|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
Before I summarise what I would like DFID to do I must complement you for having afforded this opportunity which I have enjoyed immensely. Being in a discussion with over 500 colleagues is exhilarating and very educative. I have modified or altered my position on a number of things as a result. The commitment subscribers have is what really impresses and encourages in my own guideline that one person cannot be free while his brothers and sisters are not. I think there is much diversity in situations but the following guidelines are worth considering: Priority for Agriculture and Processing The poorest are the small farmers and the urban poor. Agriculture represents a far larger number of the poorest in most developing countries. A dynamic agriculture is also vital to faster and more equitable growth. The value chain is critical and added value to the benefit of farmers the target. Small holders target They need help most. Small farmers hang on to land and will fight to protect ownership. Smallholdings are a ground reality and systems need to be tailored to work with that reality. Project orientation for aid Budgetary contributions are generally a gift for politicians and bureaucrats. In most cases, but not all, it is better to follow a project approach allowing enough time for the cycle and with all the linkages. Best to use special project vehicles. This conflicts with DFID's desire to distribute more aid with fewer staff or lower cost but what use is more money if it is poured into badly leaking buckets. While cost minimisation must always be a concern DFID has to avoid penny wise decisions. There should be an awareness of cost effectiveness rather than cost minimisation and this needs to be measured through results objectively verified. DFID should keep control or monitor those given the money to spend Mistakes can be made by anybody but it is best to make your own and learn from them rather than let others treat your taxpayer money in a cavalier fashion. An European approach is understandable and it is right and proper to give part of the aid jointly, as are contributions to UN Technical Organisations like FAO and ITC. The development banks lend hundreds of millions and should be able to finance their own project preparation and development costs. Integrated systems There is little point in spending lots of money on some aspect for it to be useless because it did not have sufficient backward or forward linkages. Best to think things through within an integrated framework from research to consumer. Any gap leads to risk. Debt trap Unless farmers need for credit is met they are trapped in existing patterns, poverty and misery and unable to change. A great deal of credit is available in theory but smaller farmers are not getting any significant part of it. All projects should address this issue and develop simpler practical ways of getting the money through. There are too many people who know a lot about management of money but loose sight of what our taxpayers want us to do with their money. Markets first No use paying lip service to it, markets and marketing have to come first because that is the global reality. You do not help farmers by a production commodity orientation, the opposite you can harm them greatly. Have to make allocations for market research, marketing and distribution and marketing technology. The larger the investment, the more you should spend on marketing preparation and implementation. Intensification plus diversification for best mix Plan A has overall support but with the small print from Louis Bockel. There are preconditions. In any case, it is usually better to work towards a basket of optimal activity rather than a staples total dependence. Try to get money to reach the ground Very little aid money reaches the ground. There is too much corruption, too many stalled organisations, too much incompetence and too much spent in the chain. Most of all a tendency to provide paper solutions to paper problems. Best to use special project vehicles and keep control to ensure it reaches the ground with an agreed percentage cost of distribution and administration. If the latter is 15%, giving it to some other institution to hire someone to hire experts leads to more than half the money evaporating and that is indefensible. Within the above guidelines, there are some specific actions I would recommend: 1 Investigate SM possibilities by commissioning a study that takes a long list, comes to a short one of commodities most amenable for action and then promote a dialogue possibly within the framework of Intergovernmental Groups at FAO. 2 Consider setting up an investment fund, possibly together with others for agriculture and agro-processing. 3 Strengthen technical capacity within DFID including marketing. 4 Increase funding for FAO Commodities Divisions and for ITC market studies on commodities. 5 Be very strict about DFID money not being misappropriated or leaked. 6 Judge success by how much you increase farmer incomes and choice. 7 Relate most research to specific problems relating to projects. 8 Promote collaboration with other research institutes and development agencies particularly those in Europe such as the excellent CIRAD. Vinay Chand, 230, Finchley Road, London NW3 6DJ, UK Tel: 44-20-7794 5977 Fax: 44-20-7431 5715 <address removed><mailto:<address removed>>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.