|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
DFID has made important contributions over recent years to the policy debate over agriculture, rural development and food security. Its policy papers have undoubtedly contributed to the higher priority that governments around the world, bilateral donors and the multi-lateral institutions appear to be giving to these areas of investment after a long period of relative neglect. There is always room for fine tuning and further nuancing, but, at a certain point, this can become counterproductive, especially if it slows down the process of deciding on funding commitments for specific programmes and projects. This is not to imply that there is no need to improve our understanding of the role of agriculture in economic growth nor of how to do the job better. Like Maxwell and Lipton, we all have our views on this. [My own views are strongly influenced by a combination of a sense of urgency, from a moral perpective , about reducing chronic hunger (given that we have the means to do so) and of Fogel's findings on the links between nutrition improvements and economic growth, which imply that there are significant economic benefits to be reaped by raising the adequacy of the food consumption levels of the most undernourished. This suggests that in dealing with the rural dimensions of food insecurity we cannot rely solely on market-driven solutions but need to complement them with measures which empower families which remain largely disconnected from markets and services (especially the "self-provisioning" households to which Andy Bullock refers below) to raise their production and food consumption to adequate levels. And we certainly have to be sensitive to issues of scale and affordability, favouring processes which, at a very low cost, respond to the needs and opportunties for better food security facing very large numbers of the poorest households]. What seems to be important, in relation to Discussion Point 3 in Alex Duncan's introduction, is that DFID appears to be firmly committed to expanding its support for small-holder based agriculture and that it intends to do this in ways which will result in significant and sustainable reductions in poverty and food insecurity. It will also seek to influence international policies (e.g. on trade ans subsidies) in ways which will contribute to these goals. If this commitment remains strong - and hopefully it does because policy consistency has an enormous inherent value - it seems unnecessary to reopen the discussion of the role of agriculture in economic development and poverty reduction. What would probably be most valuable at this stage would be an unambiguous restatement of the Department's commitments, and to see this reflected in an increasing number of engagements - rather than to give any signal that the debate is being reopened. The application of any broad policy must of course be sensitive to changing contexts (discussion point one), but this does not imply a need to change the underlying policy but simply to adapt the way in which it is applied, often in a rather opportunistic way. Returning to point 3, it may be useful for DFID to consider how it can apply the principle of reciprocal commitments in its support for agriculture, poverty reduction and food security. What one would like to see is a situation in which countries which are genuinely and strongly committed to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals(especially the poverty and hunger reduction goals) and are putting forward realistic programmes for this, can feel confident that they can count on the generous technical and financial support of DFID (as well as other partners). Shifting resource allocations on a meaningful scale towards countries with a strong political commitment to poverty and hunger reduction will not only increase the chances of successful investment but also send an important signal to other countries. It also embodies the concept of a shared responsibility for a better world which is central to the MDGs (and the Monterrey process). These notes are submitted in an individual context and are not intended to represent a formal position of FAO! Andrew MacMillan -----Original Message----- From: Andy Bullock [mailto:<address removed> Sent: 16 April 2004 17:41 To: <address removed> Subject: Self-provisioning of food The facilitating documents for this whole consultation appear to me to be like opening a book at Chapter 2; namely how agriculturally-equipped societies can best contribute to economic growth and emerge from poverty through more advanced livelihood strategies. I feel the introductory remarks to the debate are thin indeed on the priority to eradicate hunger and the meeting of the World Food Summit objective, in the context that a majority of the African rural poor rely upon self-provisioning (for at least some) proportion of calorific and nutritional intake. Certain issues of rights of access to natural resources are significantly different in the context of self-provisioning compared with (even small) agricultural enterprises. Before commenting further on this particular issue (for example under the topic of risks and vulnerability), I would welcome the advice of the moderators as to why this critical aspect of agriculture appears to be given a very low profile. Perhaps it is not as critical as my experience has led me to believe it to be! 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 growth-and-poverty <your-email-address> ============================================================= 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 growth-and-poverty <your-email-address>
Please visit dfid-agriculture-consultation.nri.org.