|
|||||||||
| |
|||||||||
In the way of introduction, I am Vinay Chand, a Marketing Economist and for the past 28 years a Consultant mainly working on agricultural, agribusiness and agro-processing projects. There are two very good reasons for focussing on the agricultural sectors in the poorest countries, one being that the small farmers and landless labourers are amongst the poorest in the world and therefore those whom taxpayers in developed countries would most like their help to reach. The other is that usually there is no way of developing the poorest countries except through the agricultural sector. In countries where there is strong economic growth, it is often uneven and agriculture gets left behind. This retards the rate of possible growth most clearly demonstrated by the positive impact on growth rates in India when there has been a good monsoon and is in any case socially and politically unacceptable. On paper, assistance directed at small farmers and landless meets most criteria set by development agencies. It also corresponds to priorities being set by all developing countries. Multilaterals, NGOs, bilaterals, national Governments in developing countries and regional authorities all appeal for public money to allow these clearly desirable objectives to be accomplished. More money is the universal institutional demand. Yet small farmers are probably the most difficult to help in the development process. This is illustrated by the reference that Berthold Siebert makes in his contribution to the difficulty of organising farmers. My own field experience is that although much is claimed in the name of the farmer, very little actually reaches them. We don't have to worry about the desirability of subsidies, microcredit and market information, most of it never gets to the intended. One of the most alarming aspects for me is the gap between things like agricultural research organised at a global level or even substantial research establishments as Universities as in India rarely percolates its way down to small farmers at the local level. It is frankly alarming how little essential local work such as adaptability, extending seasons and selection takes place at the local level and by local it can be large localities in Asian countries. Public sector ability to provide such services has become very depleted as have extension services in too many developing countries. It now looks as though there is no realistic alternative but to provide such services through the private sector but there remains the problem of who will pay. Small farmers are reluctant to invest in increasing productivity, diversification or post harvest facilities because most of them are in weak market situations. Urban consumers are accustomed in these countries to getting low cost produce in variable condition, often with very inefficient and wasteful and in the end poor value for money distribution systems. Higher incomes should change that but there is a time gap during which export markets become very attractive. I leave considerations about global trade to the appropriate discussion group except to observe that shifting supply curves referred to by Simon Maxwell apply to most soft commodities where real value stagnates or declines. I have had the good fortune of looking at success stories. One was an evaluation of an EU grant financed Agrarian Reform Support Project in Southern Philippines which organised farmers in groups, provided access to roads, water, microcredits, some machinery and diversification and all this resulted in a more than doubling of farmer incomes in a five year period. In contrast I was on a TA where $600,000 of Trust funds channelled through a multilateral led to around $200,000 in direct costs and a total waste of opportunity. My experience makes me strongly favour emphasis on management, control and responsibility. We don't need more money half as much as we need better targeting, management, control and accountability. Above all, if we intend to help the small farmers, we must develop techniques of reaching them and giving effective assistance. To do this help needs to go through as near the ground as possible in contrast to paper allocations to global programmes which are often too general or removed to be truly useful. When carrying water in a very leaky bucket it is better to minimise the distance you have to carry it. There are so many reasons why assistance can be wrongly targeted, poorly transmitted, misused or managed, DFID would be well advised to strengthen its technical ability to implement programmes or evaluate use of funds when channelled through multilaterals. This does require avoiding fixed opinions and a flexible focussing on pilot projects with follow up to promote replication of successful lessons. I would urge DFID to rethink their attitudes towards bilateralism and multilateralism because surrendering control often also leads to surrendering responsibility. This does not mean that I think multilateralism does not work-I have experience within the UN and EU system where money has been very well used as in the case of ITC promoting jute fibre for 20 years and thus buying precious time for the industry in Bangladesh and India to adjust to its reduced and changing role. Best wishes, 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.