|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
The 2003 Autumn Performance Report on DFID's Public Service Agreement (PSA) makes bleak reading so far as the theme of this e-mail forum is concerned. Let us disregard the 'Too early to say' and 'Not yet assessed' categories. Yes, the Report contains some promising news in education. But, we have to be majorly concerned about where there has been slippage. And where has there been 'slippage'? (And let's be clear that slippage here means UK Government is 'off-track' to meet its obligations). Ttwo examples of Government being off-track in its delivery: in the reduction of under-5 mortality rates in Africa in securing agreement by 2005 to a significant reduction in trade barriers leading to improved trading opportunities for developing countries Usefully, DFID give some reasons as to why they think they might be off-track. A slower-than-anticipated fall in under-5 mortality rates in Africa "must be interpreted within the context of the HIV/AIDS epidemic." and "Some of the new countries brought into the 2003-2006 PSA have particularly high under-5 mortality rates". On Cancun - Polarised negotiating positions make agreement by 1st January 2005 unrealistic, given 2004 US elections and change of European Commissioners. Progress remains vulnerable to events and pressures outside our control". DFID has been sensible in putting down some remedial actions where progress has not been so good/DFID might be underperforming* (* delete according to your own judgement). On under-5 mortality - DFID will engage with health sector development in 10 of the 16 PSA countries and in other sectors that influence child health outcomes, for example water, sanitation and education. Not food, agriculture or hunger reduction! DFID does not seem to yet judge that food, agriculture or hunger can make any in-roads into infant mortality. Is the 'for example' phrase a sufficient political commitment to what could be a major reducer of infant mortality? Probably not. On Trade - DFID will take a number of steps to strive for a significant reduction in trade barriers, citing there 'not being insufficient political will among the members to make progress'. But DFID's position seems to me to be hamstrung by its ambivalence. I'll be honest and say I thought the inconsistency between its PSA target and its Service Delivery target to be a typo on an old version which must surely have been corrected by now. But no, it is still there in versions of both documents available on the web today. In the PSA, DFID supports developing country efforts, but in the SDA, it implies that it will only do so where there are mutually beneficial opportunities. The latter is a major qualifier on the former. It raises very serious questions as to quite what policy it is carrying into its negotiations on behalf of UK public. Clarification is absolutely required. The bottom-line is that while this progress report is a snap-shot, it is highly unlikely that being off-track is a temporary 'blip' - it is a snap-shot on longer-term trends. By implication, DFID's response to food, agriculture and hunger can not be one of 'tinkering' within its current policies. It requires a wholesale re-tailoring. Where could that start? As Andrew MacMillan has called for, a restatement of the Government's commitment to the World Food Summit objective would correct the public perception (and DFID's partner governments) that this has not fallen off the development agenda. The Commission for Africa is a significant opportunity, and surely one would want to see hunger, and the food and agriculture contribution to poverty figuring highly in the issues raised. But that may need more 'process' over the next year to make sure it is adequately represented when the Commission reports - not after!.And that process would surely need to start very soon. In 2003, Tony Blair said that Britain should be a champion for the developing world - (for example) making their NEPAD work. Well, whither UK Government support to the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Plan? All African Heads of State have made a commitment to raise expenditure on agriculture to at least 10% of Government expenditure in the imminent future. The CAADP contains many of the high-level objectives that DFID would surely embrace. While the detail may perhaps not be perfect, it is surely UK Government's best chance of engaging their support to the continent's efforts. And with the forthcoming UK presidency, surely that is a prime opportunity to exert wider influence within the EC. UK Government sees the EU as a major player, and a critical multi-lateral route. As mentioned in previous postings, an internal organisational drive towards the hunger contribution to the child mortality objective, such that this becomes an explicit area of remedial intervention alongside water and sanitation. Surely there is an adequate evidence-base to justify this? Given the importance of PRS strategies and the aligned HIPC financing (debt relief) processes, just how significant are issues of hunger, food and agriculture represented - directly or indirectly? Where it has a significant profile, is DFID responding appropriately? Could DFID not work better with countries to help them to clarify the means by which they intend their agriculture to deliver multiple MDG benefits? And what about the many countries that are slow towards their PRS approaches - as a requisite to meaningful DBS? Is there not a parallel approach for those countries with difficult governance that is beyond conflict-reduction alone? To be honest, the issue of trade negotiations is almost reaching the level of it being an election issue. Are we aligned with the US Government, are we acting only where there is mutual interest between the UK and developing countries (are DFID and DTIs objectives even compatible?), or is the UK working primarily to benefit developing countries (with a willingness to accept that there may be some disbenefits to the UK?). Some thoughts, anyway, and apologies for going over some ground that may already have been trodden in this consultation. With due respect, I sense that advice on optimal development assistance in agriculture won't matter a jot unless there is the commitment to a step-change in development assistance through agriculture/food and hunger. Andy Bullock ============================================================= To send a reply to this message that goes to all list members, make sure that you send your reply to <address removed> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to "<address removed>", with the message body: unsubscribe global-trade <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.