive damage on African farmers and advocates a more differentiated, development-sensitive approach to standard setting. Interestingly, a private-public partnership combining private clinics working with networks of community animal health workers. Any other examples out there? Andrew Parnell discusses a range of government interventions in the market, from procurement to taxes on commodity trading to mainstreaming fair-trade. Much of it is about increasing social standards * my only question to him would be, how do you ensure that this benefits, rather than excludes, the poorest farmers? David Orden broadens the discussion out to the big agenda * building new private-public approaches to institutions and infrastructure, and strengthening multilateral disciplines to increase the benefits of trade to poor farmers. In his view, 'the basic issue is to increasingly integrate smallholder farmers into markets' at both domestic and international levels. Later on, however, he stresses the need to assess the costs to producers of meeting the demands of rising national and international standards, raising the obvious question, what if the costs exceed the benefits * would smallholders be better advised to focus on their domestic markets (although even there, standards are rising). David sticks to broad themes, and left me once again thirsting for concrete examples of success stories in the themes he addresses. I asked for these last week, but feel the need is still there. Going back to Alex Duncan's three initial questions, we seem to have made some progress on identifying issues, opportunities and threats, but less on identifying what works, and what DFID should do. As we move forward, I would like more input on the last two. We need many more examples of successful poverty-reducing reforms, institutions and initiatives, whether with or against the grain of market liberalisation. On DFID's role, it would be helpful if we could move beyond 'spend more' and 'completely overhaul the global trading system' to a discussion of what DFID's comparative advantage might be * i.e. what can a relatively resource-constrained development ministry most usefully do/what should we get out of. Do people agree with Peter Robbins that the first thing we should do is cease funding any programmes which lead to increased production of commodities?! Over to you. Best Wishes Duncan ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.